Loading...
11/13/1997DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER November 13, 1997 Present: Otto Gans Chair William Schwob Vice Chair William Johnson Board Member Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney John Richter Senior Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, meeting procedures and explanation of the appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items B1. (cont. from 10/09 & 10/23/97) David Little for parking space variances to allow fewer parking spaces than the required at 333 South Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd-White Skinner Sub, Lot 67, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 97-43 The parking variance was continued from October 9 due to a tie vote and from October 23 at the applicant’s request. Applicant’s representative, attorney Harry Cline, requested deferral of this item until after Item C1, below, to allow time for presenters to arrive. Attorney Ed Armstrong, representing the opposition, requested the Chair to allow equal amounts of time for the applicant’s presentation and opposing arguments. Ms. Dougall-Sides concurred the board’s rules require equal time limits for both sides. She requested incorporation of testimony, exhibits, and minutes from the previous hearings into today’s record. Mr. Richter summarized background information and written staff recommendations regarding the proposal to locate a restaurant on the second floor, construct a 272 square foot bridge and stair-lift on the south side of the building, and reallocate ground floor retail space. The parking variances, eight factors supporting approval, and staff’s recommended conditions of approval were discussed. In response to questions, it was indicated Traffic Engineering would be unlikely to allow a passenger drop-off area that blocked the driveway, sidewalk, and South Gulfview Boulevard traffic while the drop-off was occurring. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated it is impossible to provide any parking on the site. He submitted for the record the résumé and credentials of an expert witness, land planner Richard Dutter. While encouraging board members to take the résumé into account, Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the board has no rules of procedure requiring qualification of witnesses. She cited a Florida Statute, stating that board members are not required to decide whether witnesses are qualified. Richard K. Dutter, AICP, King Engineering, detailed his credentials and experience in the planning and zoning field. He stated it is necessary for the board to evaluate all criteria to sustain their charge of ensuring all standards for approval are met. Maps, charts, drawings, and statistical data were displayed for illustration. He spoke at length regarding how the applicant’s proposal meets each of the standards for approval, furthers the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with recommendations from the Clearwater Blue Ribbon Task Force, Planning and Zoning Board, and City administrative staff. Discussion ensued regarding a study of peak usage times in the adjacent public parking lot. Upon cross examination by Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Dutter responded adherence to design theme, architectural style, and pedestrian orientation are not part of the standards for approval, but such factors are relevant to Clearwater beach. Discussion ensued regarding other similar variance requests, whether the proposal was for economic gain, and lack of a formal design theme for Clearwater beach. Mr. Dutter stated his professional opinion, based on years of experience, the proposal would have no quantitative affect on the surrounding properties. Discussion ensued regarding vehicular access to the subject and adjacent lots. Mr. Cline did not wish to redirect. David Little, the owner/applicant, thanked staff for their support of his parking variance request. He addressed comments during the previous hearing about the potential impact on adjacent property, and read from a prepared statement regarding history of property and uses in the general vicinity. He has supported the adjacent property owner’s improvements through the years, and tried unsuccessfully to contact her regarding this issue. He felt the proposed café would benefit surrounding hotel uses and have much less impact than the former real estate office use. He did not feel fears that overflow parking would occur on the adjacent lot were valid, as the lot is barricaded and vehicles parking there by mistake are towed. He noted peak use of the public lot is about 3:00 p.m., whereas restaurant business is more active during evening hours. He submitted an aerial depiction of the beach area containing the subject property, and detailed the reasons he invested in the property. He stated the proposal is the best and most reasonable use, and will be good for the property, neighborhood, and City. In response to questions, Mr. Dutter reiterated details of charts illustrating the amount of parking available in the vicinity at various times. He indicated he could submit the materials for the record if required. David Little responded to cross examination by Mr. Armstrong regarding previous testimony on amount of available parking at various points in the history of site use; comparison to nearby Julie’s restaurant regarding parking, number of uses, square footage, lot size, and business operation. Responding to Mr. Armstrong’s assertion that the proposed use would be three times the size of Julie’s, Mr. Little stated his property is three times larger than Julie’s. Summarizing the testimony, Mr. Cline stated the standards for approval are met and the use is inherently reasonable. Two persons spoke in support of the proposal, expressing praise for: 1) the subject property’s aesthetic improvements; 2) use of the design theme recommended and widely accepted for the tourist oriented area; 3) creation of another restaurant to serve the two nearby hotels without restaurants; 4) Mr. Little’s vision in pioneering improvements similar to what was begun in Ft. Lauderdale