01/25/2000 (2)
.'
.' ,
.'!.
. I !. ..:......,'1. 1'1. . l-
,.:,:'~..',t~:'"""'b' ct."',::,,, :.,.,':.,.:,;','.'":".:.,:,.:".,, ,',1,.','
;::~,:,:!:,,:/,:',i>;,..~:},:,,>,:,;:,:::,,;,,::,,;'.,;, '" ,,' ,', '
:.: ~ 'f,' ' j I . .,! " . I
,;' , ~. , >'" "
, , c' <;
, ,
'.
,
" '
" I
..
.' J,l '.
,'.
, . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MEETING
8
' CITY OF CLEARWATER . ,
I
January 25, 2,000 1
Present: Gerald Figurski Chair - arrived 2:00 p.m.
Edward Mazur, Jr. Vice-Chair
Shirley Moran ' Board Member - departed 5:09 p.m.
Carlen A. Petersen Board Member
:
Alex Pliska Board Member
'William Johnson Board Member,
, , Absent: David Gildersleeve Board Member
, ,
Also' Present: Pamela Akin City Attorney - arrived 1 :53 p.m.
John Carassas Assistant City Attorney - departed 1 :63 p.m. ,
Ralph Stone Planning Director
Cynthia Hardin Assistant PJanning Director
. ' Usa Fierce Development,Review Manager
Gary Jones Senior Planner
Etim Udoh Senior Planner
Gina Clayton Senior Planner
Mark Parry Planner
,\ Brenda Moses Board Reporter
. The Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at'1 :00 p.m. at City Hall, followed
by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, and a review of meeting procedures and the
appeal process. '
"
To provide continuity for research, jtems are in agenda order although not
necess~rily discussed in that order.
ITEM 1 - REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES/RECONSIDERATION - None.
ITEM 2 - CONTINUED ITEMS - None.
!TEM 3 - lEVEL 3 APPUCA TrONS
1. Case ANX99~11-22 - 2238 - 2244 Drew Street
Owner/Applicant/representative: Dolores S. Day Location: 0.38 acres located on
the north side of Drew Street, approximately 450 feet east of Belcher Road.
Request: a} Annexation of 0.38 acres to the City of Clearwater and b) land use
amendment from Commercial General (Pinellas County) to Commercial General
classification (Clearwater I and c) rezoning from C-2 District (Pinellas County) to C,
Comme~cial District.
\
\........J
The applicant requests annexation to, receive City water and sewer service.
The property will have a land use plan designation of Commercial General and
proposed zoning of Commercial (C) district. The subject property has two lots, lots
24 & 25, with a combined area of 17,080 square feet or MOL 0.40 acres of land.
mcdO 1 bOO,
1
01/25/00
"
'. .. . j'
::-':',:,', :<:<;' :', .j, ::', :
,I
',! '
I'
, ,
,', ',~, ~~...:> '. ,
,,!,
1+" : 'I! r;,.
,.
, .
1,+'
'~I
.,1
The building on site is a medical office and parking lot. Upon annexation, a 600
square-'foot addition to the structure will be built. The annexation will not adversely
affect public facilities and their levels of service. The annexation is consisteht with
the Community Development Code; the Countywide Plan, the City's Comprehensive
Plan, and Florida law. The applicant has paid the applicable sewer impact and
assessment fees and is aware of additional costs to connect to the City utility
systems. The property will meet the minimum lot size of the commercial zoning
district. Staff recommends: '1) approval of , the annexation of property at 2238 -
,2244 Drew Street; 2) approval of the Commercial General plan category pursuant to
the City's Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the Commercial (C) zoning
. district pursuant to the City's Comm'unity Development Code.
Staff said the applicant was notified of the meeting but is absent. The case
involves no unusual circumstances.
, Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and testimony at this
public hearing, that the COB (Community Development Board) recommends to the
City Commission approval of this application at 2238 - .'2244 Drew Street. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2~ Case ANX99~ 11-23 - 1939 Sunset Point Road
Owner/Applicant/Representative: Daniel R. Silvie and Linda J. Pappas. Location:
0.52 acres located in unincorporated Pinellas County on the south side of Sunset
Point Road west of Hercules Avenue. Request: Annexation of 0.52 acres to the
~'!~ City of Clearwater at 1939 Sunset Point Road.
The applicants, owners of one parcel in the City and an adjacent parcel in the'
County. request annexation to bring both parcels into the same jurisdiction for easier
development. A case related to the property is being processed concurrently and
proposes to change the future lan'd use plan category to Commercial General and
zoning district to CommerciaL This annexation request is for a vacant 22,581
square foot or 0.52 acre lot. No development plans have been proposed. The
annexation will not adversely affect City services and is consistent with the
Community Development Code, the Countywide Plan, the City's Comprehensive
Plan, and Florida law. The applicants are aware of required impact fees and other
costs associated with extending water and sewer to the site. Staff recommends
approval of the annexation at 1939 Sunset Point Road.
Daniel R. Silvie and Linda J. Pappas, applicants, reviewed their request.
Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and testimony at this
public hearing, that the CDS recommend to the City Commission approval of this
application at 1939 Sunset Point Road. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
\....~
3. Case LUZ99-11-06 - 1 939 Sunset Point Road
. Owner/Applicant/Representative: Daniel R. Silvie and Linda J. Pappas. location:
0.86 acres located in unincorporated Pinellas County on the south side of Sunset
Point Road west of Hercules Avenue. Request: a) land use amendment from RM,
mcdO 1 bOO
2
01/25/00
~", ":I;~" '.. ,';.,."..' ,~.~ 'I f \0' .," ",.' .,':. '.,11'; ',U " ",I',' ,";"';". :" .."l4,~-, .,'(', .', :", "I"" .' ~ .,,' " '..'"
, I
"J ,
.,t ,. . c
~~>"', >; )
, '.\ , ,
'\,.
, ~ '.' , .
. 'j
~f "
I,
, '
, !
, "
:~" ) Residenti~1 Medium classification (County) to CG, Commercial General classiflcation
(Clearwater)' and b) rezoning from MDR" Medium Density Residential District
(County) to C, Commercial District (CI~9rwater).
This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan's future land use map from
RM, Residential Medium to CG, Commercial General and to rezone from MDR,
Medium Density Residential District and County Agriculture/Estate district to C,
CO!Tlmercial district. The entire site is 0.86 acres. The request would allow
commercial development of the site. A home offico now operates at this location.
The surrounding area is a mix of commercial, office, institutional, multi-family, and
single-family homes. Single-family residences, with the exception 'of the subject
site, do not front Sunset Point Road. The proposed Commercial General land use
and Commercial zoning district is consistent with the City and Countywide
Comprehensive plans and development regulations of the City, does not adversely
affect City service, and is compatible with the surrounding area and natural
environment. Staff recommends approval of: 1) Amending the Future Land Use
Plan designation of the subject site from Residential Medium to Commercial General
and 2) amending the zoning district designation of the 'subject site from Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District and County Agriculture/Estate District zoning to
Commercial (C) District at 1939 Sunset Point Road. '
Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and testimony at this
public hearing, that the COB recommends to the City Commission approval of this
ri:tXft' application at 1939 Sunset Point Road. The motion was duly seconded and carried
Y:'i,:~, unanimously.
...~i-t.
4. LUZ 99-11-07 - 704 & 706 North Mvrtle Avenue. 700 Eldridqe and 703
,Blanche B. Little John Trail. Owner/Applicant: Elaine C. White, Elaine D. Spencer,
Patricia M. Alexander, Louis Carson Jr., Sonya Racker, Derek R. Carson, Richard
Koster and Willis Parker. Representatives= Kathy Dornisch and Richard Koster.
location: f.32 acres at the northwest corner of North Myrtle .A.venue and Eldridge
Street. Request: a) Land use plan amendment from RU, Residential Urban
classification lPinellas County) to, CG, commerclal General classification
(Clearwater); and b) rezoning from LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District
(County) to C, Commercial District (Clearwater).
The applicants request this plan amendment and rezoning for commercial
redevelopment of parcels on the west side of North Myrtle Avenue between Eldridge
and Seminole. The applicants propose to amend the Comprehensive Plan's future
land use map from Residential Urban to Commercial General and to rezone from Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Commercial (C). The North Greenwood
property is apprOXimately 1.31 acres and has a vacant restaurant, a boarded single~
family home, a vacant lot, and a single-family residential home. The application
involves four parcels with three separate ownerships.
\--)
The proposed Commerclal General land use and Commercial zoning district is
consistent with the City and countywide Comprehensive Plans and with the
development regulations of the City, does not adversely affect City services, and is
compatible with the surrounding area and natural environment. The proposed land
mcd01 bOO
3
01/25/00
! J,:::c >:
"
" ',j I ' .' ~ ' >
I, . ),' ,.., I. / ' .~ If ,
j, , I I , 'I' ' I, , ' '. " : . . ~ ~
, "
, .
. < "
"
, .
