08/30/1988
P&Z
"
.. I , ,
\:...,. . ," '.. ";!' ,":
PLANNING &. ZONING BOARD
DATE ? /30 I,r
1~ /DL/7
.....-----......,.. .
.. ~. ..
. . . ~'. '..... .'. .'. ' ' .' . . . . \ '. . .'. ',' ,'~ . ,'" ' . . , ~, ' ',' . . '..1 . . . '., I' .
.... ~ .
AGENDA
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEET(NG
TUESDAY: Augus t 30 1988 - 130 PM
(.....
, '
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
ITEM
ACTION
A. Approval of minutes of July 26 1988
Approval of minutes of August 16, 1988
CONDITIONAL USES:
ALL TESTIMONY IS GIVEN UNDER OATH. The Board follows the procedures outlined
below:
(."
(.
\ :
"-..
1. The Chairman reads from the Public Hearing Notice each time as it is
presented.
2. TIle Planning Director advises the Board of any pertinent background
informat ia n.
3. The applicant or his representative pr.esents his case.
4. Persons who support the application speak.
5. TIle Planning Director presents ':ll1.y supporting written documents.
6. Persons who support the application speak.
7, The Planning Director presents aay opposing \o/ritten documents.
8. Persons supporting the application (other than applicant) may speak
U1
rebuttal.
9. Persons opposing may speak in rebuttal.
10. Thtl :1pplicant has an opportunity for final rebuttal.
11. The Board makes a decision.
FLORIDA STATUTE 286.0105 STATES: ANY PERSON APPEALING A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
MUST HAVE A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT SUCH APPEAL.
B. Conditional Uses:
L Lots 3,4,19,20,21
Longvi ew Sub.
(1617 Gulf-to'-Bay Boulevard)
Robby's Pancake House, Inc./
Michael S. Coover
CU 88-72
Request - 2-COP (On Premise Consumption
of Alcoholic Be~erages)
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
i.,."
~\.'
P & Z Agenda
1
08/30/88
Request - 2--APS (Package Sales of
Alcoholic Bev~rages)
Zoned - CC (General Commercial)
2.
M& B s 32.0 1 & 3 2. 02, 5e c. 17 .- 29 S 1 6 E
(119 Clearwater Mall
505 U. S. HYlY. 19 North)
Hahn Co./Schnickel Fritz/
Aristides Miliotes
CU 88,-73
(0"
Request - 2-COP (On Premise Consumption
AND Package Sales of
Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned .- CC (Commercial Center)
3. Part oE Lot 2,
Bas kin' s Re p 1 a t
(2809 Gulf-to Bay Boulevard)
Herbert Wollowick (TIle World of
Beer, Inc.) IJohn Holb<Jcl1, Jr.
CU 88-74
ANNEXATION, ZONING, LAND USE PLAN AMENDHENTS, AND LOCAL PLANNINC AGENCY
REVIEH:
, (~,
(1) Statement of case by applicant - 5 minutes
(2) Presentation by stafE - 5 minutes
(3) Comments from public in support/opposition:
individual - 3 minutes
spokesperson for group - 10 minutes
(4) Public Hearings are closed
(5) Discussion/Action by Board
c. Annexation and Zoming:
1 . Lo t I and 1 A,
Spring Lake Estates
(Located on the south side of
S.R. 590, east of Spring Lake Dr.)
(pasqualotto)
A 88-23
Request - Annexation and Zoning, RS-8
(Si.ngle-Family Residential "Ei.ght")
/
'-....,
P & Z Agenda
2
08/30/88
PARCEL #1:
Lo t 3, B 1 k. 7
Part Tracts B
Bayview Sub.
Town of Bayview &
& C, M.A. Smith's
~ .
D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment AND
Local Planning Agency Review:
(~'
1.
PARCEL #1 and PARCEL #2
(Located at the southeast corner of
C.R. 31 and Bayview Avenue> south
of Gulf ,to'-Bay)
(House of Prayer) Inc./Cummings)
A 88-22 LUP 88...18
Request - Annexation and Zoning: P/SP
(Public/Semi-Public)
Land Use Plan:
FROM: Low De ns i ty Re s td en t t9.1
TO: Public/Semi-Public
PARCEL #2:
Lot 2, Blk. 7. Town of Bayview
Request - Annexation and Zoning, RS-6
(Single-"Family Residential "Six")
C~"."
, ,
1 .'
i:;..'.
2.
