The URL can be used to link to this page

01/25/2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER January 25, 2000 Present: Gerald Figurski Chair – arrived 2:00 p.m. Edward Mazur, Jr. Vice-Chair Shirley Moran Board Member – departed 5:09 p.m. Carlen A. Petersen Board Member Alex Plisko Board Member William Johnson Board Member Absent: David Gildersleeve Board Member Also Present: Pamela Akin City Attorney – arrived 1:53 p.m. John Carassas Assistant City Attorney - departed 1:53 p.m. Ralph Stone Planning Director Cynthia Hardin Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce Development Review Manager Gary Jones Senior Planner Etim Udoh Senior Planner Gina Clayton Senior Planner Mark Parry Planner Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Vice-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 – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES/RECONSIDERATION – None. ITEM 2 – CONTINUED ITEMS – None. ITEM 3 – LEVEL 3 APPLICATIONS 1. Case ANX99-11-22 – 2238 – 2244 Drew Street Owner/Applicant/representative: Dolores S. Day Location: 0.38 acres located on the north side of Drew Street, approximately 450 feet east of Belcher Road. Request: a) Annexation of 0.38 acres to the City of Clearwater and b) land use amendment from Commercial General (Pinellas County) to Commercial General classification (Clearwater) and c) rezoning from C-2 District (Pinellas County) to C, Commercial District. The applicant requests annexation to receive City water and sewer service. The property will have a land use plan designation of Commercial General and proposed zoning of Commercial (C) district. The subject property has two lots, Lots 24 & 25, with a combined area of 17,080 square feet or MOL 0.40 acres of land. The building on site mcd01b00 1 01/25/00 is a medical office and parking lot. Upon annexation, a 600 square-foot addition to the structure will be built. The annexation will not adversely affect public facilities and their levels of service. The annexation is consistent with the Community Development Code, the Countywide Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and Florida law. The applicant has paid the applicable sewer impact and assessment fees and is aware of additional costs to connect to the City utility systems. The property will meet the minimum lot size of the commercial zoning district. Staff recommends: 1) approval of the annexation of property at 2238 –2244 Drew Street; 2) approval of the Commercial General plan category pursuant to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the Commercial (C) zoning district pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code. Staff said the applicant was notified of the meeting but is absent. The case involves no unusual circumstances. Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and testimony at this public hearing, that the CDB (Community Development Board) recommends to the City motion Commission approval of this application at 2238 – 2244 Drew Street. The was unanimously. duly seconded and carried 2. Case ANX99-11-23 - 1939 Sunset Point Road Owner/Applicant/Representative: Daniel R. Silvie and Linda J. Pappas. Location: 0.52 acres located in unincorporated Pinellas County on the south side of Sunset Point Road west of Hercules Avenue. Request: Annexation of 0.52 acres to the City of Clearwater at 1939 Sunset Point Road. The applicants, owners of one parcel in the City and an adjacent parcel in the County, request annexation to bring both parcels into the same jurisdiction for easier development. A case related to the property is being processed concurrently and proposes to change the future land use plan category to Commercial General and zoning district to Commercial. This annexation request is for a vacant 22,561 square foot or 0.52 acre lot. No development plans have been proposed. The annexation will not adversely affect City services and is consistent with the Community Development Code, the Countywide Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and Florida law. The applicants are aware of required impact fees and other costs associated with extending water and sewer to the site. Staff recommends approval of the annexation at 1939 Sunset Point Road. Daniel R. Silvie and Linda J. Pappas, applicants, reviewed their request. Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and testimony at this public hearing, that the CDB recommend to the City Commission approval of this motion application at 1939 Sunset Point Road. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Case LUZ99-11-06 – 1939 Sunset Point Road Owner/Applicant/Representative: Daniel R. Silvie and Linda J. Pappas. Location: 0.86 acres located in unincorporated Pinellas County on the south side of Sunset Point Road west of Hercules Avenue. Request: a) Land use amendment from RM, Residential Medium classification (County) to CG, Commercial General classification mcd01b00 2 01/25/00 (Clearwater) and b) rezoning from MDR, Medium Density Residential District (County) to C, Commercial District (Clearwater). This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan’s future land use map from RM, Residential Medium to CG, Commercial General and to rezone from MDR, Medium Density Residential District and County Agriculture/Estate district to C, Commercial district. The entire site is 0.86 acres. The request would allow commercial development of the site. A home office now operates at this location. The surrounding area is a mix of commercial, office, institutional, multi-family, and single-family homes. Single-family residences, with the exception of the subject site, do not front Sunset Point Road. The proposed Commercial General land use and Commercial zoning district is consistent with the City and Countywide Comprehensive plans and development regulations of the City, does not adversely affect City service, and is compatible with the surrounding area and natural environment. Staff recommends approval of: 1) Amending the Future Land Use Plan designation of the subject site from Residential Medium to Commercial General and 2) amending the zoning district designation of the subject site from Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and County Agriculture/Estate District zoning to Commercial (C) District at 1939 Sunset Point Road. Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and testimony at this public hearing, that the CDB recommends to the City Commission approval of this motion application at 1939 Sunset Point Road. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. LUZ 99-11-07 - 704 & 706 North Myrtle Avenue, 700 Eldridge and 703 Blanche B. Little John Trail. Owner/Applicant: Elaine C. White, Elaine D. Spencer, Patricia M. Alexander, Louis Carson Jr., Sonya Racker, Derek R. Carson, Richard Koster and Willis Parker. Representatives: Kathy Dornisch and Richard Koster. Location: 1.32 acres at the northwest corner of North Myrtle Avenue and Eldridge Street. Request: a) Land use plan amendment from RU, Residential Urban classification (Pinellas County) to CG, commercial General classification (Clearwater); and b) rezoning from LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (County) to C, Commercial District (Clearwater). The applicants request this plan amendment and rezoning for commercial redevelopment of parcels on the west side of North Myrtle Avenue between Eldridge and Seminole. The applicants propose to amend the Comprehensive Plan’s future land use map from Residential Urban to Commercial General and to rezone from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Commercial (C). The North Greenwood property is approximately 1.31 acres and has a vacant restaurant, a boarded single- family home, a vacant lot, and a single-family residential home. The application involves four parcels with three separate ownerships. The proposed Commercial General land use and Commercial zoning district is consistent with the City and countywide Comprehensive Plans and with the development regulations of the City, does not adversely affect City services, and is compatible with the surrounding area and natural environment. The proposed land use amendment and zoning district could degrade N. Myrtle Avenue’s LOS (level-of-service) mcd01b00 3 01/25/00 depending on the type of commercial development. A LOS of D is acceptable in the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation concurrency and traffic access will be evaluated upon submission of a specific development proposal to assure proper traffic flow. Upon application for site plan review or development permits, a full concurrency review will be completed to determine if the development may proceed. The concurrency process may require a traffic study. Staff recommends approval of: 1) amending the Future Land Use Plan designation of the subject site from Residential Urban to Commercial General and 2) amending the zoning district designation of the subject site from Low Medium Residential (LMDR) to Commercial (C) Richard Koster, owner of 700 Eldridge Street, said the subject restaurant has existed for 50 years and he plans to re-open it. Kathy Dornisch, representative for Elaine White and other family members with interest in 704 and 706 North Myrtle, said the property has been on the market since March. Inquiries have been related to commercial developments. The White family does not intend to develop the property now and requests rezoning to sell it. Member Petersen moved that based on the staff report and testimony at this public hearing, that the CDB recommends to the City Commission approval of this application at 700 Eldridge Street, 703 Blanche B. LittleJohn Trail, and 704 and 706 motionunanimously. North Myrtle Avenue. The was duly seconded and carried 5. Case TA00-01-01 Text Amendment – Section 8-102 – Assisted Living Facility/Congregate Care Definitions. Request: Code amendment revising the definition of assisted living facility and congregate care to increase the number of beds that are equivalent to one dwelling unit from 2.5 to 3.0. Staff said the maximum development potential of property used for assisted living and congregate care is based on a formula of 2.5 beds equals one dwelling unit. Staff proposes increasing the number of beds to 3.0 so these types of development are more feasible. Countywide Plan Rules determine density standards within all land use categories in the City and the County and consider assisted living and congregate care as residential equivalent uses. Though residential in character, these facilities have no units and beds are counted to determine density. The County’s formula considers 2 – 3 beds as one dwelling unit. Staff’s proposal for a maximum of 3.0 beds is consistent with countywide rules and is permissible. The proposed amendment would permit a 20% increase in the number of beds in assisted living or congregate care facilities. The staff report details wastewater flow rates, traffic generation rates, and water consumption, and includes comparisons to a single-family home. Upon analysis, staff determined that a single family home generates more traffic, wastewater flows, and consumes more water than an assisted living or congregate care facility with a density of 3.0 beds equaling one unit. All resulting increases would be negligible. City systems could absorb the increases. The proposed amendment to Code Section 4-601 requires the City to consider standards regarding text amendments: 1) proposed amend is consistent with and furthers goals, policies, and objectives of Comprehensive Plan, and 2) proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed mcd01b00 4 01/25/00 amendment will not adversely affect City services, is consistent with Countywide Plan Rules, and promotes economic development, while maintaining reasonable and appropriate development standards. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6507-00 to amend the definition of assisted living and congregate care facilities to increase the number of beds equivalent to one dwelling unit from 2.5 to 3.0. In response to a question, staff said 2.5 beds was standard under the prior Code. Should a business request expansion, City approval is required to meet all Code regulations. Robert Boyle and Mike Payne, of Paradise Adult Living Services, said they have contracted to purchase property to construct an assisted living facility and plan to annex the County property into the City. They felt the 3.0 bed formula is more economically feasible for facility residents. Land and operational costs are increasing. The more residents living in a facility results in lower per bed costs. Mr. Payne said his organization does not have any local facilities but felt a real need for such services exists. Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and the testimony heard today, that the CDB recommend to the City Commission approval of the amendment to motionunanimously. the Code. The was duly seconded and carried ITEM 4 – LEVEL 2 APPLICATIONS 1. Case FL99-11-21 - 1091 Eldorado Drive. Owner/Applicant: Carlouel Yacht Club. Representative: Robert M. Thompson, Jr. Location: 2.897 acres east of Eldorado Avenue, and 1.93 acres west of Eldorado Avenue, north of Bay Esplanade. Zoning: I, Institutional District. Proposed Use: An existing yacht club. Request: Flexible development approval of an 80 square foot addition including service elevator and equipment room as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Member Plisko reported a conflict of interest and removed himself from discussion. The applicant requests flexible development approval of an 80 square foot addition, including a service elevator and equipment room, with a reduction in front setback from 25 feet to 7.5 feet as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project. This request is consistent with the existing building that is legally nonconforming with respect to setback (6.6 feet from Eldorado Avenue). The addition will encroach into the required front setback. The proposed elevator will serve the second floor dining room from the first-story kitchen. The architecture will duplicate building details and feature compatible colors and materials. The site’s use as a yacht club will not change. The plan category and zoning district are institutional. The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting materials on December 2, 1999. The proposal complies with the Community Development Code. Staff recommends approval of the flexible development application for 1091 Eldorado Avenue, with a reduction in front setback from 25 to 7.5 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project, with the condition that the addition be compatible with the architectural style and color of the existing building. mcd01b00 5 01/25/00 Robert Thompson, applicant, said he now uses a passenger elevator to transport food to the second floor. An interior elevator is not possible. He said an outside elevator is the only way to service the second floor. The design meets all City Code requirements. He said the setback will be closer to the road than the existing setback, but will not impede the loading dock area. Member Petersen moved that based on the staff report and the testimony heard today, that the CDB recommends to the City Commission approval of the application, with the condition that the addition will be compatible with the current architectural style motion and color of the existing building. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Plisko was not present for the vote. 2. Case FL99-11-22 - 323 Jeffords Street. Owner/applicant: Douglas Dahlhauser, Morton Plant Mease Health Care. Representative: John E. Powell, P.E. Location: 4.71 acres located on the southwest corner of Jeffords Street and Reynolds Avenue, north of Pinellas Street, and 1.32 acres on the southwest corner of Jeffords Street and South Ft. Harrison Avenue. Zoning: I, Institutional District. Proposed Use: A 39,750 square foot emergency care center and associated parking. Request: Flexible development approval, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project, with reduction in building setback on Jeffords Street (emergency room) from 25 to 12.4 feet, reduction in parking lot setback on Jeffords Street and Reynolds Avenue (and Sadler Street and Bay Avenue, if not vacated) from 25 to 5 feet, reduction in the required landscape buffer on Jeffords Street and Reynolds Avenue (and Sadler Street and Bay Avenue, if not vacated) from 10 to 5 feet; and vacation of Bay Avenue and Sadler Street rights-of-way. In 1995, the City Commission approved Morton Plant Hospital’s Master Plan under the former Land Development Code. The Master Plan conceptually identified the location of the building, parking structures, and stormwater detention facilities. In October 1999, the CDB approved, in concept, reduced parking and building setbacks. The applicant has submitted a site plan detailing parking and loading spaces, size and location of building, and all required landscaping. Drainage calculations also have been submitted. The new Community Development Code designates this property as Institutional District. A hospital is a standard use and requires a minimum five-acre lot size. Review of the Master Plan is required for requests to reduce building, parking, and landscape setbacks and right-of-way vacation. The site includes 4.71 acres on the southwest corner of Jeffords Street and Reynolds Avenue, and 1.32 acres on the southwest corner of Jeffords Street and South Ft. Harrison Avenue. One of the five buildings on site is a single-family house. Should they be unsuccessful in acquiring that property, the applicant must submit a secondary site plan, demonstrating compliance with buffers and parking lot layout. If buffers are provided as required and no substantive changes are made, the revision shall not require additional CDB review. Morton Plant Hospital proposes to renovate and expand the emergency center, associated parking, and retention basin. The emergency room entrance will be relocated to the east, farther from the residential area. A parking lot and retention mcd01b00 6 01/25/00 basin will be constructed on the 1.3-acre site. The proposal is consistent with the 1995 Master Plan and 1999 CDB approval. Final architectural details must be consistent with the overall campus plan. Plans will be submitted with the building permit process. This application includes flexible development approval with a reduction in the Jeffords Street setback for the emergency room from 25 to 12.4 feet, reduction in all street setbacks for the parking lot from 25 to 