....; I"
, I,
r),
use amendment and zoning district could degrade N. Myrtle Avenue's LOS (Ievel-of-
service) depending on the type of commercial dev'elopment. A LOS of 0 is
acceptable I~ the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation concurrency and traffic
access wiU'be evaluated upon submission of a specific development proposal to
assure proper traffic flow. Upon application for site plan review or development
permits, a full concurrency review will be completed to determine if the
development may proceed. The concurrency process may require a traffic study.
Staff recommends approval of: 1) amending the Future Land Use Plan designation
of the subject site from Residential Urban to Commercial General and 2) amending
, the zoning district designation of the subject site from Low Medium Residential
(LMDR) to Commercial (C) ,
\ '
--/
The staff report details wastewater flow rates, traffic generation rates; and
water consumption, and includes comparisons to a single-family home. Upon
analysis; staff determined that a Single family home generates more traffic,
wastewater flows, and consumes more water than an assisted living or congregate
care facility with a density of 3.0 beds equaling one unit. All resulting increases
would be negligible. City systems could absorb the increases. The proposed
amendment to Code Section 4-601 requires the City to consider standards regarding
Rich,ard Koster, owner of 700 Eldridge Street, said the subject restaurant has
existed for 50 years and he plans to re-open it.
I.
Kathy Dornisch, representative for Elaine White and other family members
with interest in 704 and 706 North Myrtle, said the property has been on the market
since March. Inquiries have been related to commercial developments. The White
family does not intend to develop the property now and requests rezoning to sell it.
"''\j'
t~'f~
~'-il,
Member Petersen mov~d that based on the staff report and testimony at this
public hearillg, that the CDB recommends to the City Commission approval of this
application at 700 Eldridge Street, 703 Blanche B. littleJohn Trail, and 704 and 706
North Myrtle AV,enue. The mo'tion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
'5. Case TAOQ-01-01 Text Amendment -. Section 8-102 - Assisted Living
Facility/Congregate Care Definitions. Request: Code amendment revising the
definition of assisted living facility and congregate care to increase the number of
beds that are equivalent to one dwelling unit from 2.5 to 3.0.
Staff said the maximum development potential of property used for assisted
living and congregate care is based on a formula of 2.5 beds equals one dwelling
unit. Staff proposes increasing the number of beds to 3.0 so these types of
development are more feasible: Countywide Plan Rules determine density standards
within all land use categories in the City and the County and consider assisted living
and congregate care as residential equivalent uses. Though residential in characterf
these facilities have no units and beds are counted to determine density. The
County's formula considers 2 - 3 beds as one dwelling unit. Staft's proposal for a
maximum of 3.0 beds is consistent with countywide rules and is permissible. The
proposed amendment would permit a 20% increase in the number of beds in
assisted living or congregate care facilities.
mcd01 bOO
4
01/25/00
" '
,',
"
,
I,', +,' <:, '~~, ~:' .
l'
, , . '
': :'c:':><> ,1~'i'lr', < ,
, ,
w"',c '....:
:1," .
\' .
"
~; c I .
'.' .' /~ >
,I '
, ,...,
' ,
. , I
, , '~,.' ~
text amendments: '1) proposed, amend is consistent With and furthers goals,
policies, and objectives of Comprehensive Plan, and 2) proposed amendmont
furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City
ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed amendment
will not'adversely affect City services, is consistent with Countywide Plan Rules,
and promotes econo,mic development, while maintaining reasonable and appropriate
development standards. ..
. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6507-00 to amend .the
definition of assisted living and congregate care facilities to ~ncrease the number of
beds equivalent to one dwelling unit from 2.5 to 3.0. In response to a question,
staffsaid' 2.5 beds was standard under the prior Code. Should a business request
expansion, City approval is required to meet all Code regulations.
Robert Boyle and Mike Payne, of Paradise Adult Living Services, said they
have contracted, to purchase property to construct an assisted living facility and plan
to annex the County property into the City. They felt the 3.0 bed formula is more
economically' feasible for facility residents. Land and operational costs ar~
,. increasing. The more residents living in a facility results in lower per bed costs. Mr.
payOne said his organization does not have any local, facilities but felt a real need for
such services exists.
t,i';';ti
.~,;..,r;1
Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and the testimony
heard today, that the COB recommend to the City Commission approval of the
amendment to the Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM 4 - lEVEL 2 APPLICATIONS
1. Case FL99-11-21 -, 091 Eldorado Drive. Owner/Applicant: Carlouel Yacht
Club. Representative: Robert M. Thompson, Jr. Location: 2.897 acres east of
Eldorado Avenue, and 1.93 acres west of Eldol'ado Avenue, north of Bay Esplanade,
Zoning: I, Institutional District. Proposed Use: An existing yacht club. Req\jest:
Flexible development approval of an 80 square foot addition including service
elevator and equipment room as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project. ,
Member Pliska reported a conflict of interest and removed himself from
discussion.
'>,J
The applicant requests flexible development approval of an 80 square foot
addition, including a service elevator and equipment room, with a reduction in front
setback from 25 feet to 7.5 feet as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
project. This request is consistent with the existing building that is legally
nonconforming with respect to setback f6.6 feet from Eldorado Avenue). The
addition will encroach Into the required front setback. The proposed elevator will
serve the second floor dining room from the first-story kitchen. The architecture will
duplicate building details and feature compatible colors and ma:terials. rhe site's
use as a yacht club will not change. The plan category and zoning district are
h1stitutional. The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application
mcd01 bOO
5
01/25/00
,:
/,'::,/" ::,:,';' :',":' ,
.' l'" ~ , .
, .1',">' >,
'.",1'; ,', ,; "
, : ~' ',t I . ... "
',' I"
i :',',d ",I
'.t"
, ,
.',
8
and supporting materials on December 2, 1999. The proposal c'omplies with the'
Community Development Code. Staff recommends approval of the flexible
development application for '1091 Eldorado' Avenue, with a reduction in front
setback from 25 to 7.5 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project" with
the condition that the addition be compatible with the architectural style and color
,of the existing buitding. ' '
Robert Thompson, applicant, said he now' uses a passenger elevator to
transport food to the second floor. An interior elevator is not possible. He said an
outside elevator is the only way to service the second floor. The design meets all
City Code requirements. He said the setback will be closer to the road than the
existing setback, but will not impede the loading dock area.
Member Petersen moved that based on the staff report and the testimony
heard today, that the COB recommends to the City Commission approval of the
applicDtion, with the condition that the addition will be compatible with the current
architectural style and color of the existing building. The motion was duly seconded
, and carried unanimously. Member Pliska was not present for the vote.
'.
.\\'1
'"
".
,',
. r
.\....
! t \'
"i
L
',' ,
'.."
f,: .~
,p;,
, {",.
v\
~P1~
.)}.',
r:,
h"~:I'"
",,t.
"
\:~ t'
'l "\~
, ~ I ~1
r'/~
') 1;~
J ;
~'J,.
'i':
,<~:.~
".
,,:':"'.
'A
,'.
2. Case FL99-11-22 - 323 Jeffords Street. Owner/applicant: Douglas
Dahlhauser, Morton Plant Mease Health Care. Representative: John E. Powell, P.E.
Location: 4.71 acres located on the southwest corner of Jeffords Street and
Reynolds Avenue, north of Pinellas Street, and 1.32 acres on the southwest corner
of Jeffords Street and South Ft. Harrison Avenue. Zoning: I, Institutional District.
Proposed Use: A 39,750 square foot emergency care center and associated
parking. Request: Flexible development approval, as part of a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment project, with reduction in building setback on Jeffords Street
(emergency room) from 25 to 12.4 feet, reduction in parking lot setback on Jeffords
Street and Reynolds Avenue (and Sadler Street and Bay Avenue, if not vacated)
from 25 to 5 feet, reduction in the required landscape buffer on Jeffords Street and
Reynolds Avenue (and Sadler Street and Bay Avenue, if not vacated) from 10 to 5
feet; and vacation of Bay Avenue and Sadler Street rights~of-way.
. '
.,.'
\,
(:
~ r:
'.oil
:':1
'1':-
'q
,:.':,
t"
,h..:'4
In 1995, the City Commission aJJproved Morton Plant Hospital's Master Plan
under the former Land Development Code. The Master Plan conceptually identified
the location of the building, parking structures, and storm water detention facilities.
In October 1999, the CDS approved, in concept, reduced parking and building
setbacks. The applicant has submitted a site plan detailing parking and loading
spaces, size and location of building, and all required landscaping. Drainage
calculations also have been submitted. The new Community Development Code
designates this property as Institutional District. A hospital is a standard use and
requires a minimum five-acre lot size. Review of the Master Plan is required for
requests to reduce building, parking, and landscape setbacks and right-of-way
vacation.
","
, ,\
I.' ,~
(,.....l
" .r ~
y,....