(CONTINUED FROM 7/26/88 & 08/30/88)
PARCEL #1 AND PARCEL #2
(Located at the eastern terminus
of Seville Boulevard)
(Clearwater Seville, Ltd. and
AEL Partnership)
LUP 88-11 A 88 -20
PARCEL if1:
M&B 34.01, and Part M&Bs 21.01 & 34.02
Sees. 17-29S-16E & 20-29S-16E
Request - Annexation and Zoning, RM-28
(Multiple Family Residential "Twenty-Eight")
Land Use Plan:
FROM: Medium Density Residential
TO: High Density Residential
PARCEL 112:
Part M&Bs 21.01 & j4.02
Sees. 17-29S-16E & 20-29S-16E
Request - Annexation and Zoning, AL/C
(Aquatic Lands/Coas ta 1)
l,c'
P & Z Agenda
3
08/30/88
',' ',# .' , ,!? ',.', '.'" , , " \,' ',', . " , ,1' . " . " '
J .,:
f;.:
f'<
.' '....~..
3.
(CONTINUED FROM 7/26/88 & 08/30/88)
M&B 33.06, Sec. 1]-29S-16E
(Located south of existing Seville
Condominiums and south of Pearce
Drive [Private Street])
(Clearwater Seville, Ltd.)
LUP 88-12 Z 88-14
('.'
\, ..
Zoning At las:
FROM: RM'12 (Multiple Family Resi.dential "Twelve")
TO: RM-28 (Multiple Family Residential "Twenty-Eight")
Land Use Plan:
FROM: ~edium Density Residential
TO: ffigh Density Residential
E. Land Development Code Text Amendment and
Local Planning Agency Review:
1-
Chapter 136) Section 136.027
(PROPOSED ORDINANCE 4648-88)
('~:
""".....;..
To provide that no property owner shall be entitled as a
matter of right to a permit or approva 1 for the
d eve lopment 0 E a parce 1 of prope rty wh ich was c reat ed as
the result: of an unlawful subdivision, where such
subdivision resulted in the diminution DE required parking
or the via lation of certain requi rl=ments or regulations
applicable to any parcel of property created as a result
or the unlawful subdivision, without the prior approval
by the City 0 f a pl an to roi t iga te the nonconformity and
any variances made necessary as a result of the unlawful
subdivision.
F.. Chairman's Items
G.. Director's Items
H. Board and Staf f comments
(
,-, ,
P & Z Agend~l
4
08/30/88
Ms. Harvey explained what
uses, annexation, zonings,
amendments, and variances.
this Board requires when looking at conditional
Land Use Plan amend men ts, Land Development Code
MINlJi'ES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1988 - 1:00 PM
('
*..
Members Present:
Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Green, Hamilton,
Hogan, and Schwob
Members Absent:
Mr. Ferrell
DISCUSSION ITIM
Development Process Study (Healey Consultant Group, Inc.)
Mr. Healey advised the Clearing and Grubbing Permit and Tree Ordinance
regulations are found in an older section of the Code of Ordinances, and he
felt it may be recommended these regulations be updated a.ld integrated with
the Land Development Code.
The Board members discussed which categories on the questionnaire they
personally felt suffered from inadequacies and which categories on the
questionnaire they, as a Board, felt suffered from inadequacies.
,,:
r'
t
~<It"t...
The Board felt, not unanimously, that change of ownership of alcoholic
beverage licenses should be continued to be reviewed by the Board. The Board
expressed concern regarding the la ck of inspec tion and enforcement of
conditions placed on approved conditional uses.
The Board felt previous alcoholic beverage requirement of sufficient distance
worked better than requiring the City Commission to approve a variance to the
separation distance. Ms. Harvey stated the City Commission felt they should
have final responsibility because they are elected officials.
The Board discussed the feasibility of also hearing variances that relate to
requested conditional uses to save time and money for the applicant, citizens,
and the City. Mr. Healey stated he would discuss the idea with the Development
Code Adjustment Board and possibly the task force with the Chamber of
Commerce.
The Board felt more effort should be made to eliminating enclaves, the Board
was not opposed to forcing annexation, and the Board was opposed to the City
iniating the rezoning of property.
Mr. Hamilton felt it was a good idea that more than one Board or Commission
looks at rezonings.
Mr. Healey stated he will prepare a summary of the Board's ideas and be at the
Board meeting on September 13, 1988.
A.
Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Sclnvobt
minutes of the July 26, 1988 meeting as written.
unanimously (6 to 0).
to approve the
Motion carried
(
'...,J
P & Z MINUTES
1
08/30/88
" ."., ,. . , " " . , ' :. . " " ... I. ' :'. ' " , 'r '
Mot ion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Hami lton, to continue
approval of the minutes of the August 16, 1988 meeting. Motion carried
unanimously (6 to 0).
r."',
s.,. Chairman Johnson outlined the procedures for conditional uses and advised that
anyone adversely affected by a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board,with
regard to conditional uses, has two weeks from this date in which to file an
appeal through the City Clerk's Office. Florida Law requires any party
appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to
support the appeal.
ITEMS ARE LISTED IN AGENDA ORDER THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DISCUSSED IN THAT
ORDER.
B. Conditional Uses:
1. Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21
Longview Sub.
(1617 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard)
Robby's Pancake House, Inc./
Michael S. Coover
Cll 88-72
Request - 2-COP (On Premise Consumption
of Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
(
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on premise consumption of
alcoholic beverages in General Commercial zoning district and the parking to
the rear is zoned RM-8; the specific State license being applied for is a new
2-COP State license for service of beer and wine in an existing restaurant;
the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and
136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no objection; and the Police Department
saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated the above
request does necessitate a variance from a residential zone and from a
similarly U.censed facility. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of
the above request subject to the following: 1) That the alcoholic beverage
license be procured within 6 months; and, 2) That variances to the separation
distances be approved by the City Commission.
Mr. Michael Coover, applicant, stated the restaurant will have a new dinner
menu and he felt a 2-COP license will be a benefit to the business. He stated
he has been in business for 30 years. He further stated he has a license at
his Treasure Island restaurant and would now like to have a license here.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
(,
Motion was made by Hr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above
request subject to the following: 1) That the alcoholic beverage license be
procured within 6 months; and, 2) That variances to the separation distances
be approved by the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
If
,"-"
P & Z MINUTES
2
08/30/88
Request - 2-COP (On Premise Consumption
AND Package Sales of
Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned - CC (Commercial Center)
~ .'.
2.
M&Bs 32.01 & 32.02, Sec. 17-29S-16E
(119 Clearwater Mall
505 U. S. Hwy. 19 North)
Hahn Co./Schnickel Fritz/
Aristides Miliotes
CD 88-73
"'-'"
f. "
~
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a reques t for on premise consump tion
and package sales of alcoholic beverages in the Commercial Center zoning
district; the governing section of the Land Development Code are Sections
136.024 and 136.025(b); the specific request is for a new 2-COP State license
for use in a proposed restaurant and delicatessen; the Traffic Engineer had no
objection; and the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to
applicant. Ms. Harvey stated the request will require approval of variance
from the separation distance of a similarly license facility. Ms. Harvey
advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the
following: 1) That the Occupational License be procured within 6 months; and
2) That the variance to the separation dis tance be approved by the City
Commission.
, ,....
, ~\ ',..'
'-. .
. ~!;E..:; .
Mr. Aristides Miliotes; applicant, stated he has been in business in
Countryside Mall for 12 years and he has had businesses similarly licensed in
Pasco County for 8 years. He advised the property is not within any school,
church, or residential areas and he operates a family type restaurant. After
questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Miliotes stated the property previously was
the Pub and he has also leased an additional smaller store. After questioning
by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Miliotes stated he is unsure if the previous operation
included package sales. He added that this operation is not the kind of
operation where large beer orders are sold but the package sales are important
because of the gift baskets and similar items sold.
Ms. Harvey stated one ],etter of objection was received from a property owner
within a nearby mobile home park.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to, the above request.
Mr. Schwob stated he is familiar with the type of operation proposed and felt
the property owner who submitted the letter of objection would experience no
problems.
Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to approve the above
request subject to the following: 1) That the Occupational License be procured
within 6 months; and 2) That the variance to the separation distance be
approved by the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
l~
P & Z MINUTES
3
08/30/88
Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of
Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
t.....
, .'
3.
Part of Lot 2,
Baskin's Replat
(2809 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard)
Herbert Wollowick (The World of
Beer, Inc.)/John Holbach, Jr.
CD 88-74
(....
~,
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for package sales of
alcollolic beverages in the General Commercial zoning dis trict; the specific
request is for an existing package store to move to another location within
the same shopping center; the governing sections of the Land Development Code
are Sections 136.024 and l36.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no comments;
and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms.
Harvey stated the request will require approval of variance from the
separa tion distance to a residential zone. Ms. Harvey advised that staff
recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That
the Occupational License be procured within 6 months; and, 2) That the
variance to the separation distance be approved by the City Commission.
Mr. John lI()lbach, Jr., applicant, stated he proposed moving into a store
several stores east in the shopping center. ffe added that the store has been
in operation for 9 years.
No persons appeared in support of or opposition to the above request.
,\,,":""".
f.. :
,.~
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above
request subject to the following: 1) That the Occupational License be procured
within 6 TIlonths; and, 2) That the variance to the separation distance be
approved by the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
C. .Annexation and Zon.ing:
1. Lot 1 and lA,
Spring Lake Estates
(Located on the south side of
S.R. 590) east of Spring Lake Dr.)
(Pasqualotto)
A 88-23
Request
Annexation and Zoning, RS-8
(Single-Family Residential "Eight")
The above property is located on the south side of S.R. 590, east of Spring
Lake Drive.
The applicant was not present.
i
"
......,
Ms. lIarvey advised this is a request for annexation and RS-8 (Single-Family
Residential "Eight"') zoning. She also advised the lot is presently vacant and
a single family residence is proposed. She stated City sewer is available,
natural gas is available, and the recreation facility fee has been paid. Ms.
Ha rvey advised staff recommended approval of the req \les t for annexation and
RS-8 (Single-Family Residential "Eight") zoning.
P & Z MINUTES
4
08/30/88
, . . ". . . : .'. .'.' . . . . . . " " ,.', . ~. , . '.' '. . . I " .
Motion was made by Mr. Schwab, seconded by Hogan, to recommend approval of the
request for annexation and RS-8 (Single-Family Residential "Eight") zoning.
Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
r
, ~ .. . .
',;
D.
Annexatioa, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment AND
Loea! Planning Agency Review:
1. PARCEL #1 and PARCEL #2
(Located at the southeast corner of
C.R. 31 and Bayview Avenue, south
of Gulf-to-Bay)
(House of Prayer, lnc./Cummings)
A 88-22 LUP 88-18
PARCEL #1:
Lot 3, Blk. 7, Town of Bayview &
Part Tracts B & C, M.A. Smith's
Bayview Sub.
Request - Annexation and Zoning, P/SP
(Public/Semi-Public)
Land Use Plan:
FROM: Low Density Residential
TO: Public/Semi-Public
PARCEL 12:
Lot 2, Blk. 7, Town of Bayview
oJ::.:,-
,
\~'"
Request - Annexation and Zoning, RS-6
(Single-Family Residential "Six")
The above property is located at the southeast corner of C.R. 31 and Bayview
Avenue, south of Gulf-to-Bay.
Ms. Harvey advised that the applicant requested a continuance of the above
request to the "Planning and Zoning Board Meeting scheduled for October 4,
1988.
Motion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to continue the above
request to the Planning and Zoning Meeting scheduled for October 4, 1988.
Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
.I
~-"
P & Z MINUTES
5
08/30/88
Zoning Atlas:
FROM: RM-12 (Multiple Family Residential "Twelve")
TO: RM-28 (Multiple Family Residential "Twenty-Eight")
ITEMS D(2) AND D(3) WERE DISCUSSED TOGE"rHER.
2.
(CONTINUED FROM 7/26/88 & 08/16/88)
PARCEL #1 AND PARCEL #2
(Located at the eastern terminus
of Seville Boulevard)
(Clearwater Seville, Ltd. and
AEL Partnership)
LUP 88-11 A 88-20
r':
PARCEL Ill:
M&B 34.01, and Part M&Bs 21.01 & 34.02
Sees. 17-29S-l6E & 20-29S-16E
Request - Annexation and Zoning, RM-28
(Multiple Family Residential "Twenty-Eight")
Land Use Plan:
FROM: Medium Density Residential
TO: High Density Residential
PARCEL 112:
Part M&Bs 21.01 & 34.02
Sees. l7-29S-l6E & 20-29S-l6E
Request - Annexation and Zoning, AL/C
(Aquatic Lands/Coastal)
('"
The above property is located at the eastern terminus of Seville Boulevard.
3. (CONTINUED FROM 7/26/88 & 08/16/88)
M&B 33.06, Sec. 17-29S-16E
(Located south of existing Seville
Condominiums and south of Pearce
Drive [Private Street])
(Clearwater Seville, Ltd.)
LUP 88-12 Z 88-14
Land Use Plan:
FROM: Medium Density Residential
TO: High Density Residential
The above property is located south of existing Seville Condominiums and south
of Pearce Drive [Private Street].
Mr. William, Albrecht, applicant, stated he is asking for the rezoning to
complete the development of his property. He explained the surrounding land
uses. He stated the area is a comfortable, private, residential area and
conservation is practiced. He advised that access to the property is through
Seville Boulevard and Pearce Drive. Mr. Albrecht stated that utilities are
more than adequate for completion of the development. He advised the proposed
zoning change is the same as the existing zoning on Seville Boulevard and the
proposed project is compatible with what currently exists. Mr. Albrecht felt
the development is appropriate for its location. He added that there would be
P & Z MINUTES
6
08/30/88
a substantial increase in
approved. Mr. Albrecht felt
recommendat.ion.
the Cit.y's tax base .lf the above request is
the Board should make a factual 81131ys is and
["
'"
t
~'"
Ms. Harvey s tat.ed t.he above items had been cont.inued un.til an Impact
Assessment had been received from the applicant. She stated the Impact
Assessment. addresses issues such as t.ransportatioll, environment., and
utilities. She expressed concern about. some of the fIgures stat.ed in the
Impact. Assessment. primarily as they pertaill to traffic. She stated the City
has not established an acceptable level of service standard for roads in the
City of Clearwater and the State has i.ndicated that the only acceptable level
of service for future growth for U. S. Hwy. 19 and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is a
Level of Service "D." She advised that the Impact Assessment states that a
Leve 1 of Service "E" is 'Wha twill resu It wi th improvements to u. s. Hwy. 19
and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and the Board should realize ther.e Ls still much
work to be done. She stated it is not this property owner's responsibility
alone to upgrade the level of service on U. S. Hwy. 19 and Gulf-to-Bay
B'oulevard but it is the r.esponsibility of all adjacent property owners and the
City, Count.y and St.ate. She stated the Board should look more at the
differences in impacts that are created as the result of increasing t.he zoning
above what it currently is on the plan today and what it has the pot.ential of
being. She advised all the calculations provided in regard to the nUlnber of
t.rips expected to be generated along U. s. Hwy 19 and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
are based on the current Medium Density Residential classiflcation. She stated
the zoning would be an RM-12 'Within the City of Clearwater and within the
County the zoning is designated as 10 units per acre. She added that the 10
units per acr.e is misleading to the extent that cr.edi t is given for some
properties such as Aquatic Lands/Coastal to provide transfer from that area to
the upland property and in act.uality more than 10 units per acre could be
developed on the property. She stated there is sufficient City sewer and water
service to toe pr.opert.y.
Ms. Harvey advised that the original master plan for the subject property
could not be built today with the current permitting processes in the City and
outside of the City, particularly with D.E.R. and D.N.R. She stat.ed that
during the areawide rezonings in the early 19808, the one piece of property
(ITEM D[3]) was down-zoned to RM-12 after recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Board to City staff to down zone all vacant property that was shown as
High Density Residential in the City. The property was shown as High Density
Residential on the Land Use Plan previous to the areawide rezonings.
Ms. Harvey advised she has no difficulty recommending approval of an amendment
to the Land Use Plan on the pr.operty currently zoned RM-12 but would recommend
a zoning of RM-20. She stated her recommenda tion of RM- 20 is based upon the
property currently developed is not developed at 28 units an acre and the
certain lifestyle recognized by the exis ting residents of Seville. She felt
the RM-20 zoning is reasonable and it lessens the immediate impact presented
in t he plan.
it.
~;;.;./
Ms. Nixon felt. the Impact Assessment was highly subjective since it. 'Was done
by the applicant. After questioning by Ms. N'ixon, Ns. Harvey advised the
property owner hires a company t.o do t.he Impact Assessment to the ext.ent he
feels he needs a company but if the property owner feels he is qualified to
make representations in the Impact Assessment. he can. prepare the Impact
Assessment on his own. She added t.hat the City has no requirements that the
Impact. Assessment. be cert.ified. She advised that the Impact Assessment should
be based on factual information but the City does not have the authority to
P & Z MINUTES
7
08/30/88
(
~"..
In opposition to the above request, the following pe.rsons appeared to give
their comments:
approve or deny the lmpa ct Assessmen t ilnd it is p r.ov,ided to the Roa rd as a
source of information.
/'~"'
r
Mr. Albrecht stated the statements tn the Impact Assessment are based on 24
hour familiarity with the property.
Ms. Harvey advised that when looking at traffic counts one must look at the
overall picture and U. S. Hwy. 19 at Seville Boulevard is currently a Level
of Service "F," which is the worst condition. She stated the actual traffi.c
generated by Seville itself, in comparison to what is already on U.S. Hwy. 19
and coming out of the Mall, is not very much, and, though the Seville traff.ic
has an impact, it is not the major traffic generator to that lntersection.
After questioning by Mr. Schwab, Ns. Harvey stated the City works on net
acreage when figur ing dens i ty and the County works on gross acreage when
figuring density. She also stated the County gives credi.t for preservatlon
land where the City does not. Ms. Harvey felt the County 'Would object to the
application as it is submitted. She felt the RH-20 zoning was appropriate
because of what is out there now. After questioning by ~tr. Schwab, Ms. Harvey
stated that a comparable zonin.g in terms of unit count would be from the
County's 10 up to 14 or 15.
After questioning by I1r. Hogan, Ms. Harvey though.t she r:-emembered that
previously applicc1I1t had requested Rt1-28 zoning, the City r.ecommended RM-12,
the Board recommended Rt1-16) and the applicant then withdrew the <lpplication.
After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Albrecht stated that 2 1/2 years ago he
wen t to the county for approval bu t the appl icat iOIl was withdrawn before
anything happened.
Ms. Mary Lou. Dobbs, 2612 Pearce Drive, Seville Condo1Jli.niums, requested the
Board deny this ap p1icat ion. She stated there are present ly 372 unt ts and
allowing 1,200 adcli t ional uni ts would total 1,500 unit s ,. She felt landowners
should have reasonable use of their property and felt the City should be able
to set restrictions when necessary. She felt the present facilities are not
maintained very well. She added that the facilities accommodate those persons
present now but the facilities would not be adequate for additional persons.
She stated the telephone book lists both Seville Condominiums and the address
of the author of the Impact Assessment as being the same. She felt the traffic
count in the Impact Assessment was done during a slack season before 8:00 AM
and felt tha t an est imat e of e'Xpec ted income to the Ci ty is based on 1,200
units at a $75,000 per unit value. 1'1s. Dobbs submitted a news article from
1981 concerning tbe subject property (see attached).
Ms. Dorothy L. Dossey, 2635 Seville Boulevard, Seville Condominiums, felt it
is difficult for one to be impartial doing an Impact Assessment for oneself.
She felt improper traffic counts were used in the Impact Assessment. She
stated she is in opposition to the above request.
(~,
Mr. Robert: Coleman, 1012 Pearce Drive, Seville Condominiums, stated the
proposal for development is for rental units in a condorrrlnium place. He felt
the value of their property will decTease. He also felt apartments will not
enhance the property. He stated the increase of 1,100 units will affect the
impact of traffic:. lie advised the residents want a condominium community and
do not want cheaper rental units. Mr. Hogan stated this Board has no
P & Z MINUTES
8
08/30/88
(.
'lJ},.
...~~-'
Ms. Harvey stated Mr. McDermott is correct that the property under
consideration for annexation must be annexed in order to be developed but does
not prevent the property owner asking the county to rezone the property. She
stated the staff notes Mr. McDermott referred to are notes from the planning
staff for consideration and reference only. She stated, though the staff notes
are pertinent, she felt she had not misquoted any notes provided by staff. She
agreed that fees collected from this project when it is developed should be
oriented to the u.S. Hwy 19/Gulf-to-Bay area. She stated that if the road to
Montgomery Wards is closed the City would have no jurisdiction because it is a
private road. She felt her recommendation is not irresponsible. She stated the
issue today is not that the City is in litigation regarding the subject
property and the Board should not consider the litigation in making its
decision regarding the subject matter.
jurisdiction as to whether the proposed units would be rental or condominium
units.
,~h,
f
Atty. Bob McDermott, McDermott and Sasso, 101 Clearwater-Largo Road, Largo,
FL, representative of residents of Building Nos. 2) 3) and 4) stated he
represents approximately 300 people and he represented the Seville
Condominiums before the County Commission when there was an application for
ACLF and a nursing home. He advised that the County defeated that proposal by
Mr. Albrecht. He also advised this is not the typical type of annexation
because this agreement which is filed of record down in Pinellas County,
Florida, is an agreement wi th covenants tha t states the covenants run wi th
the land, and one of the covenants is that this property cannot be developed
without coming into the City of Clearwater. He felt that Ms. Nixon and Ms.
