06/13/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
June 13, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
Absent:
Roberle Pratt, resigned
Board Member
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process.
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
A. Time Extension Request
A1. Pelican Oil Corporation (Amoco Service Station) for variances of (1) 43 ft to permit a new canopy supports 132 ft from the center line of the right-of-way of US 19 where 175 ft is
required; (2) 2 ft to permit a new canopy supports 33 ft from street right-of-way from which the property is not addressed from where 35 ft is required; and (3) 29% to permit front yard
open space of 21% where 50% is required at 18698 US 19 North, Sec 19-28-16, M&B 41.12, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). VR 95-59
In a letter dated May 13, 1996, the property owner requested a six month time extension as he is waiting to receive DOT and SWFWMD permits. He will pull the building permit within
the required time frame if the necessary approvals are received in time.
Member Schwob moved to approve a six month time extension to November 30, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
B. Continued Variance Requests
B1. (Cont. from 5/9/96) John G. Powell/PPS Interests (Computer City) for variances of (1) 5 percent to allow 20 percent open space for the lot where 25 percent is required; (2) 20 percent
to allow 30 percent front yard open space where 50 percent is required; and (3) 6 parking spaces to permit 84 parking spaces where 90 spaces are required at 25000 US 19 N, Sec. 31-28-16,
M&B 44.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). VR 96-32
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to demolish a small shopping center and build a new 18,000 Computer City
store. He explained the open space and parking requirements for this proposal, stating staff feels a new development should start with a clean slate. No compelling reasons
appear to support the proposed reduction in parking or open space. Staff recommended denial as the application does not appear to comply with the standards for approval.
Todd Pressman, representing the applicant, outlined the reasons he felt the variances should be approved. He explained in detail how properties to the north and south constrain development
of this site, each of the requested variances improves what exists currently, and City Traffic Engineering and Environmental departments have reviewed and expressed no opposition. Mr.
Pressman explained the store will provide state of the art support for individual retail computer users of big ticket items. Developers have worked with staff to reduce the area to 18,000
square feet. He did not feel parking would be a problem, based on experience with their 21,000 square foot Tampa store, which provides 84 parking spaces. One member verified he has
not experienced parking problems when doing business at the Tampa store.
Mr. Pressman reported severe site constraints, detailing problems with drainage and retention from other properties, a court mandated reduction of ingress and egress, restricted delivery
truck access, and location of driveways in relation to US 19. He circulated and/or distributed copies of the following documents: 1) photographs of the existing building, parking lot
and restricted ingress/egress, 2) the court settlement document related to the driveway reduction, 3) site data calculations, 4) three site plans detailing non-historical drainage, parking,
traffic circulation and landscaping, 5) a proposed merchandising/floor plan, and 6) a letter from Ron Phillips, Traffic Engineer with Tampa Public Works, reporting no parking problems
at the Tampa store.
Discussion ensued regarding how the proposal will meet or exceed landscaping requirements, a comparison of Clearwater and Tampa parking calculations, and the possibility of increasing
the number of parking spaces by covering the retention area. Mr. Pressman said the engineers have been very specific that driveways and drain fields may not be moved and covering retention
reduces open space. Board members continued to express concern the proposal overbuilds the site and urged consideration of further floor space reduction, or pursuit of a different site.
Four persons from Hillcrest Villas Condominiums spoke in support of the application: 1) Denis Kleinrichert, unit owner and Secretary of the Board of Directors; 2) Celeste Spaldi, Manager;
3) William Arlia, Vice President of the condominium association, and 4) Mary Kleinrichert, resident. They strongly urged approval, detailing the impact they have endured from different
types of businesses in the strip center, especially bars. Problems were reported with neighborhood devaluation, public safety, rapid business turnover, restaurant drainage flowing onto
condominium property, beer delivery trucks and overflow parking. As the existing center is largely vacant and deteriorating, they felt the proposed store will be a vast improvement and
a good neighbor.
A letter from Virginia Fogarty, President of the Board of Directors, Hillcrest Villas Condominium Association, was submitted in support of the application. No verbal or written opposition
was expressed.
Discussion continued regarding open space, parking, drainage and retention reconfiguration, the court ordered driveway reduction and conditions in the surrounding community. In response
to questions, Mr. Richter stated most of the properties developed along US 19 since the current code went into effect 11 years ago are likely to meet open space and setback requirements.
Mr.
Pressman said the site plan has passed the Development Review Committee subject to the necessary board and agency approvals. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed a copy of the court settlement
related to the driveway reduction, stating it is unlikely to be modified.
While most members supported a parking variance and felt the proposal to be a good solution to a long standing problem, concerns were expressed with the requested amount of open space
reduction. The applicant was urged to explore alternatives to increase open space.