".',[
< ~I<
\ "
~I"
, 'f
...._)
The site includes 4.71 acres on the southwest corner of Jeffords Street and
Reynolds Avenue, and 1.32 acres on the southwest corner of Jeffords Street and
South Ft. Harrison Avenue. One of the five buildings on site is a single-family
house. Should they be unsuccessful in acquiring that property, the applicant must
" \,
'"
.; ~'
" \
. \'
,,,,...(
1/'
, ,"
:,./ ,
"
mcdO 1 bOO
, 6
01/25/00
.;..
( ',;',
, . ~.:
,I
,;..:!
...,'
,} ,
..; :~:. .
.".:' ::'i:,;.' :;1; ,:\1' '. . ;~'i':::: ( :,:" r '..; ? '::::;~ . .:!::?!n:i: ;" . ";::[' ': .\ ::';':':: ;:ii:.' : :~::;:: .;,: '\ ::~' :~d.: .';:' '.;:>:}:';:~.;:I':':";::; :"~;;':!?: .:.
.':',',," ',; "0,' 1./,:,,, '\~: \,"~/(\;.'1i' '. ; ",;: :",,:;:'-..; ~ ~';:"<,:: :.:' "'-1''''; ','" "i"'~, ":{':,(; 1':',1" ',::~.' .': ,: 'I~'" ':'<. : ,,~\':,\'~', .',:' ,;;.,; ("'! "
"',',:, ':>, ":. ,"':,~~",':,:';,,:/',~' (,',\':'~,',",',>",\.1,:"",.',:, )i-:;', /:<'/'<';~:I'..../":':J'~/::';:",, :':'. :,':::";?':':::" ": "<'::'~"',~'>:' ":':.''.'/.':'',:;'' >:: .J,\:,,:,'f,,:/ \r::'~': ";, ',tl
H. ' ~ ." ~.,~ "i.j'/l t,l, ,I '1' .,' ,',~ {~'1r.} . "'t",/."t' ',~' '~i, l.~" "'<,._.,' J' ~'
., ,.' I. <~,~~, .... .' ,," ','II _ ,_~...,~ c.'---..&.. " .,\,1. Cj' ,I , ,". _, "'--.
\' I ' ,.'" /, '\' I. ~.\' .',. ',' " i.\ ',) .,' '.. I .\' '. '," .' ," ,', ..' ~ i,. ',., \ I" \', ',I', " " ",' , t j" i,' .'.., " ') . 'I " ',~ , ..... I; " , . :
,~,. ~' \,
" ,;-,I'.~'
>, \'! d
"/,',>
, ',I
, .'
,',
, !'1 'submit 8 secondary sita plan, demonstrating compliance with buffers and parking lot
, layout. If buffers am provided as required and no substantive changes are made,
the revision shall not require additional COR review. '
Morton Plant Hospital proposes to renovate and expand the emergency
center, associatod parking..and retontion basin. The emergency room entrance will
be relocated to the east, farther from the residential area. A parking lot and
retention basin will be constructed on the 1.3-acre site. The proposalls consistent
, with the 1995 Master pran and 1999 COB approval. Final architectural details must
be consistent with the overall campus plan. Plans will be submitted with the
building permit process. This application includes flexible development approval
with a reduction in the Jeffords Street setback for the emergency room from 25 to
1 2.4 feet, reduction in all street setbacks for the parking lot from 25 to 5 feet, and
reduction in the landscape buffer for all streets from 10 to 5 feet. The Ft. Harrison
Avenue setback for parking and landscaping will comply with the Master Plan.
UtilitY,lines will be relocated and improvements made to Reynolds Street.
~;.r;~~
'('~C1
The proposed project also includes a request to vacate Bay Avenue between
Jefford,s Street and the middle of the site, and Sadler Street between Bay and
Reynolds Avenues. Right-of-way vacation requires COB recommendation and final
disposition by the Commission. ,The proposal complies with the standards and
criteria for Flexible Development approval and the Community Development Code.
Staff feels redevelopment of the site will aid in the hospital's continued success and
site improvements will increase the value to the surrounding area. Staff '
recommends approval of the flexible development application for 323 Jeffords
Street as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project, including reduction
in building setback on Jeffords Street from 25 to 12.4 feet, reduction in parking ,lot
setback on Jeffords Street and Reynolds Avenue (and Sadler Street and Bay
Avenue, it not vacated) from 25 to 5 feet, reduction in required landscape buffer on
Jeffords Street' and Reynolds Avenue (and Sadler Street and Bay Avenue, if not
, vacated) from 10 to 5 feet, and vacation of Bay Avenue and Sadler Street rights-of-
way, subject to conditions: 1) architecture of proposed emergency room be
consistent with overall campus plan, to be approved by staff during permit process;
2) Bay and Sadler Avenues rights-of-way be vacated by the Commission, and
building permits for southern parking lot not be issued until vacation is completed;
'and 3) jf Benton property is not acquired, applicant shall submit a revised site plan
demonstrating compliance with appropriate buffers and parking lot layout for final
approval by staff. If buffers are not met and site plan changes are substantive, the
COB will review the final plan.
In response to a question, staff said if Morton Plant Hospital is unsuccessful
in acquiring the single-family home fronting Sadler Street, that street will not be
vacated. The applicant has not submitted a vacation application for Sadler Street.
Staff feels requested street vacations are not premature.
'.......)
Mark Marquardt, representative, Sold the applicant is close to acquiring the
subject house. He said this plan is identical to one previously approved by the COB
with the exception of grades, utilities; and placement of stormwater sewers. In
mcd01 bOO
7
01/25/00
::,:j<,; ,
'i ~ ~ ,r I ,: ~ '" 'r ' ' J /
, ",: l" ~ ~~: : I. > ::""~ ," )'~, ~
,,/, "{." \, . '. ,/ ,,~ '
: '; ,.f, (,r
;, $..'. I':, ':. \
h: '. .f,-
"I t:0~'" ,.; ,
::'~;?;:'(:~:';'\ \:i~;'/:; i':~}f,y",;.:::~?:;,:.~:~jf~:,;'~):'i~':\' ~:.:~;<'.~!:~.::':., :;::: :i:'~,:;..;(,.;;y},i:/':}:\~;~'11t:/};\:,
',..1. " , eo '" _, , ,.. I ,_ \J, I . "I uS , ' " ..' ..' .I """'" "I,
. " '. :'t'
, )'
'. '
./'1,
, 'r'),
,response, to a question, he said the applicant will not prevent access to the parcel,
on Sadler Street.
. Ron Ham, Director of Construction for Morton Plant Mease Healthcare, said
he has negotiated with the owner of the subject parcel on Sadler Street and
anticipates a final resolution on January 28, 2000. Suitable property for the owners
has been found and the home will be relocated to an adjacent neighborhood.
Member Pliska moved that based'on the staff report and testimo'ny heard
today, that the COB approve the application with the conditions as indicated by
staff, with the contingency that the Sadler Street is acquired, otherwise Sadler'
Street will not be vacated. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Chair Figurski abstained as he arrived during review of the case.
I.;\;~
~,>\llf
3. ~ase FL-11-23- 1100 and 1104 Druid Road South. Owner/Applicant:
Ronald and Mireille Pollack. Representative: Wayne M. Davis, Architect. Location:
1.66 acres located on the west side of Druid Road South, 190 feet north of Jeffords
Street. Zoning: LOR, Low Density Residential District. Proposed Use: A single-
family dwelling unit. Request: Flexible development approval of a Residential Infill
, Redevelopment Project with an increase in building height from 30 to 35 feet, an
increased height of masonry wall from 3 to 6 feet along the front (east) property
line, ,an increased height of a metal picket fence from 3 to 6 feet along the rear
(west) property line; and an increased height of waU/fence from 3 to 6 feet within
the required waterfront view triangle at the intersection of the rear and side property
lines, with non-opaque masonry wall and picket fence.
, This Flexible Development approval request is for a Residential In-fill
Redevelopment project with an increase in building height from 30 to 35 feet, an
increase in the height of a masonry wall from 3 to 6 feet along the front property
line; an increase in the height of a metal picket fence from 3 to 6 feet along the rear
property line, and an increase in the height of the wall/fence from 3 to 6 feet within
the required waterfront view triangle at the intersection of the rear and side property
lines, with a non-opaque masonry wall and picket fence.
\!,
:' ~~
k}
,~ ...
, .'
The area is dominated by residential uses. The 1.B-acre site, on the west
side of Druid Road South, abuts and has access to Clearwater Harbor. A Unity of
Title will join the site's 2 lots. The slope from east (front) to west (rear) has a 20-
foot difference in grade. The applicant proposes to raze existing structures,
including 2 houses. A small accessory garage on the site's northeast corner will be
expanded. The pool and tennis ~ourt to the rear of 1104 South Druid Road will
remain. The proposal includes construction of a 7,000 square foot single-family
dwelling to a height of 35 feet.
,!~.::
;,'\"
~'I '
~:,: I~
f':>
'.