Dossey are correct in feeling that an impact study be unequivocably correct
and totally credible. He felt if the study was not COLrect it would cause more
expense to the City and the taxpayers. He stated he cannot conceive the city
staff recommending 20 units per acre. He also stated the application was made
without showing proper proprietary interest and had to be amended. He stated
this property has been in litigation since 1982. Mr. McDermott read from the
City files concerning hurricanes and traffic. He stated the City's land use
plan is 12 units per acre. He stated the file has been studied and his source
indicated the City has an excellent opportunity and basis for winning this
lawsuit based on the fact that so much time has passed. He stated his source
also felt the City should stick to the Land Use Plan that was passed.
After questioning by Mr. Schwab, Ns. Harvey stated the property partially
owned and partially under lease by First Federal of Largo had a conditional
use approved for automobile and boat display and sales and is in the final
stages of site plan review.
After questioning by Mr. Green, Ms. Harvey stated the agreement stating that
the property must be annexed to be developed is not in litigation and is tied
to sewer service.
In rebuttal, Mr. Albrecht stated there are some misunderstandings with some
residents but there is no contract for sale pending on the subject property.
{
f
,.,..
After ques tioning by Hr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey stated it is poss ihIe that the
county could file an opposition with the State to a change of Land Use Plan
and she has no idea how the county feels about such a change. She stated if
the application is approved and forwarded to the State, any reviewing agency
could oppose and the City would be required to respond.
P & Z MINUTES
9
08/30/88
. ',:,'.. . , . . '. . . I..~ .:. ", : ' t..: . ~ . I . .' . . '.. . " :.... ~,. .t'
Ms. Nixon stated she is in favor of recommending approval of Item D(2), Parcel
112, but she would not be in favor of recommending approval of the other
r.." requests.
(i
Mr. Hogan felt the RM-l2 is appropriate and should remain.
Mr. Green stated he is not in favor of RM-28 zoning but he stated he is unsure
of the zoning that should be placed.
Mr. Schwob stated he is in favor of Item D(2), Parcel #2 but would be in favor
of an RM-16 zoning for the other parcels.
Mr. Green felt he could support RM-16 zoning but not a higher zoning category.
Mr. Johnson felt the zoning should remain the same.
Mr. Hamilton stated the RM-16 to RM-20 range would allow the operation to be
expanded similar to what is currently in place. He stated he would not be in
favor of a zoning category that would allow for taller buildings and he would
not be in favor of any transfer of density.
Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to recommend approval of
annexation and RM-12 (Multiple Family Residential "Twelve") zoning for Item.
D(2). Parcel II. After roll call, motion tied (3 to 3), with Ms. Nixon and
Nessrs. Hogan and Johnson voting "aye" and Hessrs. Green, Hamilton, and Schwob
voting "nay."
[' .
~
....,"'-
Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to recommend apPloval of
annexation and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal) zoning for Item D(2), Parcel 12.
Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
Motion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to recommend approval of
annexation and RM-16 (Hultiple Family Residential "Sixteen") zoning for IteDl
D(2), Parce1 #1. Notion tied (3 to 3), with Messrs. Green, Hamilton, and
Schwob voting "aye.. and Hs. Nixon and Hessrs. Hogan and Johnson voting "nay."
Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to recommend denial of
Item D(3). Motion tied (3 to 3), with Ms. Nixon and Messrs. Hogan and Johnson
voting "aye" and Messrs. Green, Hamilton, and Schwob voting "nay."
Motion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Sch\>1ob, to recommend approval of
RM-l6 (Multiple Family Residential "Sixteen") zoning for Item D(3). Motion
tied (3 to 3), with Messrs. Green, Hamilton, and Schwob voting "aye" and Ms.
Nixon and Messrs. Hogan and Johnson voting "nay.-
"
\.,.
P & Z MINUTES
10
08/30/88
E. Land Development Code Text Amendment and
Local Planning Agency Review:
(-.
L
Chapter 136) Section 136.021
(PROPOSED ORDINANCE 4648-88)
To provide that no property owner shall be entitled as a
ma t t e r 0 f rig h t t 0 ape r m i tor a p pro val for the
developmen t of a parcel of property which was creat ed as
the result of an unlawful subdivision, \vhere such
subdivision resulted in the diminution of required parking
or the violation of certain requirements or regulations
applicable to any parcel of property created as a result
of the unlawful subdivision, without the prior approval
by the City of a plan to mitigate the nonconformity and
any variances made necessa ry as a result of the unlawful
subdivision.
(
'I'~~v .