Kevin Scherer, Engineer for the applicant, responded to questions regarding drainage configuration. He said Florida Power will grant parking easements, but they do not allow excavation
for retention. He has wrestled with retention alternatives for six weeks. He noted the proposal will pick up stormwater runoff from the Hillcrest Villas Condominiums, alleviating a
flooding condition on that site, which was another reason they support the request. Mr. Arlia verified this was his understanding.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item B1 to the meeting of June 27, 1996, to allow the applicant to work with staff toward reducing the open space variances. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Mr. Richter said two weeks is not enough time to revise the site plan and prepare a written staff report for inclusion in the board packets. He will work with
Mr. Pressman regarding the number of revised site plan copies needed for distribution at the next meeting.
B2. (Cont. from 4/25 & 5/23/96) James E. & Jeanne B. Wagner for a separation distance variance of 11 ft to permit an adult care living facility to be located 1189 ft from an existing
Level 1 Group Care where 1200 ft is required at 2345 Nursery Rd, Pinellas Groves Sub, SW ¼, a portion of Lot 19, lying in Sec 19-29-16, zoned RS 6 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-24
In a letter dated June 12, 1996, applicant Judith Beezhold requested a continuance to allow time to decide whether she wishes to pursue this request, in light of another pending ACLF
to the east of the Wagner residence.
The board recognized the chain of circumstances had become extremely complicated and questioned the feelings of those present to speak in opposition.
Deborah Kines, attorney representing the opposition, stated they do not object to a continuance, but most of her clients are on vacation during the summer months. If the board approves
a continuance, she requested postponing the hearing until September 12, to allow time for her clients to return.
Member Johnson moved to Item B2 to September 12, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. James K. Higgins, Trustee of James K. Higgins Family Trust and Clarence A. Johnson, II (Amoco Service Station) for variances of (1) 3.48 acres to permit a minimum lot area of 0.52
acres where 4 acres is required; (2) 150 ft to permit a minimum lot width of 150 ft where 300 ft is required; (3) 150 ft to permit a minimum lot depth of 150 ft where 300 ft is required;
(4) 57.83 ft to permit a canopy 17.17 ft from Highland Avenue where 75 ft is
required; (5) 4 ft to permit a canopy 71 ft from Greenlea Drive where 75 ft is required; and (6) 5.33 ft to permit the fascia of a freestanding canopy 4.67 ft from Highland Avenue where
10 ft is required at 1801 North Highland Avenue, Sec 02-29-15, M&B 31.06, zoned CC (Commercial Center). VR 96-42
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to replace the pump island canopy of an existing service station. Staff
felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions.
James LaRussa, attorney, and Mr. Hinman, the contractor, presented the request. In response to a question, Mr. LaRussa said the proposal is concerned with nothing but the canopy, in
accordance with the drawing submitted. He said Amoco has developed a slightly larger canopy recently to protect customers from the weather. One member noted the extended canopy provides
opportunity for additional signage.
Richard VanPeer, the business owner, said he has been a dealer at this location since 1980. He gave a brief history of his business, stating the canopy is needed if he is to remain
competitive. In response to a question, he said Amoco pays for all improvements. Board members complimented the appearance of his establishment.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Schwob moved to grant the variances 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other
documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done
with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained
within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) Sign permits shall be procured in advance of the placement of any signs on the canopy. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
C2. George L. Mallory, TRE (Edgewater Investments/Realty) for variances of (1) 60 ft in height to allow an antenna a height of 120 ft where 60 ft is allowed; (2) 54.83 ft to allow an
antenna 5.17 ft from the side property line where 60 ft is required (east property line); (3) 51.5 ft to allow an antenna 8.5 ft from the side property line where 60 ft is required (west
property line); (4) 56.33 ft to allow an antenna 3.67 ft from the rear property line where 60 ft is required; (5) 17.67 ft to allow an antenna 42.3 ft from a street right-of-way line
where 60 ft is required; (6) 18,482.4 sq ft to permit a minimum lot area of 1,517.6 sq ft where 20,000 sq ft is required; (7) 67.4 ft to allow a minimum lot width of 32.6 ft where 100
ft is required; (8) 49 ft to allow a minimum lot depth of 51 ft where 100 ft is required; and (9) 3.5 ft to permit a fence height of 6 ft from a street right-of-way where 2.5 ft is allowed
at 1375 South Ft Harrison Avenue, Town of Belleair, Blk 16, a portion of Lot 7, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). VR 96-44
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He stated the applicant wishes to construct a monopole telecommunication tower with an antenna having
an overall height of 120 feet. He noted the site is very small, restricting any opportunity to comply with setbacks. He said the fence height is needed for security, the tower will
enhance service to the
community and will not appreciably affect the appearance of the neighborhood. He noted no buildings of sufficient height to support the antenna are located within 1/4 mile of where
the need exists. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions.
