08/10/1995 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 meeting 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.
Robert Kersteen, representing the applicant, compared this request to the existing 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 Morzenti, 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.
It was indicated one letter 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 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 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.
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 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, Blk. 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 blockface. He noted Environmental Management staff requested a landscape plan prior to issuance of any building permits.
They also suggested increasing the landscaping buffer along the west property line to three 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 porch and the tin roof will remain.
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 furnished by the applicant, Member Johnson moved to grant #1 for a variance of 2 feet to permit 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 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 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 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 Schwob, 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 Schwob 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.
Concern 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.
Chair