,,',
",
~>
; ;:~
" ,
~.(
~ ;..-)
'"
':}
'"..-
;,-: .
'"
~:::',,~'
',-I
In 1997, a 35-foot height variance was approved but has expired. As
outlined in the Community Development Code, height is measured to the midpoint of
the peak of the main roof from the mean elevation of the existing grade. The Code
permits a maximum height of 30 feet for detached dwellings. The additional height
will maximize the site's development potential. Houses of this scale and height
dominate the neighborhood. The proposal also includes replacement of perimeter
\"'.:
.f
'i.;
,.,.)
,(.
}~~
".
, '"
.t~
';'1/
~~' ~
I'
. ,
"
mcdO 1 bOO
8
01/25/00
1:-.(
"
~I\
" ,
,I'
(:,
;'
~ ,.'
i't
.
I".
'"., :....<t. .' ;'.~<"'."".,',~/.r "'c"& .,.,\..:,<'..':.,:.. ':'_~ '.'; ..;;..\~h.',;"-ti.:\.::~~L.. ..." ,','/ ',' I~C~,c,~ 'J,.r.,l~t'r\'...:t.. < ,,'.'..-H' ..,1,...., ).... """'!1-'
" I '" ", .,11 ,,:., .' : . 1'- ...' I' '(" ,,', ",..' ,,'" " '.' "f' ':, ~',' '.'..\ ',;, I'" ," \" 'l' 'I, ,-:.,,( 'i""'I," ': 'I " 'r', \ ,", >i"~ ..r; ,;'!"< (" ''',. \"("~' >",,:' /1. ,',. ,")"J' ',.',
\::' <: ~,~:.:: " ;,"':', ;:::' -.> ': .:",~', ':,:,:,: ': '< :,'.:,~: .:'\:.:.\~;,:,',:':<,.}.~:~., :';':>::',/:;~\'.':':'::~:I:>~,:;,:,.:?'\'r~,:\"': '<:~~~: '...':".:' .~~ >~;'/~J ~"'~:':/.'i..:'( '~\ i'~ ::";~:<::::::.':.":':~:',:<::~.i;.':.,,;~ ~:~:'~'::':;:~';';':;:":;'.'~:'~"'<;:::'~I'~ ;';":;",
\;,,,,,,, ,.' f" ;,~" :" ,.,.co' ,...''Y'''/..".,.,...''..'.'f,;-J.'.'' "....",",,' ...,.;.'.'~It." "'("'" ".'....,"1
,: '..:::';'.'. 0;"'<':; 'j. ,..'>.i,:.:/ ,<;;',' ;~;,:~ I;'~ <;\~';::>'..,:'"lt,;::;\,~~:'<<,~'} ~~~':,\;:' ,\':), .".:' : '.':/',",:::'i:', '.' ,': .::;,/::.,i:..:,\/J~,/':~..;,::;.,.~(;.>~./<i,:'('"r~,l:-:;\::::;
,I.' '
., ',c " ".
,:.1,' '," ;.'\.' '10'
~;<~ '.': ~~ .:' I':
::' i
'4 ~. < , f "
I
, ' ~ ~ ; ',.. ~
. . f . ~ I, '
c.,
c. Ie, ';1
'~, ("', c ~
, I ,'.
,8
, fencing/walls with a 6*foot mas~nry wall along the north, south, and east property
'lines. The LOR District permits 3-foot high fences/walls in the required front
setback. A 3-foot increase for the front yard fence is consistent with most area
properties. On waterfront lots, a'3-foot open fence is permitted. To enhance the
,view of the,water from other waterfront properties, fences in the "view triangle" are,
restricted to 3-foot open fences. This request includes nn increase in the waterfront
fencing to 6 feet, similar to walls along other Druid Road properties.
The proposal complies with the standards and criteria for Flexible
Development approval and with the Community Development regulations. Staff
recommends approval of the application for a Residential Infill Redevelopment
Project with an increase in building height from 30 to 35 feet, an increased height of
masonry wall from 3 to 6 feet along the front (east) property line, an increased
height of a metal picket fence from 3 to 6 feet along the rear (west) property line,
and an increased height of wall/fence from 3 to 6 feet within the required
waterfront view triangle at the intersection of the rear and side property lines, with
non~opaque masonry wall and picket fence.
Ed Armstrong, representative, said the proposal is consistent with other
Druid Road properties.
~
~"
One resident immediately north of this property expressed concern regarding
garage expansion, the 2.5 foot setback establishing a standard, preservation of the
oak and banyan trees, the wall that will abut his property, and the location the
proposed house.
"j'
)i~,
~y"
~'~
:~'/.
,r,:"/.
,;'
'.'
~ "
/".\
h.
i,.;.1
. '
1/ '
:~:~ ~~:\
1';.~
Wayne Davis, architect, said the garage addition will not encroach into the
establishe~ property line. The proposed house is similar to the existing one and will
be less than '1 0 feet closer to the water. The oak and banyan trees will be saved.
The wall's design is conceptual as a 6 -foot high masonry wall. He said both sides
of the wall will be the same. The neighboring resident requested the proposed wall
be built as soon as possible.
Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and testimony at this
public hearing, that the COB approve the application at 1100 and 1104 Druid Road
South, with conditions as indicated by staff, and that both sides of the masonry
wall be the same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimous(y.
"..I...
''I ,~
,:,1
,I
4. Case VAR1999-F200B - Communication Tower - 505 Virqinia Lane.
Owner/applicant: Miller Cooper, American InfoAge, LLC. Representative: Edward
Armstrong, Attorney. Location: 0.37 acres located on the east side of Virginia
Lane, approximately 150 feet south of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Zoning: C,
Commercial District. Proposed Use: A 160-foot communication tower and three
concrete equipment pads. Request: Flexible development approval of a
communication tower.
')
:'"\'
i', ~
, '.
, '
I';
_oJ" .
'"
',~,
!, 'c,
,'.
.J
Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Hardin requested that the COB consider
David Duolong as the City's expert in the telecommunications field. She presented
his resume to the Board. Mr. Duolong has more than 20 years experience in the
:'1
, ..
~t,~,
',I
mcd01 bOO
9
01/25/00 '
" I
,:' .~.
. t:;,.
. ~'I " ,; , .. L' "
~.,J,: ::",<:'; ,
\ ~ ("
':"!",IL' .". \.
.. ,+~., "I~ II . ",' .~, ..."1' .c" ~'C', '\:..\ ''1\ ' . "....., Ii < l.," r/,'
, ;" ,:":' :'; <; :':,\'~/:'~/:':'" ~:,:: :~:.:',~:;':, ;,~~;;'~~:><:;:-, ";>:~'~';"~"',<)::';:::;')>):', :,"~"':~',::'.:: :':,: ::':.>,::?:'i.:!~,"~:~j:.'\:~: J',:,;;:<,'~,~;'~~~;: ~.:::~;,:,'<::":':;::,.' ::;: ~:,:"" !:.~",' :':".\ :\,:;,.:' ':, 'f;;' ,~:,:~';?I,
f'C ~.' !'.:~Ic'. , I. . l'\<-1' ...... ' ;..1 .~I \ .." '.' '1~ .1' . ~ 'l~C . .' ~ " ,..,'..'~ I,'" ".,:."".',';.:',!'.,'~:,,',..:~. ,,-I: ~'.:"'~"""";;':'~I':i(.', "':','~':,':::',;,,(_:.I~,::'I~,~::,.~,,',:',~:<',:,:.'.....~~,'":,,..il/~';.<
,;;t>. II~' " ,.'.,\. .",.' ".~,..,~.'~'..:-' .,<I~, ';,:.l' c.~';~l',:~'.':~~~:'~',: '-',:,fy....,' "c,:',.,.':: ... ' c ' ,
,',',.",.,."",:,'.:;',. I"",., :,;,>,..,.',:',',: ,"'::::.:.:'.,',~: :"" '!: ",' :, j';l'i'" 1\ 1 - ".,
~ ':.~':.'.'r~':~:'l~\ 1':._( (,: ,-,~..~,\.~;.~:.~~;> \::III't,,::'>::,,:\.::<,~ ,~::.~r,I'~:'i.<.!"/1 tJ '"'I ....' \'~J.j ';~'.'I''j~'''"L ;';+~
. ~ t' /', l
'!', ,'.,..t ::' ,': ':':+~r ,'~f'.,',:~ .'... ','. \ ..-:' " ,.'... ~ ';1", l,. :".\':~',l, ~ ,'..} .,~".," :_.'1. .',:".,. ",,,,~j,\,,~,,:, "',. .",.
, .' ,I ~ 'c '
,~" ,(.
. .. , ~
{'" '
I. ' ~'
~ ' '~".
,., ,
" ,
,J
'c} '.
,,'
/,""
· f
telecommunications field and 1,1 yea~s experience in util'ity industries. He has
managed telecommunications projects, was a communications officer, and now
servos as a communications director. Mr. Ouolon9 has provIded technical and
consulting assistance to municipalities in siting towers. specifically regarding tower
aesthetics as they relate t? a community.