5 feet, and reduction in the landscape buffer for all streets from 10 to 5 feet. The Ft. Harrison Avenue setback for parking and landscaping will comply with the Master Plan. Utility lines will be relocated and improvements made to Reynolds Street. The proposed project also includes a request to vacate Bay Avenue between Jeffords Street and the middle of the site, and Sadler Street between Bay and Reynolds Avenues. Right-of-way vacation requires CDB recommendation and final disposition by the Commission. The proposal complies with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval and the Community Development Code. Staff feels redevelopment of the site will aid in the hospital’s continued success and site improvements will increase the value to the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of the flexible development application for 323 Jeffords Street as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment project, including reduction in building setback on Jeffords Street from 25 to 12.4 feet, reduction in parking lot setback on Jeffords Street and Reynolds Avenue (and Sadler Street and Bay Avenue, if not vacated) from 25 to 5 feet, reduction in required landscape buffer on Jeffords Street and Reynolds Avenue (and Sadler Street and Bay Avenue, if not vacated) from 10 to 5 feet, and vacation of Bay Avenue and Sadler Street rights-of-way, subject to conditions: 1) architecture of proposed emergency room be consistent with overall campus plan, to be approved by staff during permit process; 2) Bay and Sadler Avenues rights-of-way be vacated by the Commission, and building permits for southern parking lot not be issued until vacation is completed; and 3) if Benton property is not acquired, applicant shall submit a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with appropriate buffers and parking lot layout for final approval by staff. If buffers are not met and site plan changes are substantive, the CDB will review the final plan. In response to a question, staff said if Morton Plant Hospital is unsuccessful in acquiring the single-family home fronting Sadler Street, that street will not be vacated. The applicant has not submitted a vacation application for Sadler Street. Staff feels requested street vacations are not premature. Mark Marquardt, representative, said the applicant is close to acquiring the subject house. He said this plan is identical to one previously approved by the CDB with the exception of grades, utilities, and placement of stormwater sewers. In response to a question, he said the applicant will not prevent access to the parcel on Sadler Street. Ron Harn, Director of Construction for Morton Plant Mease Healthcare, said he has negotiated with the owner of the subject parcel on Sadler Street and anticipates a final resolution on January 28, 2000. Suitable property for the owners has been found and the home will be relocated to an adjacent neighborhood. Member Plisko moved that based on the staff report and testimony heard today, that the CDB approve the application with the conditions as indicated by staff, with the mcd01b00 7 01/25/00 contingency that the Sadler Street is acquired, otherwise Sadler Street will not be motionunanimously. vacated. The was duly seconded and carried Chair Figurski abstained as he arrived during review of the case. 3. Case FL-11-23- 1100 and 1104 Druid Road South. Owner/Applicant: Ronald and Mireille Pollack. Representative: Wayne M. Davis, Architect. Location: 1.66 acres located on the west side of Druid Road South, 190 feet north of Jeffords Street. Zoning: LDR, Low Density Residential District. Proposed Use: A single-family dwelling unit. Request: Flexible development approval of a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project with an increase in building height from 30 to 35 feet, an increased height of masonry wall from 3 to 6 feet along the front (east) property line, an increased height of a metal picket fence from 3 to 6 feet along the rear (west) property line, and an increased height of wall/fence from 3 to 6 feet within the required waterfront view triangle at the intersection of the rear and side property lines, with non-opaque masonry wall and picket fence. This Flexible Development approval request is for a Residential In-fill Redevelopment project with an increase in building height from 30 to 35 feet, an increase in the height of a masonry wall from 3 to 6 feet along the front property line; an increase in the height of a metal picket fence from 3 to 6 feet along the rear property line, and an increase in the height of the wall/fence from 3 to 6 feet within the required waterfront view triangle at the intersection of the rear and side property lines, with a non-opaque masonry wall and picket fence. The area is dominated by residential uses. The 1.6-acre site, on the west side of Druid Road South, abuts and has access to Clearwater Harbor. A Unity of Title will join the site’s 2 lots. The slope from east (front) to west (rear) has a 20-foot difference in grade. The applicant proposes to raze existing structures, including 2 houses. A small accessory garage on the site’s northeast corner will be expanded. The pool and tennis court to the rear of 1104 South Druid Road will remain. The proposal includes construction of a 7,000 square foot single-family dwelling to a height of 35 feet. In 1997, a 35-foot height variance was approved but has expired. As outlined in the Community Development Code, height is measured to the midpoint of the peak of the main roof from the mean elevation of the existing grade. The Code permits a maximum height of 30 feet for detached dwellings. The additional height will maximize the site’s development potential. Houses of this scale and height dominate the neighborhood. The proposal also includes replacement of perimeter fencing/walls with a 6-foot masonry wall along the north, south, and east property lines. The LDR District permits 3-foot high fences/walls in the required front setback. A 3-foot increase for the front yard fence is consistent with most area properties. On waterfront lots, a 3-foot open fence is permitted. To enhance the view of the water from other waterfront properties, fences