Loading...
11/16/1999COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER November 16, 1999 Present: Gerald Figurski Chair Edward Mazur, Jr. Vice Chair – departed 1:41 p.m. David Gildersleeve Board Member – arrived 1:04 p.m. Shirley Moran Board Member Carlen A. Petersen Board Member Alex Plisko Board Member William Johnson Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Ralph Stone Planning Director Cynthia Hardin Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce Development Review Manager Etim Udoh Senior Planner Gina Clayton Senior Planner Brenda Moses Board Reporter The 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, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM 1 – CONTINUED ITEMS A. William and Hope Georgilas (American Infoage, LLC, agent) are requesting flexible development approval of a communication tower at 505 Virginia Lane. (Continued from July 20, 1999, and October 5,1999) The request is for flexible development approval of a communication tower at 505 Virginia Lane. Planning Director Ralph Stone said staff had distributed: 1) November 11, 1999 correspondence from Miller M. Cooper of American InfoAge, LLC, and 2) November 10, 1999 correspondence from J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools. On October 5, 1999, the City Manager had requested the case be continued for staff to meet with Dr. Hinesley and School Board representatives regarding the Clearwater High School site as a alternate location for vendors associated with this application. Dr. Hinesley indicated that the School Board would consider the subject tower for collocation by telecommunication system vendors. AT&T uses the subject tower under its current agreement with the School Board. Financial and technological considerations will affect the number of carriers able to locate there. American InfoAge has stated as many as 5 carriers need accommodation on a telecommunication tower. Mr. Stone said the School Board seems willing to negotiate with carriers to use the tower. Staff recommends American InfoAge meet with the School Board. Dr. Hinesley reported the subject contract requires mutual usage of the tower and approval by AT&T and the School Board for collocations, and the removal or addition of equipment. He recommended continuing the application for up to 6 months. It was remarked that Dr. Hinesley’s letter implies that AT&T can veto any decision related to the subject tower. Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Hardin said specific language in the contract outlines AT&T’s veto power. The contract, between two private parties, was entered into before recent federal legislation was enacted. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said while the new federal law requires and encourages collocation, the preexisting contractual obligations may be an issue. AT&T may retain veto authority over new users. Ms. Hardin said AT&T had not been contacted, and was not present at the meeting with the School Board. The School Board expressed interest in replacing the tower with a new one. John Hubbard, representative, said his client collocates telecommunications equipment as its business. He said indeterminate deferral conflicts with Federal Statutes requiring the timely consideration of this request. He opposed a continuance. He referred to Dr. Hinesley’s letter, noting AT&T has no motive to allow collocations as their 30-year contract was signed in 1987. He said the School Board’s plans to construct a new communication system will impact the tower. Mr. Hubbard distributed a July 12, 1999, e-mail from Kevin Becker of AT&T to Bob Killian of Nextel, which states that collocation on the subject tower is impossible until landlord issues are resolved and that no plans exist to rebuild or refurbish the tower to allow collocation. Mr. Hubbard distributed background information related to this request. Miller M. Cooper, President of American InfoAge, said this process began in May 1999. He said the School Board uses the subject tower for a security system. He reported that Pinellas County Schools Campus Police Department Chief Joseph Feraca had indicated that School Board use of the tower will increase. Mr. Cooper said City ordinance allows 160-foot towers. Three carriers will use the entire tower. No space will be available for use by the School Board, AT&T, or other carriers. In response to a question, Mr. Cooper said it is possible to place 3 to 5 tenants on a 160-foot tower. He said he had approached St. Paul’s Church on Keene Road as a site but had received no reply. He felt the requested site is a superior location for a tower, provides adequate service, and minimizes impacts. The departure of Member Mazur to attend a funeral was noted. Board rules require approval by 4 members for a motion to pass. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the issue is substantive. She requested the board decide if the case is to be continued. Member Moran moved to continue Item A1. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued. It was noted a remark made at last month’s meeting had suggested a final decision would be made today. It was noted St. Paul’s had expressed no interest in providing a site. The Clearwater High School tower cannot accommodate all carriers seeking service. Funding has not been identified to replace that tower. It was remarked that AT&T had not participated in related discussions or meetings. It was stated that the July 12, 1999, e-mail from AT&T had indicated no interest in collocation. It was felt the applicant has waited a reasonable period of time and a decision should be made. Concern was expressed that Dr. Hinesley’s letter is subject to conflicting interpretations. Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran and Petersen voted “Aye”; and Members Mazur, Gildersleeve, Plisko, and Johnson and Chair Figurski voted “Nay.” The motion failed 2:5. In response to questions from Mr. Hubbard, Cheryl Zimmermann of Nextel, Darren Newsum of Primeco, and Al Lazzaro of GTE Wireless said they have a need for cellular service in the area surrounding Virginia Lane. They will be at a competitive disadvantage without this site. Attempts to find alternative sites failed. The vendors require a tower between 120 and 150-feet. Mr. Newsum said separation requirements vary, depending on differing technologies. Mr. Hubbard said the subject site serves Clearwater residents. Collocation will limit the number of towers necessary. A public need for telecommunication services must be addressed. He said a letter from Pate Engineering indicates the school tower is too structurally inadequate to accommodate additional carriers. No tower, able to meet telecommunication carriers’ needs, exists in this geographic area. The school tower is too short to accommodate all carriers requiring service. Carriers’ ability to service customers is being compromised. Five persons spoke in opposition. Concern was expressed that the case was not properly noticed. Ms. Hardin said Board rules indicate that mailing of individual notices is not required if a case is continued to a specific date and announced at the meeting. Mr. Stone said staff had felt the school tower was not an option. Staff had not received a positive response from the School Board regarding collocation on the tower. There may be financial and technological considerations that cannot be overcome. Since neither AT&T nor the School Board is present, staff suggested the item be continued for a limited time to consider all presented evidence. Mr. Hubbard said aesthetic conditions cannot be considered under the ordinance. He said the applicant has provided credible testimony supporting approval. Changes related to the school tower are unlikely. He noted the ongoing need for service in this area. In response to a question, Mr. Cooper said the cost of a stealth tower is twice that of a monopole tower. He said a stealth tower is affected by windloads and can accommodate fewer carriers. Reference was made to the importance of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and related improvements. In response to a question, Mr. Cooper said he would consider recommendations for a stealth tower and expressed a willingness to contribute half of the costs associated with improving tower aesthetics. He requested the City designate a point of contact person who could make necessary decisions. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the ordinance has a provision regarding tower design, requiring it to be blended into its surrounding environment to protect neighborhood aesthetics. She suggested tower aesthetics could be discussed at the site plan level. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said staff feels the applications meets all ordinance criteria, absent the school site as an alternative. He said Dr. Hinesley has expressed a willingness to discuss that site as an option. Some financial and technological impediments to that site exist. Concern was expressed the tower will be an eyesore, visible from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. It was felt negotiations are incomplete as AT&T has not participated. The applicant’s responsibility to meet ordinance standards was stated. Member Gildersleeve moved approval of Item 2A, subject to conditions: 1) Approval shall be initially for a tower 100 feet in height unless the applicant submits signed contracts to the Planning Department from 3 users during the effective period of the development approval as specified in Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code. If the applicant submits signed contracts from 3 users the approval shall be for a 160-foot communication tower; 2) the applicant shall submit contracts with 3 users prior to the issuance of a building permit for a 160-foot tall tower; 3) the applicant shall submit a color sample of the tower indicating that the color is nonreflective prior to the issuance of a building permit; 4) the tower users shall place their buildings and equipment only on the approved slabs indicated on the site plan; 5) a landscape plan indicating plant species and numbers and locations of plants shall be approved by staff prior to the issuance of a development order; and 6) the applicant, in cooperation with the City, will investigate within the next 60 days the possibility of developing something other than a monopole, preferably a stealth tower. It was requested that Mr. Cooper consider sharing 50% of costs associated with a stealth tower or invest necessary funds for such a tower. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Figurski and Members Gildersleeve, Petersen, and Johnson voted “Aye”; Members Plisko and Moran voted “Nay.’ Motion carried 4:2. Member Mazur was absent. The meeting recessed from 2:38 to 2:47 p.m. ITEM 2 – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES – None. ITEM 3 – LEVEL 2 APPLICATIONS ITEM 4 – LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS ANNEXATIONS A. Mr. Booker T. Colson II is requesting annexation into the City of Clearwater for the property located at 1432 Sunset Point Road. The proposed land use designation is Residential Urban and the proposed zoning will be Low Medium Density Residential District. The property owners are requesting annexation to receive City water and sewer service at 1432 Sunset Point Road. The proposed land use designation is Residential Urban and the proposed zoning will be Low Medium Density Residential District. This annexation will eliminate the last enclave in the subdivision. The applicants have paid the required sewer impact fee of $900. The applicants also will be responsible for the tap fee, utility deposit, and costs to extend the sewer lines from the right-of-way to the structure. No adverse impacts on City services will result. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, and Florida law. Staff recommends: 1) approval of the annexation of property at 1432 Sunset Point Road; 2) approval of the Residential Urban plan category pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. Member Johnson moved that based upon the staff report and testimony at the public hearing today, that the Community Development Board recommends to the City Commission that the application submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Colson be approved for property at 1432 Sunset Point Road. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Mazur was not present. B. Mr. Taylor G. Bingham III is requesting annexation into the City of Clearwater for property located at 13 Meadowlark Lane. The proposed land use designation is Residential Urban and the proposed zoning will be Low Medium Density Residential District. The property owner requests annexation to receive City water and sewer service at 13 Meadowlark Lane. The property will have a land use plan designation of Residential Urban and is proposed to be zoned LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District. This annexation will eliminate an enclave in the subdivision. The applicant has paid the required impact fee of $900. The applicants also will be responsible for the tap fee, utility deposit and the cost to extend the lines from the right-of-way to the structure. No adverse impacts on City services will result. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, and Florida law. Staff recommends: 1) approval of the annexation of property at 1432 Sunset Point Road; 2) approval of the Residential Urban plan category pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. Member Petersen moved that based upon the staff report and testimony at the public hearing today, that the Community Development Board recommends to the City Commission that the application submitted by Taylor G. Bingham III be approved for property at 13 Meadowlark Lane. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Mazur was not present. ITEM 5 – APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: October 19, 1999 Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of October 19, 1999, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Mazur was not present. . ITEM 6 – DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Planning Director Ralph Stone provided board members with minor amendments adopted to the Land Development Code. Mr. Stone reviewed new staff members’ credentials. Lisa Fierce, Development Review Manager, was accepted as an expert witness in the area of comprehensive planning and development regulations. Gina L. Clayton was accepted as an expert witness in the area of comprehensive planning and zoning and development regulation administration. A Christmas luncheon is scheduled at 11:30 a.m. on December 14, 1999 at the Harborview Center. The regular December CDB meeting has been rescheduled to 2:00 p.m. December 14, 1999, at City Hall. It was suggested the time residents, applicants, etc. are permitted to speak be limited. The significant amount of effort regarding the telecommunication tower issue was noted. It was suggested a policy decision protect some neighborhood design. ITEM 7 – ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:06 p.m.