Member Petersen moved to accept David Duolong as an expert witness in
the area of telecommunications. The motion was' dUly seconded and carried
unanimously. ' '
"
Ms. Hardin reviewed the history of,the request. On May 25, 1999, the
application for a tower at 505 Virginia Lane was submitted and heard by the COB on
July 20. 1999. The COB continued the case to September 21, 1999, to allow
investigation of the feasibility of using the tower at Clearwater High School. That
meeting was canceled due to inclement weather and the case was rescheduled. On
October 5, 1999, the COB continued the case to November 16, 1999, and
requested senior City staff contact senior School Soard staff to consider solutions.
On November 16, 1999, the CDS approved the application with conditions. On
December 14, 1999, neighbors appealed for reconsideration of the case, which the
COB approved.
~:).)~1,
, {"J~~
~'..' f },'J
Ms. Hardin said since December, significant developments have occurred.
On January 10, 2000/ a meeting was held with staff, School Board representatives,
, and AT&T Wireless representative Kevin Becker. Ms. Hardin referred to a letter
from AT&T indicating the firm will reconstruct a tower on the School Board sito at
AT&T's expense. The School Board confirmed negotiations with AT&T and
indicated they support the reconstruction. She said the COB needs to consider if a
reasonable alternative to the applfcant's request exists. During previous
discussions, it had not appeared a reasonable alternative was possible. The AT&T
representative has confirmed that a 155wfoot tower is feasible for the Clearwater
High School site considering its proximity to the airport and FAA requirements. Mr.
Ouolong confirmed that the reconstructed tower can accommodate carriers as an
alternative to the Virginia Lane site. Ms. Hardin said the Code requires joint uses of
, existing towers as an alternative to new tower construction. Staff feels, based on
the AT&T and School Board agreement for the Arcturas site, that a reasonable
alternative to tho applicant's proposed site exists, and that a new tower is not
necessary.
'.J
The applicant has indicated intent to accommodate 3 users on a 160wfoot
tower at the Virginia Lane site. Ms. Hardin said the applicant's previous site plan
had identified the Virginia Lane property as an office. Staff has determined that the
subject property has a multi-family use. The proposed tower cannot meet setback
requirements related to residential uses unless the existing use is changed. AT&T is
negotiating with 3 other carriers. Considering the new agreement between AT&T
and the School Board, staff feels a reasonable alternative to a new tower exists, the
application is inconsistent with telecommunications regulations, and a new tower is
not justified. Staff recommends denial of the proposed tower at 505 Virginia Lane.
In response to a question, she said it appears that the tower could be designed,
built, and shipped to the site within 120 days.
mcdOl bOO
10
01/25/00
,:":,, J: ;.~:I:" '~.~ ,': ~,}. ;-:1;", . ',.~,I";',+,' ,\;' ~~..' '. <',', ';,~":..'.,.',.~':/' I J: ,',; 'i,',. .,'..,,','~ ':.,' .;... _' ", ,"',
'.
"I'
-} ~ : ' T"" ". < : ~
..,., I..
:'~. , J ~
\ ," I' '.'\.': .' ','
' <', ;;.: c',;' ,~;;.'~..~.,'~' "'1:;',<' ~ .'",
., ','.' (,' -,':
"
,.'
'. '. :., '
"~ Ed Armstrong, representative, requested the record of prior hearings be ,
incorporated Into this hearing. The Chair said as there were no objections, the
record of all prior hearing,s will be incorporated into this hearing.
Mr. Armstrong said the Code refers to joint use of existing towers. He said
attempts have been made to create a new tower and appropriate a business
opportunity created by American InfoAge. He said the proposal is too speculative
and two towers will be needed. He said, the applicant has met Code requirements
and his application should be approved.
Robert Kersteen, GTE retiree, reviewed needs related to telecommunications
towers. He said new digital technology requires antennas to be placed where
service is needed. He said collocation requires physical separations on a tower. He
said it is impossible to determine if all carriers can exist in a small area on one
tower. His opinion was that a second tower is necessary to accommodate 7 "
carriers. '
,,~;r.;A
~l) ~;M
"\l..1"
Mr. Duolong agreed it is difficult to determine the number of carriers a tower
can accommodate, as each carrier requires different frequencies. Users must
cooperate to avoid reception interference. He said it is possible to place 7 carriers
on a 16~-foot tower. In response to a comment, Ms. Hardin said the Code caps
new tower heights at 160 feet for those serving 3 or more carriers. Staff's records
indicate that the School Board tower, approved at 160 feet, could be increased to
200 feet with approval,of a Flexible Standard application.
Darryl Richards, representative, was unsure of the number of carriers being
considered. The applicant proposes three users on a tower designed for five. It is
proposed up to seven carriers and, possibly , the School Board could locate on the
tower proposed for the School Board site.
Miller Cooper, applicant, said 115 feet is the lowest elevation anticipated on
American InfoAge's proposed tower. He anticipated an additional carrier could be
accommodated at 100 feet and provide coverage of 1- Yz miles. He suggested
carriers provide that information.
\
. -./
In response to questions from Mr. Armstrong, Ms. Hardin reviewed staff's
current recommendation based on AT&T and the School Board providing a
reasonable alternative to the proposal. She said Code does not require staff to
demonstrate that the tower will accommodate all local carriers. Mr. Armstrong said
the applicant meets one of the criteria listed in the Code and is entitled to approval.
Ms. Hardin said all 7 conditions must be balanced to determine if a reasonable
alternative exists. Mr. Armstrong disagreed the Code stipulates the balancing of
provisions. In response to a question, Ms. Hardin said it is feasible to build a new
tower on the School Board site, transfer services from the existing tower to the new
one, and remove the current tower. Concern was expressed the City's position is'
based solely on the availability of a reasonable alternative. Discussion ensued
regarding modified towers and their status as "existing." City Attorney Pam Akin '
said the fact that a tower can be modified meets the requirement for an "existing"
mcdO 1 bOO
11
01/25/00
"
"
'I
>1l c: ~,~
""~
) , '
'. '.'
.<
"
I! ~ .
~ ' , '
" , .
> ,""
"
~ tower. Mr. Armstrong said the modified tower is a "new" tower. It was noted the
-,.";... , Code states a tower may be replaced and be considered ~~exist.lng."
In response to questions from Mr. Richards. Mr. Ouolong,sald he Is familiar
with the School Board tower. He has not reviewed American InfoAge's application
but has knowledge of It. He did not know the height requirements for all carriers. '
He said the School Board tower currently cannot accommodate additional use~s. He
has done no engineering or interference studies regarding a new tower and is
unaware of agreements between providers regarding placement on the proposed
,tower. He said the timeframe for AT&T to go.forward with leases depends upon
negotiations. He did not know how many towers in Clearwater and Orlando
accommodate up to 8 users. He said it is unusual for a 160-foot tower to
, accommodate 7 to 8 users. He said it appears that AT&T will reconstruct a tower
at its expense but was unsure if AT&T will charge other carriers for construction
costs.
, ;Ii~
> '8'
AT&T Wireless Services representative Kevin Becker said at a recent
meeting, the School Board had agroed to allow AT&T to replace the existing School
Board tower to accommodate as many carriers as possible. He said 6 carriers have
expressed interest and ho has letters from 4 carriers supporting AT&T's proposal at
heights that are viable. ,H~ said this cohesive effort provides a win-win situation for
the School Board, the carriers, and the City. He said the tower's maximum
allowable height is 1 66 feet, according to FAA regulations. He said the new tower
will be able to accommodate a microwave dish for the School Board. He said the
new tower must be designed to accommodate all carriers and anticipated the
tower's design would take less than 45 days. He said it may be possible to
complete the tower within 6 months. In response to a question, Mr. Becker said
School Board issues have been resolved. AT&T has not done any interference or
inte'rmodulation studies done for the proposed tower. If carriers feel it is necessary,
he said those studies will be done. Mr. Becker said he has no contracts with any of
the providers he mentioned to locate on the new School Board tower, and no
contract with the School Board to build the tower. He did not know how much a
new tower will cost. He said AT&T will coordinate the construction of a new tower
and the costs.
I,
~",;~:'
',",
:'J
:' .'
Ii'
~)!
1<'"
"
:'{~ :!~
'(, ~
, ,~,!.
, ;
\, ,
1'-:,
i)!\~l
~ ~:< I
\/',
.,:I).
,Ii,;
'\:';~
'.1
,-
~ "(
;i:.l:
r~J'
Mr. Richards said American InfoAge's application has been before the COB
for 7 months and the firm could provide service to carriers within 60 days of
approval. He said AT&T's proposal would delay service for 4 to 6 months. In
response to a question, Mr. Becker said original terms of AT&T's contract with the
School,Board did not allow collocation. Mr. Becker was not familiar with carrier
agreements with American InfoAge. Mr. Becker did not know the cost of a new
tower,but said AT&T will coordinate the construction. He said no costs will be
borne by anyone other than AT&T, the carriers, and the School Board. He said the
process will start soon. Mr. Beckar said the existing tower will be removed once a
new one is built. He said no tower at the School Board site currently can provide a
reasonable alternative to American. InfoAge's proposal.