in the “view triangle” are restricted to 3-foot open fences. This request includes an increase in the waterfront fencing to 6 feet, similar to walls along other Druid Road properties. The proposal complies with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval and with the Community Development regulations. Staff recommends approval of the application for a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project with an mcd01b00 8 01/25/00 increase in building height from 30 to 35 feet, an increased height of masonry wall from 3 to 6 feet along the front (east) property line, an increased height of a metal picket fence from 3 to 6 feet along the rear (west) property line, and an increased height of wall/fence from 3 to 6 feet within the required waterfront view triangle at the intersection of the rear and side property lines, with non-opaque masonry wall and picket fence. Ed Armstrong, representative, said the proposal is consistent with other Druid Road properties. One resident immediately north of this property expressed concern regarding garage expansion, the 2.5 foot setback establishing a standard, preservation of the oak and banyan trees, the wall that will abut his property, and the location the proposed house. Wayne Davis, architect, said the garage addition will not encroach into the established property line. The proposed house is similar to the existing one and will be less than 10 feet closer to the water. The oak and banyan trees will be saved. The wall’s design is conceptual as a 6 -foot high masonry wall. He said both sides of the wall will be the same. The neighboring resident requested the proposed wall be built as soon as possible. Member Johnson moved that based on the staff report and testimony at this public hearing, that the CDB approve the application at 1100 and 1104 Druid Road South, with conditions as indicated by staff, and that both sides of the masonry wall be motionunanimously. the same. The was duly seconded and carried 4. Case VAR1999-F2008 - Communication Tower – 505 Virginia Lane. Owner/applicant: Miller Cooper, American InfoAge, LLC. Representative: Edward Armstrong, Attorney. Location: 0.37 acres located on the east side of Virginia Lane, approximately 150 feet south of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Proposed Use: A 160-foot communication tower and three concrete equipment pads. Request: Flexible development approval of a communication tower. Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Hardin requested that the CDB consider David Duolong as the City’s expert in the telecommunications field. She presented his resume to the Board. Mr. Duolong has more than 20 years experience in the telecommunications field and 11 years experience in utility industries. He has managed telecommunications projects, was a communications officer, and now serves as a communications director. Mr. Duolong has provided technical and consulting assistance to municipalities in siting towers, specifically regarding tower aesthetics as they relate to a community. Member Petersen moved to accept David Duolong as an expert witness in the motion area of telecommunications. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Hardin reviewed the history of the request. On May 25, 1999, the application for a tower at 505 Virginia Lane was submitted and heard by the CDB on July 20, 1999. The CDB continued the case to September 21, 1999, to allow mcd01b00 9 01/25/00 investigation of the feasibility of using the tower at Clearwater High School. That meeting was canceled due to inclement weather and the case was rescheduled. On October 5, 1999, the CDB continued the case to November 16, 1999, and requested senior City staff contact senior School Board staff to consider solutions. On November 16, 1999, the CDB approved the application with conditions. On December 14, 1999, neighbors appealed for reconsideration of the case, which the CDB approved. Ms. Hardin said since December, significant developments have occurred. On January 10, 2000, a meeting was held with staff, School Board representatives, and AT&T Wireless representative Kevin Becker. Ms. Hardin referred to a letter from AT&T indicating the firm will reconstruct a tower on the School Board site at AT&T’s expense. The School Board confirmed negotiations with AT&T and indicated they support the reconstruction. She said the CDB needs to consider if a reasonable alternative to the applicant’s request exists. During previous discussions, it had not appeared a reasonable alternative was possible. The AT&T representative has confirmed that a 155-foot tower is feasible for the Clearwater High School site considering its proximity to the airport and FAA requirements. Mr. Duolong confirmed that the reconstructed tower can accommodate carriers as an alternative to the Virginia Lane site. Ms. Hardin said the Code requires joint uses of existing towers as an alternative to new tower construction. Staff feels, based on the AT&T and School Board agreement for the Arcturas site, that a reasonable alternative to the applicant’s proposed site exists, and that a new tower is not necessary. The applicant has indicated intent to accommodate 3 users on a 160-foot tower at the Virginia Lane site. Ms. Hardin said the applicant’s previous site plan had identified the Virginia Lane property as an office. Staff has determined that the subject property has a multi-family use. The proposed tower cannot meet setback requirements related to residential uses unless the existing use is changed. AT&T is negotiating with 3 other carriers. Considering the new agreement between AT&T and the School Board, staff feels a reasonable alternative to a new tower exists, the application is inconsistent with telecommunications regulations, and a new tower is not justified. Staff recommends denial of the proposed tower at 505 Virginia Lane. In response to a question, she said it appears that the tower could be designed, built, and shipped to the site within 120 days. Ed Armstrong, representative, requested the record of prior hearings be incorporated into this hearing. The Chair said as there were no objections, the record of all prior hearings will be incorporated