10/24/1996DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 24, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwob
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Ron Stuart
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1:01 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. 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.
B. Continued Variance Requests
B1. (cont. from 10/10/96) Lawrence H. Dimmitt, II for variances of: (1) a setback variance of 17 ft to allow a swimming pool without a screen enclosure 8 ft from Bruce Ave right-of-way
where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required; (2) a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow a 6 ft height masonry wall within the setback area from the Bay Esplanade right-of-way where a
maximum height of 2.5 ft is allowed; (3) a landscape buffer variance of 3 ft to allow a zero ft wide landscape buffer strip where a minimum of 3 ft is required; and (4) a landscape variance
of 50 percent to waive the planting requirement for shrubs along 50 percent of the exterior length of a wall at 1015 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub, Blk 273, Lot 6 and part of Lot 5, zoned
RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-64
This case was continued from October 10, 1996, at the applicant’s request. In a letter submitted October 23, 1996, architect Alex Plisko requested a continuance to the meeting of December
12, 1996 to prepare a revised site plan. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Schwob moved to continue Item B1, VR 96-64, to the meeting of December 12, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. John & Sandra S. Ladd for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the St. Thomas Dr. right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is
allowed at 1529 S. Fredrica Ave, Brookhill Unit Two, Blk C, Lot 13, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-68
The applicant requested a continuance to allow this request to be heard in conjunction with a similar request scheduled for November 14, 1996. No verbal or written support or opposition
was expressed. One member encouraged the board to view the application personally.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item C1, VR 96-68, to the meeting of November 14, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. Kenyon Dodge, Inc, for the following variances: (1) 50 ft to allow an antenna a height of 100 ft where 50 ft is allowed; and (2) a height variance of 2 ft to allow a chain link
fence 8 ft in height where a maximum height of 6 ft is allowed at 19660 US 19 N, Sec 19-29-16, M&B's 11.05, 11.06, 11.061, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). VR 96-63
In a letter dated October 23, 1996, applicant’s representative Heidi Amato withdrew the request. She asked for City assistance to identify a location that may have less impact to the
City. No action was taken.
C3. William & Hope Georgilas for the following variances: (1) a height variance of 62 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 112 ft high where a maximum height of 50 ft is permitted;
(2) a setback variance of 25 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 31 ft from the north side property line where a minimum setback of 56 ft is required; and (3) a setback variance of
47.75 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 8.25 ft from the rear property line where a minimum setback of 56 ft is required at 505 Virginia Lane, Sec 13-29-15, M&B 32.05, zoned CG
(General Commercial). VR 96-69
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides reviewed the Federal Telecommunication Act of 1996, regarding tower siting requirements. She said applications must be heard within a reasonable
time, must have a written record of the proceedings, and written findings submitted. The act prohibits denial based on the perception of radio frequency emissions. She requested the
board clearly state the grounds for approval or denial in the motion and to direct the City Attorney’s office to prepare written findings. The findings and transcript will be brought
to the next board meeting, for approval.
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He detailed setback height requirements, stating the request does not appear to meet standards for approval
#1, #2, or #4. He said no special circumstances exist regarding the proposed location; the property owner currently enjoys reasonable use of the land without the tower; and the request
is not in harmony with the surroundings. Mr. Richter stated the City is sensitive to the intent of the telecommunication act, to remove barriers and promote competition. The City encourages
colocation on an existing tower on Clearwater High School property, because it is felt one tower is preferable to two. This suggestion has met with resistance from the Pinellas County
School Board. As the request does not meet the standards for approval, staff recommended denial.
In response to questions, Mr. Richter said staff felt another location could be found that is more sensitive to the impact on residential properties. Staff is concerned with the School
Board’s resistance to colocate. The City Commission is sensitive to the boom in the telecommunications industry. The City has formed a telecommunication act task force to study the
implications of deregulation and increased competition. In most City zoning districts, a utility facility is a conditional use requiring Planning and Zoning Board approval.
Robert Kersteen, GTE Mobilnet representative, reviewed the history of the search for a tower site. He stated GTE was willing to bear a fair share of the cost to reinforce and renovate
the existing AT&T tower to facilitate colocation, and was disappointed with the School Board’s stance they want no more carriers on their property.
Mr. Kersteen explained the reasons for choosing the subject property on which to locate a tower. He described cellular technology, stating the low frequency, line of sight coverage
must be provided where the demand exists. Television and FM radio carriers are able to locate antennas in remote locations, but Cellular technology cannot. He explained the additional
coverage is needed to enhance City government telecommunication services. He outlined the surroundings, proximity to power lines, and tower safety concerns. He offered examples of
tower performance under disaster conditions. He detailed the locations and heights of seven other towers in proximity to this site, some more than 100 feet tall. He said Belcher Road
is lined with 70 to 80 foot towers in proximity to residential areas. He submitted photographs of existing towers, comparing their design to the proposal. He said people seldom complain
or notice telecommunication towers, because the towers seem to blend into the surroundings. Mr. Kersteen responded to questions regarding recent media reports of two towers it was thought
had been in danger of falling.
Thomas A. Giacomo, representing GTE Wireless Communications, outlined his credentials and experience as a certified radio design engineer. He circulated a copy of an FCC fact sheet
explaining antenna requirements and new information obtained since the Telecommunication Act of 1996. He profiled frequency and safety guidelines. Summarizing the reasons wireless
providers require so many antennas, he said the FCC has allocated only 395 voice channels for GTE’s more than 100,000 customers. During times of heavy use, GTE has to reuse the same
channels repeatedly within smaller areas. Service is provided for car phones, portable units and other services, wireless computer networking, Internet access and the Tele-go program
for residential exchange service. Displaying service coverage maps, he showed the lack of coverage and weak signal along State Road 60, due to the rolling terrain, and how a tower in
the proposed location will boost service to the City of Clearwater Police and Fire Departments, and families. He submitted copies of articles showing how 911 emergency calls and disaster
relief would not have been possible without cellular service to enhance public safety and well being in those areas. He related stories how cellular service has been beneficial in helping
people during emergency situations.