" .
I"
.;,:/:
,.:,'
'q
I:~ ,',
)\,'
I.: <'
']If,
~:t
,\i ,.1
, ~ I
.
,"1
',_J
Assistant School Board Attorney Jim Sl<aggs said the tower's 30-year lease
on the School Board property continues until 2017. The contract allows
I,'.
medOl bOO
12
01/25/00
1.<.
.. \
/.
.. \
:1<
t'<
'Of"
,. ,
I <-: ','
;.<
......,
.:,/,1"", ';.. .',', .,: .\' '-l~k;:::,' (" '.!'::~ ,-:\;..:.-;t!, ".: :...'{,',.'.....':.'; :.,' '.:.,'<,! ':1, ";,'.!/ "'1'/1. '..~;;'.<-:...:'::.,.~:i,~: ('1< ^,~:..;.:.( '";':>':'''';''' :~.~: ",:,.}
..,..I.~:" ",,,,,,?,.-,~:?'-,.;.,,\,.);-...,, 'i'. "\(.\,,. ,',., j ;..",.~I .\"1"\""" ".1, : Ir. ~".' .', _, """"'"~({'':'.'_<'(\;''' }.,.,'\!,.,.~.,'
,,?~??{'\'."': ',; ..':,:~: ~ :. ' . ;:} /::',;.':\:~+;\t,,<,?i~"/';/?:~JLB ,;'j:t'p,'ru~;:( " :~e:::)<;\ "~!;:;:~:;";'..';;\;'a:<:,,/::.::,:{::~
~t .. 1" , ' ~'. " " ~'r "! ", ." "J I ~ '-.. ,I~ IF ,(j ,....\.r'..\/~~~.I/ ",". ......1' ~~.,t/ / /.' ..,1...... .} I~,. ~ ~I '..1 ",,' 't,' .,t~ .'\
. , '" ,~,. I ' " '''/.~ ~ . '. ...".~, '"""""'""- ,,' I.'" " ~,~ ...., . , . ' " .
1-
I/~~;ll., ' ",}
"
. " ~
.:~ L . t
'I "', < '~
, .\ j'i I
j, I'.
. ...... . ., .
" " ,I'
, ~: ., ,
" ,'I
"
, .'
,;~
'.' ~.. (J
modifications and replacement of the tower. He expects Schoel Board costs will be
minimal. He said a 166-foot height is not a problem.
Seven persons spoke in opposition of the application.
Bob Shields, radio design engineer for GTE Wireless, said for 3 years t,is firm
has tried to find a carrier site in the area. He said AT&T has requested his firm use
antennas, which require an additional cell site, a mile or two away. He felt lighting
of the tower will not be required. He said more towers are required if they are of
lower heights. He said locating 7 carriers on one tower would be a challenge and
the number of frequencies is limited. He said digital technology is vulnerable to
interference. He said in 2003, new technology will require added bandwidths and
good signal management. He said as additional cells are split, the height of towers
can be reduced. The challenge is to avoid interference from trees and buildings. He
said at a height of 120 fee,t, GTE Wireless will not obtain adequate coverage for the
cost.
Darren Newsum, Regional Account Manager for PrimaCo, said the firm has
had a need in this area for more than 3 years. He sard PrimeCe's agreement with
the applicant will meet the firm's needs. He said his firm has no explicit agreement
with AT&T due to interference concerns.
- fi.!.~
.~!tJ1
Aaron Tellier, Director of Nextel ~~rnmunications, said his firm has tried to
remain neutral during this process. Ha said his firm provides cellular services and
does not construct towers. He said the American InfoAge tower would provide
more space between carriers. He said Nextel has requested a location at 140 feet.
He opposed the 6-month wait related to the AT&T proposal. In response to a
question, he said the existing School Board tower only provides a Y2 mile-range of
coverage.
Mr. Stone said had staff known the School Board site was an alternative,
they would have originally recommended denial of the application. The Code is
designed to limit towers in the City. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said the
Code addresses the modification of existing towers. In response to a question, Mr.
Stone said the residential use next to the American InfoAge tower site is an illegal
use and is not relevant. Enforcement action has been initiated. Mr. Stone said the
sentence in the Code requiring one or more of the conditions to be met is not
intended to allow applicants that meet only one of those conditions to build a tower.
It was stated that no evidence has indicated reconstruction of the School Board
tower is financially feasible. Staff does not have a clear understanding of the
techn%gicallimitations or who will pay for the tower. The City's expert witness
has stated it can be done. Mr. Stone staff feels the Code requires balancing
competing interests while not harming the industry. Ms. Akin agreed it is necessary
to balance all presented facts with the Code.
,
',J
John Hubbard, representative, said American InfoAge has lease agreements
with GTE Wireless of the South, Inc. and PrimaCo Personal Communications Ltd.
He s'aid the tower proposed by AT&T and the School Board does not exist today.
He said on November 16, 1999, Mr. Stone had testified that American InfoAge had
mcd01 bOO
13
01/25/00
'"'
,~~;/<':</\ :....,:"' ,
,", < <
" .'
, 't
1
! "
,
\,
I
I ,~
l,'
I,
I"
) .
"
~'V~.~
t:'t\~
,..i.u>~
,
J
\'
~.~ ~ ,'.t": ": '.... <, "
>~;'.'''~:\<: ' :;"::,>:",
.;' \: '. "','
~...~.. I
/f " l',,j'
"
:: :'-<?;;;':;,":": ',: ~";, ":,:<':::):,',
I ~ , '
~. ,. + \. I ,": .
I; '" I
. \. " l'"
I " , d
, ,
,
, :\ '"' ,\
, "
",.'
"
, ,
, ,
met the criteria without the alternative School Board site. The new agreement
between AT&T and the School Board damages tl)8 applicant's position and harms
the applicant's customers. He suggested A T&Ts offer will provide the firm
substantial profits on the new tower and poses a competitive venture. He
expressed concern regarding the 'number of delays related to InfoAge's application.
He accused the COB of abandoning their ,role as a quasHudicial body and embarking
on ,a p~bllc policy function which is the City Commission's respon'sibility. He noted
the Code and Federal Statutes requires that actions not damage a competitive
interest. He said more towers will be necessary in this area as the
telecommunications industry expands. American InfoAge has purchased and paid
, for land for a tower and will suffer significant damages if the application is denied.
Mr. Hubbard said staff is blurring the language of the Code. Timely action has not
been met. Mr. Hubbard said discrimination has occurred and the COB is shifting
customers to AT&T.
The meeting recessed from 4:39 to 4:50 p.m.
Discussion ensued. It was commented that the 'School Board tower provides
a reasonable alternative, which can be modified to accommodate all carriers.
Concern was expressed regarding language in the Code requiring evidence to clearly
establish one or more of the stated conditions. It was suggested that AT&T's letter
conflicts with statements made by Kevin Becker, AT&T's representative. Mr;
Becker indicated AT&T will coordinate construction of a new tower.
Member Moran moved to deny the proposed telecommunications tower as
requested by American InfoAge. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued regarding Code language relating to an existing tower that
can be modified or replaced in order to support collocation.
Upon the vote being taken, Chair Figurski and Members Moran, Petersen,
Pliska and Johnson voted "Aye"; Member Mazur voted "Nay." Motion carried 5:1.
ITEM 5 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - December 14. 1999'
,Member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of the December 14, 1999,
meeting as submitted in written summation to each Board member; The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM 6 - DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Community Development Code Review - Discussion of lVIajor Policy Issues
Mr. Stone said policy issues will be evaluated during the Code update
process. Issues have been distributed to neighborhood associations, the Clearwater
Chamber of Commerce, and the Commission'. Consensus was to schedule a
discussion at the next meeting, but take public comment today.
mcdO 1 bOO
14
01/25/00
. "
':' ',;, \.: ,J";' "I ',1;' './.',':;.,,:, ~;;;, (\ " " ',' ,1"1"/<' . ',." ,... 'j;; "'/I;," '\, ;\: ,,', ,J ::Z, ,.\~ '<1(:';f. 1.'" ~',: ,,\" I '\.' (" ':.!J, ,;;,', \, ':
.~. ,,{':' ',' ":)~:' ,',,": ',~, , :"fi': : 'I' \ ' . ,/,1",,: j "",":\', . '\" " ::t /' 'I"~ ~\ .~ 1 ~:' ,l'ti ".': '/ . :;' '\<',' .;'/;' 'I', \' ;'..S\: ,',:: ': / ,~I ';~, i-,
" ',...._.: I :'1':.. .\} ',.,:" )I;.J',~~.I:~.. .',,', 1 ':"'.~" ,1'( ',,,...'\ ' " ,.' '....' "," ,l- ~~\.. '",.J :" 't '.-\ .. ,'A: "'~., >~ ~.',~~,.';
v\ .r, ,I.", ,'..',~., ,'..,'~~. ",".I,,~'lj', ...~"', " /' ,~\", ,'.. ".",'; . ,)...1' (\ 1"'\~.Y\"'<"'f' ~':
".,,;,..:.'/'. >:,~ ':-<,:~~..:',::, '<'\:,'<" <>, :'.~,~:::"::""'. <,':':'<'>:17J.:,i,>~< I:'~S~ :;:~~:~'~~:{,' '::)'::!,\~i; (fiI'~' :>~-?r/::"/~~>\'\/'} . .l.::~
" <,l~,. + '. '0(<< '1'~\lf"~;,i""~'~~'1 ~,,'. , ',I.'" " ., ,,' I, 'L \...." 'I': ..7.\ """i .,:,!,:-..;..; "I~ '.."~L 1,;.:'/ll)",/.I'~cl/,"~I'.