into this hearing. Mr. Armstrong said the Code refers to joint use of existing towers. He said attempts have been made to create a new tower and appropriate a business opportunity created by American InfoAge. He said the proposal is too speculative and two towers will be needed. He said the applicant has met Code requirements and his application should be approved. Robert Kersteen, GTE retiree, reviewed needs related to telecommunications towers. He said new digital technology requires antennas to be placed where service is needed. He said collocation requires physical separations on a tower. He said it is impossible to determine if all carriers can exist in a small area on one tower. His opinion was that a second tower is necessary to accommodate 7 carriers. mcd01b00 10 01/25/00 Mr. Duolong agreed it is difficult to determine the number of carriers a tower can accommodate, as each carrier requires different frequencies. Users must cooperate to avoid reception interference. He said it is possible to place 7 carriers on a 160-foot tower. In response to a comment, Ms. Hardin said the Code caps new tower heights at 160 feet for those serving 3 or more carriers. Staff’s records indicate that the School Board tower, approved at 160 feet, could be increased to 200 feet with approval of a Flexible Standard application. Darryl Richards, representative, was unsure of the number of carriers being considered. The applicant proposes three users on a tower designed for five. It is proposed up to seven carriers and, possibly, the School Board could locate on the tower proposed for the School Board site. Miller Cooper, applicant, said 115 feet is the lowest elevation anticipated on American InfoAge’s proposed tower. He anticipated an additional carrier could be accommodated at 100 feet and provide coverage of 1-½ miles. He suggested carriers provide that information. In response to questions from Mr. Armstrong, Ms. Hardin reviewed staff’s current recommendation based on AT&T and the School Board providing a reasonable alternative to the proposal. She said Code does not require staff to demonstrate that the tower will accommodate all local carriers. Mr. Armstrong said the applicant meets one of the criteria listed in the Code and is entitled to approval. Ms. Hardin said all 7 conditions must be balanced to determine if a reasonable alternative exists. Mr. Armstrong disagreed the Code stipulates the balancing of provisions. In response to a question, Ms. Hardin said it is feasible to build a new tower on the School Board site, transfer services from the existing tower to the new one, and remove the current tower. Concern was expressed the City’s position is based solely on the availability of a reasonable alternative. Discussion ensued regarding modified towers and their status as “existing.” City Attorney Pam Akin said the fact that a tower can be modified meets the requirement for an “existing” tower. Mr. Armstrong said the modified tower is a “new” tower. It was noted the Code states a tower may be replaced and be considered “existing.” In response to questions from Mr. Richards, Mr. Duolong said he is familiar with the School Board tower. He has not reviewed American InfoAge’s application but has knowledge of it. He did not know the height requirements for all carriers. He said the School Board tower currently cannot accommodate additional users. He has done no engineering or interference studies regarding a new tower and is unaware of agreements between providers regarding placement on the proposed tower. He said the timeframe for AT&T to go forward with leases depends upon negotiations. He did not know how many towers in Clearwater and Orlando accommodate up to 8 users. He said it is unusual for a 160-foot tower to accommodate 7 to 8 users. He said it appears that AT&T will reconstruct a tower at its expense but was unsure if AT&T will charge other carriers for construction costs. AT&T Wireless Services representative Kevin Becker said at a recent meeting, the School Board had agreed to allow AT&T to replace the existing School Board tower to accommodate as many carriers as possible. He said 6 carriers have expressed mcd01b00 11 01/25/00 interest and he has letters from 4 carriers supporting AT&T’s proposal at heights that are viable. He said this cohesive effort provides a win-win situation for the School Board, the carriers, and the City. He said the tower’s maximum allowable height is 166 feet, according to FAA regulations. He said the new tower will be able to accommodate a microwave dish for the School Board. He said the new tower must be designed to accommodate all carriers and anticipated the tower’s design would take less than 45 days. He said it may be possible to complete the tower within 6 months. In response to a question, Mr. Becker said School Board issues have been resolved. AT&T has not done any interference or intermodulation studies done for the proposed tower. If carriers feel it is necessary, he said those studies will be done. Mr. Becker said he has no contracts with any of the providers he mentioned to locate on the new School Board tower, and no contract with the School Board to build the tower. He did not know how much a new tower will cost. He said AT&T will coordinate the construction of a new tower and the costs. Mr. Richards said American InfoAge’s application has been before the CDB for 7 months and the firm could provide service to carriers within 60 days of approval. He said AT&T’s proposal would delay service for 4 to 6 months. In response to a question, Mr. Becker said original terms of AT&T’s contract with the School Board did not allow collocation. Mr. Becker was not familiar with carrier agreements with American InfoAge. Mr. Becker did not know the cost of a new tower but said AT&T will coordinate the construction. He said no costs will be borne by anyone other than AT&T, the carriers, and the School Board. He said the process will start soon. Mr. Becker said the existing tower will be removed once a new one is built. He said no tower at the School Board site currently can provide a reasonable alternative to American InfoAge’s proposal. Assistant School Board Attorney Jim Skaggs said the tower’s 30-year lease on the School Board property continues until 2017. The contract allows modifications and replacement of the tower. He expects School Board costs will be minimal. He said a 166-foot height is not a problem. Seven persons spoke in opposition of the application. Bob Shields, radio design engineer for GTE Wireless, said for 3 years his firm has tried to find a carrier site in the area. He said AT&T has requested his firm use antennas, which require an additional cell site, a mile or two away. He felt lighting of the tower will not be required. He said more towers are required if they are of lower heights. He said locating 7 carriers on one tower would be a challenge and the number of frequencies is limited. He said digital technology is vulnerable to interference. He said in 2003, new technology will require added bandwidths and good signal management. He said as additional cells are split, the height of towers can be reduced. The challenge is to avoid interference from trees and buildings. He said at a height of 120 feet, GTE Wireless will not obtain adequate coverage for the cost. Darren Newsum, Regional Account Manager for PrimeCo, said the firm has had a need in this area for more than 3 years. He said PrimeCo’s agreement with the applicant will meet the firm’s needs. He said his firm has no explicit agreement with AT&T due to interference concerns. mcd01b00 12 01/25/00 Aaron Tellier, Director of Nextel Communications, said his firm has tried to remain neutral during this process. He said his firm provides cellular services and does not construct towers. He said the American InfoAge tower would provide more space between carriers. He said Nextel has requested a location at 140 feet. He opposed the 6-month wait related to the AT&T proposal. In response to a question, he said the existing School Board tower only provides a ½ mile-range of coverage. Mr. Stone said had staff known the School Board site was an alternative, they would have originally recommended denial of the application. The Code is designed to limit towers in the City. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said the Code addresses the modification of existing towers. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said the residential use next to the American InfoAge tower site is an illegal use and is not relevant. Enforcement action has been initiated. Mr. Stone said the sentence in the Code requiring one or more of the conditions to be met is not intended to allow applicants that meet only one of those conditions to build a tower. It was stated that no evidence has indicated reconstruction of the School Board tower is financially feasible. Staff does not have a clear understanding of the technological limitations or who will pay for the tower. The City’s expert witness has stated it can be done. Mr. Stone staff feels the Code requires balancing competing interests while not harming the industry. Ms. Akin agreed it is necessary to balance all presented facts with the Code. John Hubbard, representative, said American InfoAge has lease agreements with GTE Wireless of the South, Inc. and PrimeCo Personal Communications Ltd. He said the tower proposed by AT&T and the School Board does not exist today. He said on November 16, 1999, Mr. Stone had testified that American InfoAge had met the criteria without the alternative School Board site. The new agreement between AT&T and the School Board damages the applicant’s position and harms the applicant’s customers. He suggested AT&T’s offer will provide the firm substantial profits on the new tower and poses a competitive venture. He expressed concern regarding the number of delays related to InfoAge’s application. He accused the CDB of abandoning their role as a quasi-judicial body and embarking on a public policy function which is the City Commission’s responsibility. He noted the Code and Federal Statutes requires that actions not damage a competitive interest. He said more towers will be necessary in this area as the telecommunications industry expands. American InfoAge has purchased and paid for land for a tower and will suffer significant damages if the application is denied. Mr. Hubbard said staff is blurring the language of the Code. Timely action has not been met. Mr. Hubbard said discrimination has occurred and the CDB is shifting customers to AT&T. The meeting recessed from 4:39 to 4:50 p.m. Discussion ensued. It was commented that the School Board tower provides a reasonable alternative, which can be modified to accommodate all carriers. Concern was expressed regarding language in the Code requiring evidence to clearly establish one or more of the stated conditions. It was suggested that AT&T’s letter conflicts with statements made by Kevin Becker, AT&T’s representative. Mr. Becker indicated AT&T will coordinate construction of a new tower. mcd01b00 13 01/25/00 Member Moran moved to deny the proposed telecommunications tower as motion requested by American InfoAge. The was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding Code language relating to an existing tower that can be modified or replaced in order to support collocation. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Figurski and Members Moran, Petersen, Motion carried 5:1. Plisko and Johnson voted “Aye”; Member Mazur voted “Nay.” ITEM 5 – APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING – December 14, 1999 Member Johnson moved approval of the minutes of the December 14, 1999, motion meeting as submitted in written summation to each Board member. The was unanimously. duly seconded and carried ITEM 6 – DIRECTOR’S ITEMS Community Development Code Review – Discussion of Major Policy Issues Mr. Stone said policy issues will be evaluated during the Code update process. Issues have been distributed to neighborhood associations, the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce, and the Commission. Consensus was to schedule a discussion at the next meeting, but take public comment today. One resident requested the City standardize tree ordinances and suggested using caliper standards to protect trees, define historic trees for preservation, protect trees during construction, and review the ordinance. Mr. Stone said portions of the previous tree ordinance are not included in the new Code. Staff will recommend a section to prohibit topping, etc. He said the Code includes a historical tree section. City staff is conferring with an arborist regarding tree measurements replacement costs, etc. Another person spoke regarding Section F, Division 6 of the Code regarding permitted uses. It was requested that staff consider changing Code language in Article 2, item #3 regarding hierarchy related to flexible standards and flexible development. It also was requested that the “not applicable” designation be amended as “N/A” can mean something does not apply, or the sky is the limit. It also was requested that Article 3, item #15 regarding increasing the percentage coverage of accessory usage from 5 to 10, be redefined for office uses. Mr. Stone said staff received a letter from a Sand Key condominium owner regarding the proposed change in the minimum is recommending it be changed from 2 weeks to 30 days stay in an overnight accommodation use. Election of Officers This item will be addressed at the next meeting. mcd01b00 14 01/25/00 ITEM 7 – ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m. mcd01b00 15 01/25/00 .. # . . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: JAN. 25TH" 2000 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Day, 2238-2244 Drew Steet. (ANX 99-11-22). t/ yes no Pappas, 1939 Sunset Point Road. (ANX 99-11-23). yes V' no Pappas, 1939 Sunset Point Road. (ANX 99-11-06). yes ~ no Koster, 704 &706 N. Myrtle Ave., 700 Eldridge and 703 Blanche B Little John Trail. (LUZ 99-11-07). yes v no Mandalay Beach Club Development Agreement, 10 Papaya Street and 11 San Marco Str~et. (DA 99-12-01). v yes no Carlouel Yacht Club, 1091 Eldorado Drive. (FL 99-11-21). yes no ~ , e Dahlhauser, Morton Plant Mease Health Care, 323 Jeffords Street. (FL 99-11-22). ~yes no Pollack, 1100 and) 104 Druid Road South. (FL 99-11-23) vi yes no American InfoAge, LLC., 50frVirginia Lane. (V ARI999-F2008). yes vi no ~E?=~h . . I ~ is; - ~O Date . . . .y ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: JAN. 25TH" 2000 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Day, 2238-2244 Drew Steet. (ANX 99-11-22). ,/ "/" yes no Pappas, 1939 Sunset Point Road. (ANX 99-11-23). ,/" yes no Pappas, 1939 ~uns~ Point Road. (ANX 99-11-06). ~ yes no Koster, 704 &706 N. Myrtle Ave., 700 Eldridge and 703 Blanche B Little John Trail. (LUZ 99-11-07). /' yes ~ no Mandalay Beach Club Development Agreement, 10 Papaya Street and 11 San Marco Street. (DA 99-12-01). yes ../ no Carlouel Yacht Club, 1091 Eldorado Drive. (FL 99-11-21). yes v"" no . . . .. . Dahlhauser, Morton Plant Mease Health Care, 323 Jeffords Street. (FL 99-11-22). v--- yes no Pollack, 11 00 .and~ 104 Druid Road South. (FL 99-11-23) V yes no American InfoAge, LLC., 505 Virginia Lane. (V ARI999-F2008). ~ yes no ~ G,r~~ Signature ( ~. (~~ CJ1J Date . . . ~... " COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: JAN. 25TH, 2000 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Day, 2238-2244 Drew Steet. (ANX 99-11-22). yes / no Pappas, 1939 Sunset Point Road. <jX 99-11-23). yes no Pappas, 1939 Sunset Point Road. (AlNX 99-11-06). yes vr- no Koster, 704 &706 N. Myrtle Ave., 700 Eldridge and 703 Blanche B Little John Trail. (L'!j 99-;1-07). es no Mandalay Beach Club Development Agreement, 10 Papaya Street and 11 San Marco Street. (DA 99-12-01} yes ~ no Carlouel Yacht Club, 1091 Eldora~ Drive. (FL 99-11-21). yes . no . . . .. ' . Dahlhauser, Morton Plant Mease "7al h Care, 323 Jeffords Street. (FL 99-11-22). yes no PolIack, 1100 and ll04 Druid R01outh. (FL 99-11-23) yes no American InfoAge, LLC., 5~irginia Lane. (V ARI999-F2008). yes no 'c26D D r- '" . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: JAN. 25TH" 2000 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Day, 2238-224~ I)rew Steet. (ANX 99-11-22). ~ yes no Pappas, 1939 ,(nset Point Road. (ANX 99-11-23). ,yes no . Pappas, 1939~tJIlset Point Road. (ANX 99-11-06). ~ yes no Koster, 704 &706 N. Myrtle Ave., 700 Eldridge and 703 Blanche B Little John Trail. (LPZJ99-11-07). ~ yes no Mandalay Beach Club Development Agreement, 10 Papaya Street and 11 San Marc~reet. (DA 99-12-01). yes no Carlonel YaC~C1nb, 1091 Eldorado Drive. (FL 99-11-21). yes no . r ... . Dahlhauser, Morton Plant Mease Health Care, 323 Jeffords Street. (FL 99-11-22). ':x yes no Pollack, 1100 and 1104 Druid RQad South. (FL 99-11-23) yes ~ no Americ~n i',,~ge, LLC., 505 Virginia Lane. (V AR1999-F2008). . ~ no . . , . . . '\ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD l\'leeting Date: JAN. 25TH, 2000 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Day, 2238-2244 Drew Steet. (AN~-11-22). yes ~no Pappas, 1939 Sunset Point Road.~X 99-11-23). yes ~no Pappas, 1939 Sunset Point Road. ~x 99-11-06). yes no Koster, 704 &706 N. Myrtle Ave., 700 Eldridge and 703 Blanche B Little John Trail. (LUZ 99-11-07). V yes ~no Mandalay Beach Club Development Agreement, 10 Papaya Street and 11 San Marco Street. (DA 99-12~). yes ~no Carlouel Yacht Club, 1091 Eld~o Drive. (FL 99-11-21). yes ~no . . . . " Dahlhauser, Morton Plant Mease Health Care, 323 Jeffords Street. (FL 99-11-22). V yes ~no Pollack, IlOO and Il04 Druid RoaKouth. (FL 99-11-23) yes no American InfoAge, LLC., ~ Virginia Lane. (V AR1999-F2008). yes ~no i'-~d /Date ~ . . . '" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: JAN. 25TH, 2000 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Day, 2238-2244 Drew Steet. (ANX 99-11-22). yes / no . Pappas, 1939 Sunset Point Road. (A~X 99-11-23). yes ~ no Pappas, 1939 Sunset Point Road. (A? 99-11-06). yes no Koster, 704 &706 N. Myrtle Ave., 700 Eldridge and 703 Blanche B Little John Trail. (LUZ 99-11-07). / yes no Mandalay Beach Club Development Agreement, 10 Papaya Street and 11 San Marco Street. (DA 99-12-0r yes no Carlouel Yacht Club, 1091 Eldorad/Drive. (FL 99-11-21). yes I no ,. . . . .. Dahlhauser, Morton Plant Mease Health Care, 323 Jeffords Street. (FL 99-11-22). // yes no Pollack, 1100 and 1104 Druid Ro~South. (FL 99-11-23) yes no American InfoAge, LLC., 5~rginia Lane. (V AR I 999-F2008). yes no (- 25 -(Jo Date