ten years ago. In response to questions, it was indicated the public lot always more parking available at 6:00 p.m. than at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Armstrong introduced expert witness, urban planner Cynthia Hardin. Concerns were expressed with exceeding time limits for rebuttal and cross examination. Cynthia Hardin, AICP, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, distributed copies of her résumé detailing her credentials and experience as a practicing planner. She responded at length to questions from Mr. Armstrong regarding non-conformity of the subject property, variances having allowed incremental improvements resulting in overbuilding, and assessment of impact on surrounding properties. She indicated the proposal does not meet the standards for approval as no special circumstances exist that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity, the property has no remaining historical significance, denial would not deprive the applicant of reasonable use because he already conducts multiple uses on the property, the request is based on economic gain, the proposal is not in harmony with the Land Development Code, or Comprehensive Plan as it could be materially injurious to surroundings or public welfare. She indicated the lack of parking will negatively impact neighboring properties because it will increase the need for barricades and towing. She stated the board does not have the authority under the current code to approve off-site or shared parking agreements. She said multiple reasons exist why patrons might not want to walk the distance to the restaurant, and did not agree that a restaurant could be viable. In her opinion, granting variances to allow a restaurant with mixed uses and no parking provision would set a precedent and open the City to more such requests. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides interpreted the word “use” in the second standard for approval to mean use of the land or buildings in general, and could favor multiple uses on a property. Mr. Armstrong reiterated the applicant has been deprived of nothing. In summary, Mr. Cline stated the restaurant use is justified, consistent with the high density resort zoning, meets the standards for approval, and supports the spirit and intent of the Code. He did not agree with the oppositions’ square footage calculations. He noted Ms. Hardin is from Tampa and may not be familiar with the local neighborhood. Board discussion ensued. One member agreed a restaurant at this location will work without additional parking. One member did not see any reason to think the proposal will negatively impact adjacent properties. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the board does not have an interpretation of what constitutes reasonable use. In the absence of case law, she encouraged the board to interpret the issue to the best of their ability. She stated the language does not specify whether “reasonable use” applies to existing or proposed use. One member did not support the proposal due to the adjacent property owner’s objection, and felt the applicant currently has adequate reasonable use. One member expressed concerns a natural economic evolution exists for beach and other City properties that is not reflected in the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. He felt it is a disservice to property owners, board members, and the community that there is not a clear means by which to guide beach property owners and enable decisions with a common goal in mind. He supported the proposal primarily because it will resolve an unsafe back-out parking situation, as stated in correspondence from Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford. One member expressed concerns that hardship and other specific language regarding grounds for variance approval were eliminated from the Code, leaving four non-specific general standards for approval. While concerned that development on south Clearwater beach has progressed without adequate attention to standards, he decided to support the request because he was impressed by staff’s characterization of the issue, and felt it important to vote for progress. Member Johnson 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, 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 one year from the date of this public hearing. 3) Prior to approval of the final inspection, the paved parking spaces in front of the porch and the pavement in front of the proposed stair-lift shall be removed and replaced with dense landscaping. “Dense landscaping shall consist of shrubs and palm trees that, at maturity, will completely fill this area. Selection and specifications for plant materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Official prior to installation. The plants shall be maintained in a healthy condition; failure to do so shall void this variance approval. The applicant shall work with City Traffic Engineering staff to provide adequate sidewalk configuration in front of the property; and 4) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central Permitting staff to review tropical seascape design criteria proposed for Clearwater beach. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gans, Schwob, Johnson, and Jonnatti voted “Aye;” Member Stuart voted “Nay.” Motion carried. C. New Variance Requests C1. Wesley C. & Myrna L. Curve for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the Timbercrest Circle East right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is required at 2361 Millwood Lane, Woodgate of Countryside, Unit 1, Lot 193, zoned RS 8 (Residential Single Family). V 97-68 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to place a six foot high wood fence on the west side of the single family home. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Richter stated it appears similar nonconforming fences in the vicinity are grandfathered. Myrna Curve, the owner/applicant, stated she wishes to replace a five foot chain link fence built in 1974. The old chain fencing has been removed. Board members praised the home’s attractive landscaping. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is 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 this variance 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 property owner shall, within 30 days after installation of the fence, plant a landscaping buffer outside the fence parallel to the Timbercrest Circle East right-of-way. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18 inches in height at the time of planting. The plants shall form a continuous, solid screen at maturity. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City’s Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variances. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 3:45 to 4:01 p.m. C2. John L. & Pamela A. Lux for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high within the setback area from the North Terrace Drive right-of-way where a maximum height of 4 ft is required at 1778 Audrey Dr, Pinellas Terrace, Lot 64, zoned RS 8 (Residential Single Family). V 97-69 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes a six foot high wood fence enclosing the side and rear yard, adjacent to North Terrace Drive. He detailed fence height, setback and site conditions. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions. John Lux, the owner/applicant, outlined his plan, submitting copies of an animal control report and a color drawing of the enclosure area. Board members praised the existing shrubbery along the fence line and general discussion ensued. The applicant submitted a petition with ten signatures indicating no objection to the proposal. No verbal or written opposition was expressed. 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, subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is 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 this variance being null and of no effect; and 2) the requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) The fence shall be located south of the existing hedge that parallels North Terrace Drive; and 4) The property owner shall maintain the existing hedge in a healthy condition. In the event the hedge is not maintained in a healthy condition, it shall be replaced with a new hedge that shall form a continuous, solid screen at maturity, or the variance shall become void. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. Bay Aristocrat Village Home Owners Association, Inc./Howard & Maxine Moorehouse for a setback variance of 2.5 ft to allow a room addition 7.5 ft from the West side property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft is required at 18675 US 19 N #263, Sec 20-29-16, M&B 31.01, zoned RMH (Mobile Home Park). V 97-70 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to construct a 99 square foot addition on the west side of an existing mobile home. Setback, lot width, and site layout were detailed. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Patricia A. Barnett, mobile home village manager representing the applicant, submitted aerial photographs of the attractive neighborhood. She said the homeowners association highly recommends approval of the request to improve the property. Board members praised the appearance of the mobile home park, noting its long-standing reputation as an attractive location. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Johnson 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, 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; and 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4. Bay Aristocrat Village Home Owners Association, Inc./Nick & Ilah Pollick, for a setback variance of 6 ft to allow a wood deck 4 ft from the South (rear) property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft is required at 18675 US 19 N #259, Sec 20-29-16, M&B 31.01, zoned RMH (Mobile Home Park). V 97-71 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to construct a deck on the west side of an existing mobile home. Setback, lot width, and site layout were detailed. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Patricia A. Barnett, mobile home village manager, represented the applicant. She detailed the reasons for the proposed deck location, stating the proposed deck will be on supports so it can be moved in the future. Brief discussion ensued regarding ownership of the property to the south. Member Jonnatti 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, 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; and 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C5. Lee & Salomea Jakubowicz (Ivy League Motel) for the following variances (1) a setback variance of 8.96 ft to allow a second floor addition 3.99 ft from the East side property line where a minimum setback of 12.95 ft is required; and (2) a lot width variance of 81.6 to allow a width of 68.4 ft where a minimum of 150 ft is required at 600 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No. 5, Blk A, Lot 6, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 97-72 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to enlarge the manager’s unit of an existing motel. The 650 square foot second story addition will contain two bedrooms, a bathroom and storage area. He detailed setbacks, lot width, and site configuration. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Lee Jakubowicz, the owner, applicant, stated the motel had seven rental units when he purchased it. The bedrooms are needed for his two children, as the unit currently has only one bedroom. He expressed concern with delays to his project due to miscommunication in the City zoning department. He hoped the rough construction can be finished before his guests arrive in two weeks. Board members apologized on behalf of the City and encouraged staff to work with the applicant to expedite the permitting process. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Johnson 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, 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; and 2) The requisite building permit(s) shall be obtained within one year from the date of this public hearing; and 3) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall contact Central Permitting staff to review tropical seascape design criteria proposed for Clearwater beach. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C6. Helen A. & Paul A. & Mary H. Gelep for the following variances (1) a parking variance of 1 space to allow zero spaces where 1 space is required; (2) a building coverage variance of 10 percent to allow 85 percent where a maximum of 75 percent is required; and (3) an open space variance of 5 percent to allow zero percent where a minimum of 5 percent is required at 30/32 Papaya St & 442/444 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 80-85, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). V 97-74 In a letter dated November 12, 1997, the applicants’ representative requested a continuance to allow time to finalize negotiations concerning tenant requirements. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Schwob moved to continue Item C6, V 9774 to the meeting of December 11, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C7. Dayton Andrews, Inc. for a setback variance of 20.42 ft to allow an auto ramp 4.58 ft from the Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. right-of-way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required at 2388 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 24.06, together with Gulf-to-Bay Estates Unit 3, Lots 594-597, zoned CG (General Commercial). V 97-73 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant uses a vehicle display structure currently located 4.58 feet from the right-of-way within the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard setback. Concerns were expressed the structure presents an unattractive, stark appearance, and poses a safety hazard by diminishing visibility for motorists leaving the site. Staff recommended moving the structure back ten feet from the right-of-way, providing skirting to screen the under structure, and installing low shrubs to soften its appearance. Staff recommended approval with six conditions. Bill Adams, construction contractor representing the applicant, said such display ramps are common at auto dealerships. The applicant plans to landscape along the right-of-way in front of the ramp in conjunction with construction in the rear for which variances were previously obtained. He stated additional landscaping would be difficult because the are beneath the ramp is totally paved. He did not feel the ramp obstructs view any more than the automobiles displayed for sale in the area. He submitted a photograph of conditions on the property along the right-of-way, noting the view of the ramp is obscured by a sign. He felt the owner might object to moving the ramp back to ten feet from the right-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding use of the ramp for automobile storage and display. One member suggested allowing adequate time to resolve various issues associated with the request, and time frames were discussed. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Jonnatti 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, 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 30 days from the date of this public hearing; 3) The structure shall be relocated within 90 days to provide a minimum 10 foot setback from the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard right-of-way; 4) Within 90 days, the structure shall be outfitted with skirting that is complementary to the structure’s appearance; 5) Within 90 days, paving shall be removed from in front of the structure to provide a permeable strip for landscaping which measure at least 10 feet in width; and 6) Within 120 days, landscaping shall be installed in the aforementioned 10 foot strip to provide 100 percent coverage. The buffer shall consist of shrubs at least 18 inches in height at the time of planting. Prior to installation, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City’s Environmental Official and shall be subject to approval by the Official. Failure to maintain the buffer in a healthy condition shall void the variance. The motion was duly seconded. Members, Schwob, Johnson, Jonnatti and Stuart voted “Aye;” Member Gans voted “Nay.” Motion carried. C8. Breezeway, Inc. for a parking space variance of 8 spaces to allow zero spaces where 8 spaces are required at 602 Poinsettia Ave, Mandalay Replat Unit #5, Blk A, Lot 5 less the S ½ of the W ½, zoned CR 24 (Resort Commercial). V 97-66 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes an addition to the northwest of four buildings comprising a ten unit motel complex. Extensive renovations are proposed to promote the tropical seascape theme encouraged on Clearwater beach, provide a uniform appearance for the buildings, remove paving, and provide open space. Parking requirements were discussed. Harry Cline, attorney representing the applicant, stated an Austrian interest purchased the property five years ago. They have developed an older, European clientele that generally visits three to four weeks at a time, renting cars when needed for site specific visits. Cars are not generally parked on site. He presented a photographic composite of existing conditions and drawings of proposed improvements. Discussion ensued regarding the site plan, existing signage to be removed, roof design, elevation drawings, the remodeled exterior, and proposed materials. Discussion ensued regarding the parking provision and needs. It was not known whether a wide landscaping strip between the curb and property line could support parallel parking. Concern was expressed with the practice of parking cars across the sidewalk in front of the front doors. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. 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, 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 one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) The concrete apron between the new addition and the Juanita Way right-of-way shall be removed and replaced with grass and/or landscaping; and 4) The applicant shall submit elevation drawings and plans for review by the Development Code Adjustment Board which accurately and completely display the proposed improvements for this property. These plans will be incorporated into the official record, and variance approval is contingent upon execution and construction of the work shown on these documents. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C9. Betty Jones/Joyce Silver/St. Matthew’s First Missionary Baptist Church for the following variances (1) a parking variance to allow up to 52 required parking spaces on a non-adjacent site (proposed address 807 North Myrtle Avenue, Morton Plant Mease Healthcare Family Practice Center); and (2) an open space variance for the lot of thirteen percent to allow 22 percent where a minimum of 35 percent is required at 710 N Myrtle Ave, H. Padgett’s Sub, Blk 1, Lots 5 & 6, Blk 2, Lots 1, 2 and part of Lot 3 together with part of proposed vacated Alden Ave., zoned RS 8 (Residential Single Family). V 97-76 In a letter dated November 12, 1997, the applicants’ representative request a continuance to December 11 to allow time to resolve an issue regarding parking space requirement. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Stuart moved to continue Item C8, V 9776 to the meeting of December 11, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C10. Daniel & Annette Macre (Macre Construction) for the following variances (1) a height variance of 120 ft to allow a telecommunication tower 180 ft height where 60 ft is the maximum height; (2) a setback variance of 80 ft to allow a telecommunication tower 10 ft from the South side property line where a minimum setback of 90 ft is required; (3) a setback variance of 82.5 ft to allow a telecommunication tower 7.5 ft from the East side property line where a minimum setback of 90 ft is required; and (4) a setback variance of 82.5 ft to allow a telecommunication tower 7.5 ft from the West side property line where a minimum setback of 90 ft is required at 1231 N Hercules Ave, Sec 12-29-15, M&B 13.06, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). V 97-75 Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to replace an existing 154 foot tower in the center of the property with a 180 foot tower in the southeast corner. The new structure will be stronger to support additional telecommunication carriers. Mr. Richter related the proposed location, zoning, current development, height and setback requirements. He noted concerns regarding the height in proximity to the Clearwater Airpark, and appearance of the tower. The aesthetic is due to the visual impact of the three-legged design when a slender monopole design is less easily seen. Staff has addressed these concerns to the applicant. Discussion ensued regarding the City’s height and horizontal distance requirement in relation to the airport, the flight path and runway approach. An airport approach zone map and a boundary survey of the subject property were submitted for the record. Lee Barnard, tower contractor representing the applicant, discussed FAA regulations compared to City zoning requirements, the owner’s use of the existing tower, and plans to colocate other telecommunication carriers. The stronger tower will support additional wind loading. No residential uses exist within the tower fall zone. The new location is farther from the road within an industrial area. In response to questions, he said a monopole is not as structurally strong as a three-legged tower and could hold only the existing antennas without expansion. He did not feel a monopole tower could carry the required number of coaxial cables without increasing the width from four to five feet at the base, adding considerable expense. He was willing to reduce the height to 155 feet, but suggested amending the code instead of reducing tower heights. Discussion continued regarding tower height and design. Staff expressed concerns with the aesthetics of large circular antennas on a tower depicted in a brochure. Mr. Barnard said those microwave dishes will not be used on the proposed tower. Discussion ensued regarding proposed language for a motion to satisfy staff’s concerns. One member did not feel the requested setback variances were justified, but was willing to compromise by approving a monopole tower with less visual impact. He felt it would be a disservice to the City not to investigate co-location on several other towers existing within the industrial park. Discussion ensued regarding the merits of building more monopole towers carrying less equipment, versus having fewer but stronger towers able to support more carriers. Concern was expressed with approving something without seeing it. A continuance was requested to give the applicant an opportunity to provide a sketch of the proposed tower’s appearance under maximum usage. Member Johnson moved to continue Item C10, V 9775, placing it first on the agenda of December 11, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Minutes Approval -- October 23, 1997 Member Johnson 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 Regarding the King’s Highway Recreation Center variance request, Mr. Richter said the City is investigating options and has not decided which alternative will be selected. He reported the concern about debris at the McDonald’s restaurant has been forwarded to Code Enforcement along with a copy of the minutes requesting cleanup. Broken tiles have been repaired at Pelican Walk. The City Manager has postponed his visit to the board’s next meeting. Mr. Richter requested the board to review the proposed 1998 meeting schedule for adoption at the next meeting. He noted fourteen cases are scheduled for December 11, plus the three continued from today’s meeting. Brief discussion ensued regarding whether to schedule a holiday luncheon. Two members indicated it would be difficult for them to attend. Mr. Stuart suggested grouping a number of variance requests together, similar to the City Commission’s consent agenda. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated no procedure is in place for such a course of action as each case is an advertised public hearing. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 6:14 p.m.