" '. .',,"...... '" "..'., +. "...::......'.,..-..... \,'~ :1. "'/' J .',',:, (" > "/ r' (, ,/\,!..~.',~,.'.', ~
J I '. :. 1/, . ~ ,; .
":~,;:"r::(\ :,;,:,1.":"',
, j
, ,
Ij .C,~", ~:t.~; '.
, '
~ ' . , ~ ~ . . j ,
" I
; ,
'"' '
"
?~,,~::-};'i,.::},:. 'i :",\,';'/1' ;:: '(/;' ,';:: ." ,;;, ',: : ',}',: '
!
,\
"
," " " ,
r ;J
I.
r ','
i ~
1 ,
r :
,'.
.'
\,'<)"
t~ '
{
!:
I,
f..:
J'
One resident requested the City, standardize tree ordinances and suggested
using ~allper standards to protect trees, define historic tre'es for preservation,
protect trees during construction, and review the ordinance.' Mr. Stone said
portions of the previous tree'ordinance are not included in the new Code. Staff \/'fill
recommend 'a section to prohibit topping, etc. He said the Code includes a historical
. tree section. : City staff is .co'nferring with an arborist regarding tree measurements
reph~cement costs, etc.
~ I':
,
1 I
'. .
......
Another person spoke regarding Section F, Division 6 of the Code regarding
permitted uses.
,',
"
It was requested that staff consider changing Code language in Article 2,
item 1/3 'regarding hierarchy related to flexible standards and flexible development.
, It also was requested that the "not applicable" designation be amended as "N/A"
can mean something does not apply, or the sky is the limit! "It also was requested
. that Article 3, item # 15 regarding increasing the percentage coverage of accessory
usage from 5 to 1 0, be redefined for office uses. '
't: 1
J'.!
:j'
1".
l~' :
. '
~/
\. 'i,
,k
{~:~~~
" ,
Mr. Stone said staff received a letter from a Sand Key condominium owner
regarding the proposed change in the minimum is recommending it be changed from
2 weeks to 30 days stay in an overnight accommodation use.
"n~
1-:".
">.ti.
~oj(.
).r.
. "
. ~: ~.:~.
1 <
:;'~';:f:
i{':;'
"'I','
\t'...
, \'
:':1\1..
'"
','
'~I "';~
1 .
~.;:: I'
;,:-:y
~h.':
~'t;'
}', ",
t!~,
~ ,;. ~
~\~f~
'1Il",
(':::~
~~\ ~
Election of Officers
flif)'
t,
",~;
This item will be a~dressed at the next meeting.
ITEM 7 - ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5: 18 p.m.
:"d,
.'il':
, '
,":','
',~ ~
,..):
-!f'; .
I....
',rr,
I '.~'
,'.\
: c "
,~
ir
munity Development
'~ ,"
.....'4...'1
. ~':' :
, ,J
:' "\1
/"
..
'I'.
."\
'( .
~ " ','
,
<)
, '-
i' ::
mcd01 bOO.
15
01/25/00
I.
': ',v"
~\\. .,
~.' \
"
.1'.-,'.
\;:-'\',
'.
'i'
, , ,> ~ ,;. . " I.: ',' '.; ,L .', ' t '.', \
'. ~','. " ; ~I"."~ , ~'..:~' .' , I ..
J -j!"" . 1', .. \ I . " '. " J' ,..' , . ;: I " ,~ '. ,,"
~".' '.,'., I".. .;, ',.'.:',.,.... \"':','1 -:':",:":'-"<'),\...",'1,.""/1,, ',',....'>.... ,,f'~,,,:,,,,I::.I':..:..,;.1
" II'.'. '"..,..,l,~"\ :;',"1"",'/ ',r"",1 I{.,,,. \1 "; ',\, .,' 'I ','. II,' ",.,1, 'I" ,"', I, ... ..,,'.y.,.' Iv'" /" , .', I,
'" ..,. .,./ .., :';'."'1.>1.,' ...', '.,'....'...,:.";' I ,':,:,"1",', ,;,,,\,:,;,~",:;,:,'.'\;,,',~':i"':,,',',.;',:,;,,;.. ",',';..':"'. .::'-:~':..:." '!/,:,:":d,." '.'"....:':'.~:;,..,:'~,,'.'..;j ..c.~..
;.- " .'~/..".{" '.:'"",'':\ ',",''''':j .' .\: ',i"'\ ""'r~~"'~1 ;\'..,.,\. / ...'....'.',.. ',.' :"~;.. ;.:.' , "":,,,:,i"ffi~":"/: ,,", ',I \~' '.':'
,:";"<::" " ' ,." . " \' .': "; .~, '1;'-.1 ,,'I: ',"',;-: 'y :', ': ,'. .t: ,... ,:'.~ ',' ::"'"...:'-'~,.t"'l' . .;,:,...~<' '.: ':, ': .. ':~' ',(",. '::', .. ,\ :;. ~ .'\,\ "":'> :'1 ( /:: f:>',:"
",~ v." ')1)' ". I., V'' . I' . ",V'. . 'I ' .1'" ~ " , ' ,~...'. .",' ",'"." .." l '., . ''>'' .' ,'" I
'i"':', .'~'. "'":':'i":f:>":/,,,;,.,:,~,",",;,:;':r: ",:.:',; , ., ,I; ~': :""':' ':. ,..... ,.i',.,: < :,. '~. '.\' ,{.'. '. " : .::, ." I ".'
,. '/,
;,
I,
I> ',,'. L
FORM 88 MEMOR,ANDUM 'OF VOTING CONFI.ICT FOR
. COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTliER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
lAST NAME- HRST NAME - MIDDLE NAME
/~""" PL..I t; X 0 ./(1, , A t ~)< .'
.' "MAIl.lNG ADDRESS ,
70(p t//4~ AJ
ell V
?t.f:iAtt. t# .4 /2fY\-
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
/-2,-00
NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIl. COMMISSION. AUT HORITV. OR COMMITTEE
?O/'1;tYJtI# / rY t?E-vtil ~r 8t:'AIZt?
THE IlOARD, COUNCIl. COM MISSION, AUTHORITl' OR COM Mln EE ON
WUlCH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
~ITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER l.OC'A.I. A.Gr:NCV
COUNTY
/1./6' U. t4 ,
NA.ME Of l'OUTlCAl SUIIDIVISION:
&/,Y C/,
MV POSITION IS:
70>-
o ElECTIVE
. ,
WHO MUST FilE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, cilY, or other locallevcl of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authorilY, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presenlcd
with a voting connict of inlerest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under lhc Jaw when faced with a measure in which you have a connict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay dose Mtcnlion to the instructions on this form
before completing the reverse side and filing the form.
I \
~ :'~, ! INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH S'ECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
'!,' A person holding eleclive or appointive county. municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure
which inures to his special pri\':ue gain, Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibiled from knowingly vOling on a mC3sure
which inures to the special gain of a principal (other lhan a government agency) by whom he is retained (including the parent
organization or subsidiary of a corponlle principal by which he is retained); 10 the special private gnin of a relative; or 10 Ihe special
private gain of n business associale. Commissioners of community redevelopmenl agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357. F.S.. and
officers of independent special13x dislricts elected on a one-acre, one-Vale basis are not prohibited from vOling in that capacity,
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only lhe officer's father. mother. son. daughler, husband, wife, falherMin-law, mother-in-
law, son.in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associale" means any person or cntily engaged in or carrying on a businr.ss
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer. Coowner of properly, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the
corporation are not listed on any nalional or regional Slack exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situalions described above. you must disclose Ihe connic!:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly Slating to lhe assembly lhe nalUre of your inlereSI in the measure on
which you are abslaining from voting: and
WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for
recording the minules of the meeting. who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abslain from vOling in lhe siluations described above. you olherwise may participale in Ihese matters. However,
you must disclose the nalure of the connicl before making any attempt 10 inOuence the decision. whelher orall~' Or in writing and
whether made by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE Al'\Y ATrEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH
THE VOTE WLL BE TAKEN:
~~. You must c~mplele and file this (orm (before making any allempt 10 inOuence the decision) w1th lhe person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting, who wilHncorporate the form in the minutes.