Ms. Dougall-Sides gave an overview of the power of local government to regulate placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities. She listed restrictions and
requirements in case of denial.
Mr. Richter responded to questions, stating the City’s discouragement of additional towers does not create a monopoly, because the City strongly encourages co-location of telecommunication
equipment by other companies on the same tower. Ms. Dougall-Sides pointed out the ramifications of franchising and fees for different types of facilities are under review by the City
Manager and City Commission. She encouraged the board to limit their consideration to examination of the variance criteria.
George Mallory, the owner/applicant, stated he has explained the proposal to approximately 25 surrounding property owners within the past three weeks. He submitted photographs depicting
conditions on the subject and surrounding properties, explaining the visual and financial impacts will be minimal or nonexistent. He compared the one watt of radiation from the antenna
to the five watts generated by household portable telephones. He said the tower will be approximately four feet in diameter at the base, and designed to withstand hurricane force winds
similar to those experienced during Hurricane Andrew. He was happy to meet the conditions as proposed by staff.
Stacy Frank, attorney representing AT&T, agreed with Mr. Mallory’s presentation. With the use of visual aids, she explained the system works on a honeycomb type configuration of “cells”
that transfer the signals on a demand basis. Each cell can handle only a certain number of calls. The proposed antenna must be within about 1/4 mile of existing cells to meet the current
demand in this area. As signal demand increases, she said more cells and more antennas will be needed and will be closer together. She explained this offers the advantage of being
able to make the antennas shorter in height. Ms. Frank said they try to place antennas on tall buildings when any are located within the needed service area, because they are not in
the business of building poles, but providing telecommunication service. While the business is competitive, she said the industry recognizes the need to cooperate and joint location
of facilities is common. Each pole has the capacity to handle three carriers.
Mr. Mallory indicated 21 of the business owners he contacted signed a letter in support of the application. He read the form letter and submitted the signed copies for the record.
Letters with approximately 25 additional signatures were received in the City Clerk Department prior to the hearing and brought to the attention of the board. Mr. Richter said the
majority of the signatures appear related to business rather than residential owners. No verbal support was expressed.
Two persons spoke in opposition to the request. 1) Bob Snibbe, local realtor, requested postponing approval until his sale of the property across the street is consummated. In response
to a question, he said it has been on the market three or four years and did not know how much longer it will take to sell. 2) Patrick Sheppard objected to the height and visual impact
of the tower on the beautiful surroundings, and proximity within 40 feet of heavily traveled Fort Harrison Avenue. He felt it will be detrimental to the value of a property at 521 D Street
in which he has interest and encouraged the applicant to find a more industrial location.
Ms. Frank responded to the opposition, stating the tower will be heavily buffered at ground level to reduce the visual impact. It will replace an unattractive existing utility pole.
She pointed out the zoning and nature of the site are suited to this use. The antenna will facilitate 911 and local government service. She did not feel granting this request will
lead to a proliferation of towers, because antennas are located primarily on buildings. Mr. Mallory gave a brief history of the site and its surroundings, stating he felt the tower will
be like a monument beautiful. He said he went over the proposal in detail with respected neighborhood advocate Lois Cormier, who indicated she had no concerns whatsoever. Mrs. Cormier
was in the audience but did not speak to the request.
Board members felt a telecommunication tower was a very efficient use of this particular property. It was indicated the proposal has the support of the majority of those in the vicinity.
Member Schwob moved to grant the variances 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) These variances are based on the variance application and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other
documents submitted in support of the applicant's variance request. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the variance request regarding the work to be done
with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in these variances being null and of no effect; 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained
within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) The base of the tower shall be screened from public view with landscaping approved by the City Environmental Official; and 4)
Every reasonable effort shall be made by all parties to co-locate other telecommunication facilities on this tower. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. Land Development Code Amendments
D1. Ordinance 6028-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code, amending Section 45.23, Code of Ordinances to exclude City owned property from eligibility
for minor variance consideration and to exclude any property from eligibility for minor variance consideration where variances are granted in excess of specified limits; to allow minor
variances for freestanding sign setback up to five feet; providing an effective date.
Mr. Richter presented background information stating he and Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford prepared this ordinance at the request of the Development Code Adjustment Board.
Staff recommends endorsement. Brief discussion ensued and the board thanked Mr. Richter for handling this request so expeditiously.
Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 6028-96 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Minutes Approval -- May 23, 1996
Staff corrected the last sentence in the paragraph at the bottom of page 5, to indicate the motion to grant variance #1 (Cowley, VR 96-37) was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes corrected by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
Mr. Gans announced a letter of resignation has been received from Member Pratt. He thanked members for their support during his extended illness, stating he was very glad to return
to board service.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:22 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter