Loading...
06/02/1998PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER June 2, 1998 Present: Douglas Hilkert Chairman Gerald Figurski Vice Chair (arrived 2:28 p.m.) Frank Kunnen Board Member Rick Anderson Board Member David Gildersleeve Board Member Vacant Seat Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Sandra Glatthorn Planning Manager Teresa Mancini Associate Planner Etim Udoh Associate Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter Absent: Edward Mazur Board Member To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, meeting procedures and the appeal process. The Chairman advised applicants that an affirmative vote by four of the five members present is needed for conditional use approval. All applicants chose to proceed. Minutes Approval – May 19, 1998 This item was continued to allow time for board members to receive and review the minutes. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items B1. Scott K. & Ruth S. Hale to permit a utility facility (Communications Tower) at 1496 Belleair Rd Sec 23-29-15, M&B 33.05, zoned CG (General Commercial.) CU 98-17 This item was continued from May 19, 1998 to address public safety concerns relating to wind load capacity and fall zone of a proposed 120-foot tall communications tower. The Development Code Adjustment Board had requested the applicant to explore collocation on other sites and to address area residents’ concerns. Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides explained constraints set forth in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Associate Planner Teresa Mancini reviewed standards for approval and findings of fact. Staff recommended approval with eleven conditions. Jane Kelly, of LCC International representing BellSouth Mobility and the property owners, submitted for the record: 1) an engineer’s letter regarding the tower’s structural integrity and fall zone; 2) a form letter informing other telecommunications carriers of the applicant’s proposal and inquiring about collocation opportunities; and 3) a form notifying the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) of the proposed construction. Ms. Kelly clarified the tower is narrow and pole-like, not a lattice structure. Last Thursday the Development Code Adjustment Board continued a setback variance request to allow staff time to negotiate with FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) regarding collocation upon a City tower sited on FDOT property. She described how the technology operates and why a 120-foot tower is needed at the subject location to provide seamless service to BellSouth’s wireless customers. Site conditions, setback considerations, City standards for approval, timing considerations, and benefits to the City were reviewed. Khaled Juma, Senior Engineer with LCC International, displayed an aerial view of the coverage area and responded to board questions regarding necessity of the requested tower at the specified location to provide seamless coverage. Applicants agreed with staff’s analysis and recommendations. Staff approved a neutral galvanized gray color for the tower. Ron Daniels, with LCC International, responded to questions regarding use of a temporary tower to meet the promotional launch window, timing for removal of the temporary tower, and elimination of towers from other locations. The board expressed concern with allowing 24 months for removal of abandoned towers. No verbal or written support was expressed. Three letters were submitted in opposition to the request. An attorney representing an adjacent property owner objected to the form of the conditional use application, the type of public hearing notice, and the parties who were notified. He submitted a letter of objection, stating his client strongly objects to the request, citing concerns with structure height, violation of building codes, adverse affect on surrounding property values, lightning danger, tower fall zone, and numerous towers in the area. Applicant representatives and staff responded to questions regarding lightning safety, minimal illumination in accordance with FCC (Federal Communication Commission) requirements, rationale for tower height, existing and anticipated codes regarding allowable structure heights. Board members indicated telecommunication towers are necessary, seamless coverage is valuable, and applicants have cooperated in many ways. Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item B1, CU 98-17, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite variances prior to obtaining a building permit; 2) the applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit prior to starting construction, but no later than six months from the date of this public hearing; 3) the applicant shall provide landscaping in accordance with Section 42.27 including the provision of landscaping along Belleair Road and along the outside of the proposed fence after submitting a landscape plan for review and approval by the City’s landscape architect; 4) the tower shall be painted in a neutral, no-glare, color or finish, except as required by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration); 5) the tower shall not be artificially illuminated except as required by the FAA; 6) the tower shall not be utilized for advertising of any type and placement of signs, other than warning signs, shall be prohibited; 7) the applicant shall remove any antenna, including the supporting tower if applicable, which has not operated for a period of 24 consecutive months; 8) the tower shall comply with all regulations and safety standards of the FAA and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission; 9) the applicant shall submit construction drawings for review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit; 10) the applicant shall provide additional carriers with the opportunity to collocate on the tower until such time that space is no longer available; 11) the applicant shall erect a temporary tower on the subject property for a period of six months while pursuing collocation options on an existing tower within the City. In the event that a site for collocation is identified within this six month period, the applicant shall remove the temporary tower from the subject property and locate on the existing tower. Accordingly, any conditional use approvals for this site shall be rendered null and void upon collocation. Should a site suitable for collocation not be identified within the six month period, the conditional use shall be approved, subject to ten conditions; and to request the City Attorney’s office to prepare the final order of the board for adoption at the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B2. John A. Lahara/Medec, A Florida General Partnership (Encore Senior Living) to permit congregate care facilities at 620 Belleair Rd, Sec 21-29-15, M&B 44.23 and Oak Haven, Lots 8-21, zoned proposed CN (Commercial Neighborhood.) CU 98-21 This application for an assisted living facility (ALF) is concurrent with rezoning Item B3, below. The item was continued from May 19, 1998, at staff’s request, to address site plan concerns staff had wanted worked out prior to bringing the item forward. Staff outlined the proposal for a congregate care facility consisting of seven residential structures and a central commons building. Standards for approval and findings of fact were reviewed. Approval with eight conditions was recommended. Mike Gaylor, engineer representing the applicants, outlined the proposed use, property location, surrounding uses, and environmental site aspects. In meetings with environmental staff, heavy consideration was given to saving trees. Several trees within the building and parking footprint are diseased and must be removed. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) has determined a ditch on the property is not a jurisdictional wetland, but drainage created to serve a previous use. Mr. Gaylor displayed a site plan with building locations highlighted, and detailed stormwater treatment/retention, road/driveway configuration and the vacation request in relation to Bryant Street. He circulated photographs of a development similar to the proposal, and explained safety aspects of the gated community environment. Configuration, appearance and operation of the proposed facility, services available to residents, traffic conditions, and stormwater management were discussed. He listed benefits to the neighborhood and agreed to staff’s recommended conditions. A certified site plan is to be submitted within a month, standards for approval, land use and all applicable codes will be met. No verbal or written support was expressed. Three letters and a petition with approximately 386 signatures in opposition from the adjacent Pepper Mill restaurant were submitted with the staff report. An attorney representing the Pepper Mill submitted a petition with approximately 400 more signatures in opposition to the request, and deeds to two nearby properties. The attorney and three other persons cited concerns that vacation of Bryant Street will restrict restaurant deliveries, inhibit vehicular and pedestrian access to two adjacent sites and a bus stop; tree removal will adversely affect the serene setting; changing sewer lines will create blockages; the development does not fit with surroundings; relocation of a lift station next to another property is not acceptable; the proposal might worsen septic tank problems; and restricted access makes the development seem like a prison. Mr. Gaylor and staff responded to concerns, explaining security is needed for the safety of residents with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Staff has analyzed tree health extensively; Bryant Street is a substandard roadway at the subject location; and creation of a forced main system would improve the restaurant’s sewer situation. Discussion ensued regarding timing of requesting the Bryant Street vacation in relation to associated hearings. Ms. Dougall-Sides provided hearing dates. Discussion ensued regarding the traffic engineering analysis of trip generation and traffic access. Discussion ensued regarding zoning and use intensity. Steven Watts, attorney, noted both parts of the applicants’ request are interdependent. He did not agree with the argument that the restaurant “deserves” to have rear road access, and the restaurant does not appear to be within the platted subdivision. Planning Manager Sandra Glatthorn confirmed it does not appear that Bryant Street provides an approved access point at the rear of the restaurant. Board discussion ensued regarding City redevelopment, site condition, zoning intensity, permitted uses under the current zoning, and success of Pepper Mill restaurant. It was felt the applicant has met their burden of proof. Changing the restaurant’s vista was not felt to be adequate reason for denial. Member Figurski moved to approve Item B2, CU 98-21, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain approval for commercial neighborhood rezoning of the subject property prior to obtaining a building permit; 2) the applicant shall obtain the requisite Phase I building permit prior to starting construction but no later than one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) the applicant shall submit a landscape plan and tree survey for review and approval by the City’s landscape architect prior to obtaining a building permit and the site will be subject to any changes required to meet the landscape standards of Section 42.27; 4) the applicant shall obtain approval for vacation of the Bryant Street and Cross Lane rights-of-way prior to obtaining a building permit; 5) the applicant shall obtain site plan certification within six months from the date of this public hearing; 6) this conditional use approval shall limit density for the congregate care facility to 98 beds; 7) the applicant shall provide 36 parking spaces in accordance with Section 42.34, and shall provide additional parking spaces, as required by code, in the event the number of employees at this site exceeds 24 people; and 8) the applicant shall obtain an occupational at the completion of Phase I and prior to the start of doing business but no later than 2 years from the date of this public hearing The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B3. Amending the Zoning Atlas of the City by rezoning certain property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Belleair Rd and S Ft Harrison Ave, consisting of Lots 8-21, Oak Haven Subdivision, and M&B 44.23, whose post office address is 620 Belleair Rd, from General Commercial (CG) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN); providing an effective date. Z 98-08 Associate Planner Etim Udoh provided background, recommending endorsement to the City Commission. Discussion of the item occurred during Item B2, above. Member Figurski moved to endorse Item B3, Z 98-08, to the City Commission. Members Hilkert, Kunnen, Figurski, and Anderson voted “Aye”; Member Gildersleeve voted “Nay.” Motion carried. C. Conditional Uses C1. Exxon Corporation (Belcher & Nursery Exxon) to permit package sales of beer and wine (new license) at 1505 S Belcher Rd, Sec 19-29-16, M&B 33.06 zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 98-23 Staff provided background of the proposal to replace a closed 24-pump service station with a new 3,200 square foot convenience store, car wash, and gas station with five fueling islands. Staff recommended approval with four conditions. Representative Kelly Blackburn responded to questions, stating the applicant agrees with staff’s recommended conditions. The previous gas station use did not sell alcoholic beverages. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Figurski moved to approve Item C1, CU 98-23, subject to the following conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license prior to doing business but no later than one year from the date of this public hearing; 2) the applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit prior to starting construction but no later than six months from the date of this public hearing; 3) the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, in accordance with Section 42.27, for review and approval by the City’s landscape architect prior to obtaining the requisite building permit; and 4) the applicant shall obtain a State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License within six months from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review D1. 1818 Brentwood Drive, Lake Lela Manor 1st Add, Lot 7 R. Brenton Howie) A 98-17 LUP: Residential Low Zone: RS-4 (Single Family Residential) Staff provided background, stating staff recommends endorsement of annexation to provide sewer service. The applicant was not present and was not represented. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Kunnen moved to endorse Item D1, A 98-17 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D2. 2715 SR 580, Acker Sub, Blk 1, Lots 3&4 less rd right-of-way on NW & Lot 15 (M-K Real Estate Investment Co./John M. Searcy A 98-18 LUP: Residential Low Zone: OL (Limited Office) Staff provided background, stating staff recommends endorsement of annexation to provide sewer service. Dixie Walker represented the applicants. Member Gildersleeve moved to endorse Item D2, A 98-18 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Upon learning two people were present to speak in opposition, Member Gildersleeve moved to withdraw endorsement of Item D2, A 98-18. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. No verbal or written support was expressed. Two persons spoke in opposition, complaining of heavy rush hour traffic cutting through their neighborhood to access Countryside High School to the north, by means of the traffic light at Charles Avenue and SR 580. They expressed concern that annexing the subject property and opening a driveway at the back of Lot 15 to Daniel Street provides another way for eastbound State Road 580 traffic to cut through residential Acker subdivision to the south. They submitted a petition with 11 signatures in opposition. Mr. Walker responded the problem has been discussed with the appropriate City and County agencies. He did not feel it likely the narrow winding driveway through the subject property would attract through traffic. Exiting the business onto Daniel Street and turning left from Charles Avenue is the business’ only means of accessing westbound SR 580 without a long detour out to McMullen Booth Road. Member Figurski moved to endorse Item D2, A 98-18 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments Staff was requested to provide the board with copies of the City’s telecommunications tower ordinance at the next meeting. The new staff report format was praised. Central Permitting Director Lorenzo Aghemo was invited to attend the next meeting. The board noted signatures on the petition opposing today’s Items B2 and B3 were restaurant patrons from all around the country. The board’s Summer meeting schedule was reviewed. Staff will monitor the number of cases coming forward in August with a view toward deleting one August meeting for the convenience of summer vacationers. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.