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be (cad publicly at Ihe neXI meeting nfler the fOfm 1s filed.
CE FORM fiR. 10-91
I '4j"~ I' ,
",,' II"'. ,\\,)" J ..:.-): . ,:;( ,', I~~,. .>': ~~~ f , '. ,. J7.... ,>,';J '.... ;:', .;" \", .', "I " 'i1.~,-;....., ~ I.:/f :: 1', ~,~h/ (I, " ;,.,1 ~ j ',~ "~\.'J\l,' ," X ;. ..'. "'.' I/'/~ 1 \' ..... :/. ~,' '\! ~v ;-~", \~I~/ .:):'''\.! ,t:~... ..~~
.~, ,:::;' l"~J ,'. i~:: I~. ,.A',f. t/'.;\/ ~:.~ :.: ," . : I :", J' I j I q' / ~ .,;-\.:.....\ " :..", ','",:, ".< :/~ -::" ":.' ,; I' '., .;I~'I ~~.,:; 'r, ~,,," ~.I'( ::1,..;; /::\ ,I.:! i~ ::;~'..., '~!\'\" ," < .\. i :',(, j,\r> ~ ~,' f ,(.,>It}'~l~\ ~~ ~"~. J".\ I ~:/j,:'~:I(.:, r,~ .~'
'-,"! "', :, .,''' q ',...;' t: .......\f :,..: '~-,.' '.1'.. ~I,'.? r'~,:. ",........ 4~~ 1 "I, II,.. ,'., .r.'.... ".1,' . .'t,1 ,..\,' <" t...,'.,.... .'\O{. /,"(fl." '~" '.' ,.\'.>.: \' r,;,.. '......:1 :'" ,."
:",',',~,,_, .J (, t...,!'. ''-'jl,'' ", ~!\ .....\..0 \"/ ': '?. I I., ;)":4 '/'. J ~ ,\".,I':~/' .....1,.,). .:\,,\.: ~-"";'J ,':lll'. ~"'i "...".. (tJ\',' ','1' f.,:..t,I,..', 'J,' > 'It 1 ,
: ,: .,' t" '\ '.~ l,' ",;" ,': ...' !':,-. ;,', :':" ; ":~', '.t '\: ,,: ,'.,.' )', 'If....., : ;;Jf',:', ':'S:' \ "~ ,:' " i " ',' ,I", /,'. ' ~ ',::- ....:'~'.'..t ,:,' ,l~:,,'" '.' ~ "
"I .'.~, I,~ 1\'"'' ' r "'I'", ~ ,.~ ..;1/" \ . r/ I j.f ....\:'t", ~..".""., ./....-f " .', ~," .1'1 ~.~": ' '~. '. ,.' , '1'. " ...~t\v, .~!,: ~>, ~~.. i
. " .. ' , , ~ 'I '1, '\ ' ,~,"" .. ~, " ,.,F /'";.' 1 ,of .. . I r . > ~ I',
'.' ,..',;' 1,1".",,' ,"',,(,'/'\' ("'..'\ "N'~"'r \', ',""'. """1:..,.".... '. :;.,' ".,;)(,t,...l,\.rl,,,,,,,....':.,~.1 ,..\
~:. '/ ''"1 " " '.' J~'; I f\- / : I~ ~'~ ~ \ " \~ /; '":--:1' ,< >;'4. J~' '..J. ":':: (': ',h:, j :,:,~....\ .~~~! .:..L \ : ~:' :- r; 1,__ .: ,~:; : ':.. . ,,;...' /.......' ,'; ('<f.~ t 'l, \'..:; .. \ ~ ,I., ',l .,~ . '. ~L';
" .' " "',"I.~, ,t','",. J ,,>,~"'t,;l',~;'..',I!.. '..I.~:..'. ,,'\,.,/1,.... 'l 1: 1'.':\' \~\Ii'" ,'\' ':' ',~, ,~'.'" ,:'.,1', ",j,;'I. ::...',.oli '~,~,' '''1- '.....
",
,
~ .
" '
"
'f,,": "'-f ,.. .:~ \ ~~ 'I, c '
~ ~' '. ... .' '.'
',' ,+'
'J-
- j. ~
.'
I ' + ,
IF YOU MAKE NO A1TEMPTTO INFl.UENCE THE DECtSION EXCEPT BY DISCUSS10N ATTHE MEETING:
. Y,au must disclose orally the na~~re of your,c~nnict in the measure ~fore participating. '. ~ I,
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the ,'ote occurs with tfle person responsible (or recording {h~ minut~~ o(
, the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. ,'\ copy of the form must be pro\lided immediately to the olher
membcrs,of the agency. and the form must be'read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
, I.
'At,.6X
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OfFICER'S INTEREST
P~/.::;l4o J/l-, hereby disclose that on / - ~ G
'200"
t +9::::'_:
. .
(d~ measure came or will comt before my a~ency which (check one)
. _ inured to my special privale gain: ,
'_ inured'to the special gain of my businesr. associate. ,
__ inured (0 the special gain or my relalive,
_ inured 10 the special gain of
whom J am retained: or
_ inured to the special gain or
is the parent organi7;ltion or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure bero.c my agency nnd lhe nature of my conniclil1g interest in lhe measure is as follows:
, by
. which
C~7G' " PI... 99-/r-,zt - jor I. GI-Oor<APO [}I2-1 Lltr
,owt.l~/Af; L. Jc..~ "-.f/' . I CP11'( Lo II ~ t..- 7".4 CII--r- c./Y't? '
'/- 2~
-
2 () CO
.~~
" Signature .p
DalC Filed
~iMU')-
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES gI12.)17 (/991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED
DtSCLOSU RE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:
IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN
SALARY. REPRIMAND. OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOTTO EXCEED S5.000. '
,': ~r.:'~f I , I" ')I...... I' (, . 'Of' ." 4 ~r." '\. }'" .' ,....': 'I. '.' \ I", "' , ',"" \ ,.t or 4 I l' I '. i" .
"'i..."" .'" ~":"I"I""I' -(,,/" I', ". "',.',.,,'\.1'''1'''' ""," :'.';',;,., :".;, .\ ~:, 'I' 'f: ,,\"")"V '..',': './", V"'l ..:, \"J,.. "iI" 'I
,'I.....' ,:.' :'~1,/"'\~'1 ~,r, ,:' ',~, ,,'j".I.:\ .: ''1.' : 't 'd. ',\.' . \ .~I., ,:"...~ :'"'1',, ",' .,', .'...."11~ "~', ......" :;,,;~: ",', ......",.+....tl::' ::...:~~i:...' .
',Iii "1/..." .~, ,:'t'"' ,,'.!,~'r: ,I:,. ( " \ '. ',', 'ff' , y.' \... '......' ',(. -,' : '.:' ",',:1...- \ /.,;~,; ::, '( \'. \', I~:.... " ,'^', \ \)/,:~" ,~,' ,; ';, '.' ,!",}:,\, ' '.~ " " ;:,'.: :..'0., i,' ','\ '"',/,, '/"
,:r ."~.:'.. ,I .' . ,...,. "". .' ~ "" '~. ( I' ~ ) ',: 4 i ,.:. ,~.~-\ :"~ ;......~. i .,:/ ,1; , ",'.o" I'>: .) I,.. ' "~"I~', A ,~"" :' ,~' ';';';~'.. ' ~~ .',:,' -~i' ; ..............:. ~\:!, J :.': "." I~~ ':;:: ':' 1 ~. :.~. .\ 'I,,,,; I. ~. , . I >".,. :~:.. \ , i',';:. i I ,'; .,~,
...' ~" /"', j ',1 \ ...' ',', "",,'1,, ""',:" t "J ", \, " I ',;' . " I' ,", ""'" i'
..".t"";tC~ ,~ 't'I\:,','...\.,~'.~,\.i'.',~\~4~'~ '...,1.1.:',.',''.-.." \ ':' '..../l ~~ ',':.:.;':,.' '~~~ '~" '~;'>~:'\:..J:'~ '!~t:_'. :>", ,.~: .,11':"'l.,~I'.~'o
L'e~~I' .4'" '\. '1 I.'l ..:.. \,' ,\. ,,'/1 '. ',. . .,'~ lit' I <,', ,0, 'i".... .1', ,...' ,II" J}' ~I'
, :. .'I::~',- ,\ . I,' ',",I":~""'. '( ;':1 l. \ ,.', ,4 '.' t'.'~ ,.'l.'.~1 .'f~~.i/~. I ...1t." ~,'",\ ", '".',''' 1,'.1 '.. ....;....'~