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This amendment to the Land Development Code was
originally begun by Interim Commissioner Moore; the Planning staff voiced its
objection to the amendment and the Commission was concerned and the amendment
faltered; and, the Commission and staff were concerned that an individual
owning property where parking or detention requirements were met could,
without review by or notice to the City, sell the property to someone else
which would leave the property nonconforming. She advised this amendment
actually serves as a notice to sellers and buyers that, if a piece of property
is sold unlawfully, which means not going through the platting process, and as
a result the property has been- diminished so as to not meet requirements,
permits will not be issued to build. She stated sales contracts will not be
reviewed and the City is not telling people they cannot sell their property.
She stated the amendment is intended to notify property owners that a piece of
property cannot be sold if used for meeting requirements of the Code. She
advised, if the proper process for platting is followed and a property owner
can show that he met requirements otherwise, he could sell his property.
After questioning by Mr. Schwob, }is. Harvey stated she hopes what the City is
accomplishing is to diminish future problems and, if approved~ the City will
be in a position to not issue a permit until requirements are met.
After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Harvey stated the amendment ~ill allow
the City to have recourse if it is sued by a new owner and the new owner could,
also go back to the seller because it is the seller's obligation to make up
the difference of what was sold.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Ms. Nixon, to recommend approval of
(PROPOSED ORDINANCE 4648-88), Chapter 136, Section 136.027, of the Land
Development Code. Motion carried (5 to 1), with Mr. Hamilton voting "nay."
Meeting adjourned at 4:20 PM.
t: .i
,-,.
~/
Paula Harvey
Planning Director
P & Z MINUTES
11
08/30/88
.:. . ~ '. . .
...
,t.- .
. ...,--..
~ .'
""r
';
C: j. i Jl... vJ A r tF/<. ~ ~, . \1
7A. Ai. 'Ll.J#:. /11-1 I q ~ I
. CountyrE?jects
· .zoning proposal
. for condominium
By ROBERT KAPLER.
SUb Staff Writer
CLEARWATER-In a heated session Tuesday night.
county commissioners turned down a proposed zoning
change that would have allowed construct;on pC a con-
dominuITI complex or nursing home next to the Seville
Apartment Homes near U.S. 19 and Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard.
About 50 elderly residents of Seville lined up to de-
scribe how a zoning change would overcrowd existing
recreational faclitics and c[('ate'traffic problems on U.S.
19. Residents said recreational facilities at the complex
are already taxed and that Seville Boulevard and U.S. 19
is one of the worst city intersedions for traffic snarls and
accidents.
Seville's owner, William Albrecht, sought awning
change that would have allowed up to 20 units an acre on
the 43 acres of waterfront land. or 840 units.
Albrecht had signed a contract with developer Allen
Peele to sell the land on the condition that Albrecht
obtain an increase in density restrictions.
PecIc said he wanted to build 500 more units on the
proper.y. Part of the plan was to allow new residents to
use Se...;Ile's recreational facilities. .
About 18.8 acres of the land is part 0' Old Tampa Bay,
and County Adminsitrator Fred Marquis said he sus-
pected the developer would double the actual density of
the non-submerged property if the zoning change passed.
o>mmissioners approved Barbara Sheen T~d's mo-
tion to rezone the tract (rom agricultural use to residen-
tinl use of 10 units an acre for the non-submerged land
and to 3qu~ltir.. s~atus for the 5ubmer~ed section.
Board Charles Railley ':; .id ~,~ CO\.J/~'~e-
(!1ember the last time t e ned..t:esidentfal
property to 15 units an acre, let alone
.. e wou d e In reet conflict with ourselves to
consider a IS-unit per acre zoning" when the county is
dowl11.oning other areas, he said.
Helen Diller. a resident at the 371-unit condominium at i
2611 Seville Blvd., said she feared Albrecht and Peele ~
wanted to .build either a high-rise condominum or a I
nursing home on the property_ ,
Any more housing units would tax an already inade- :
quate recreational facility. she predicted. "It only seats
, 100," she said. "Right now Seville is in sad. sad shape,"
Residents' fears that Albrecht wSJ.led to use the prop-
erty to build a nursing home began when he attempted to
obtain financing for such a project a few months ago.
Rainey '-jd Albrecht had gone before the Pinellas In.
dustry Council seeking five consecutive loans for $10
million each.
Albrecht said the new condominiums would not affect
e.xisting facilities. But Marquis said that if Peele built the
maximum number of units under his proposal, it would
increase the demand on existing.utiHlies by'40 percent.
l.
\'N';..
c.