Robert Hardee, GTE site acquisition manager explained attempts to find an existing location high enough to provide needed service. He said AT&T has no problems colocating, but the
School Board will not allow it, possibly because of concerns from the school and parents about possible harmful emissions.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the School Board is bound by local zoning ordinances. Mr. Hardee suggested asking the City to pursue the tower siting issue with the School Board.
He stated he looked at many potential locations and affirmed the Georgilas property was his second choice. Not many properties with sufficient setbacks exist where landlords are willing
to locate towers for the small amount of return provided.
Discussion continued regarding tower photographs, coverage diagrams, and existing tower locations and height requirements. Mr. Richter responded to questions regarding the lot size
needed to avoid having to get setback variances. He noted height a variance would still be needed in this zoning district. Discussion ensued regarding existing tower and antenna designs.
Three letters and a petition with 38 signatures were submitted in opposition to the request. Concerns were expressed with exceeding the height requirement, appearance of a telecommunication
tower and negative impact on surrounding residential property values. One member submitted copies of two articles related to the issue.
Messrs. Kersteen and Giacomo related testimonials how telecommunication towers seem to become part of the landscape and residents do not notice them. One member stated telecommunication
carriers should work together to construct common towers. Mr. Kersteen stated volunteering information regarding siting towers is considered collusion and is prohibited under the Federal
Trade Act. Each carrier must do its research where tower locations are proposed. In response to a question regarding the likelihood of four more carriers coming forward with tower
proposals, Mr. Giacomo discussed the differences in technology, coverage, equipment, and types of services among carriers. He estimated two or three 50 foot towers would be needed to
provide the same coverage as one 100 foot tower at the preferred location.
The Chair called a recess from 2:30 to 2:41 p.m. to allow the applicants an opportunity to review the letters in opposition.
Mr. Kersteen said the surrounding properties are commercial, not residential, and telecommunication towers have not been shown to negatively impact property values. In summary, he
said they are constrained by the FCC assigned frequency and the need to find appropriate sites where the traffic is. He addressed the narrow commercial zoning district along Gulf to
Bay Boulevard, stating it is impossible to get a buffer around a commercial site that is buffered by other commercial. He detailed at length how other sites exist in harmony with surrounding
single family residential uses in many areas throughout the state. He noted high priced homes are frequently built near towers or antenna farms. If a telecommunication facility had
ever disturbed a neighborhood, he said the media would make a big deal of it. He contrasted the proposal with photographs of a typical residential street with above ground utilities.
One member noted it appears federal law has addressed and endorsed the need for mobile telephone services A question was raised if topography is a special circumstance that could be
considered grounds for approving a 100 foot antenna tower. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded by reiterating the law does not prohibit the local zoning authority from regulating site and placement,
but does require evidence to support the decision. She affirmed the code mentions shape and topography as special circumstances. One member questioned the applicants’ assertion the
request is not for financial gain, and noted no one appeared to speak in opposition. One member stated he uses wireless technology for business and personal reasons and strongly encouraged
the City to work with the School Board to allow another antenna on the Clearwater High School property. He felt many local residents would benefit from enhanced service.
In response to a question, Mr. Kersteen reiterated AT&T and GTE would bear all costs associated with replacing the existing tower with a more substantial tower. No costs would be incurred
by the School Board.
The Chair cautioned board members to base their decision on the four standards for approval, regardless of what happens with the School Board property. He questioned if a
continuance to pursue the School Board location would violate the requirement for a timely decision. Ms. Dougall-Sides advised asking the applicants if they want to request a continuance,
taking into account the fact the law says the decision must be timely.
One member expressed concern he did not support the variances as presented, but felt denial will just postpone the issue. He felt political pressure on the School Board is needed.
Another member agreed, stating the pressure should be between elected officials. In response to a question, Mr. Kersteen did not object to a continuance, and suggested a condition
the applicants must appear before the school board to get their decision in writing. Consensus was board members agreed with the importance of getting this issue before the School Board.
Discussion ensued regarding a realistic time frame. Ms. Dougall-Sides said taking the issue before the School Board will likely require more than the three weeks and suggested a continuance
to the board’s second meeting on December 12, 1996.
Member Johnson moved to continue Item C3, VR 96-69, to December 12, 1996, to enable the applicant to contact the City Commissioners and/or the Mayor and/or the City Manager to further
explore the possibility of any additional action, with such action to be reported to the Development Code Adjustment Board at their regular meeting of December 12, 1996. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said written findings are not required for continuances. General discussion ensued regarding how the board can communicate its recommendation
through staff to the City Commission and the City Manager. Mr. Richter will convey the information through Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford.
Member Johnson left the meeting at 3:08 p.m.
Minutes Approval - October 10, 1996
Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
Brief discussion ensued regarding the possible need to reschedule some meetings during City Hall renovations. Consensus was to approve the board’s 1997 meeting schedule as submitted.
Member Schwob commented on the minimal visual impact of telecommunication towers and above ground utility wires. He pointed to several large, expensive houses built under large power
lines near Soule Road.
In response to a question from Mr. Gans, it was indicated the public is not automatically notified of continuances. Readvertising is required if the public hearing occurs more than
45 days from the originally advertised meeting date.
Member Schwob questioned the presence of an oversized dumpster along Virginia Lane on the drive-in Walgreens property. Staff will review the certified site plan to ensure correct dumpster
placement.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Chair
Development Code Adjustment Board
Attest:
Board Reporter