04/16/1996 (2)
.~
J ,f
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING .- ACTION AGENDA
Tuesday. April 16, 1996
Call To Order, Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance
A. Minutes Approval u April 2, 1996 .. Approved as submitted
B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items --None
C. Conditional Uses
C 1. B.J.E. Inc/Pelican Two. Inc (Kiku Japanese Restaurant) to allow restaurants
cumulatively occupying over 1 5 % at gross floor area of a shopping center at 483
Mandalay Ave., Clearwater Beach Park, 1st Addition Replat, Blk A, Lots 2.8, and
Clearwater Beach Park, 1 st Addition, Blk B, Lots 32-43 and vac alley, and
Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 43-48, 65-71, and part of Lot 64, zoned CB (Beach
Commercial) and CR 28 (Resort Commercial.) CU 96-20
t b~",
,:,~aJ
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the
requisite building permit, certificate at occupancy and occupational license within six
months from the date of this public hearing; and 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with
a 900 cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining
residential properties and street rights-at-way prior to issuance of the requisite
occupational license.
C2. (9annls & Eva Tagaras (M&M Motorsports, Ino) to permit vehicle sales at
2241A Nursery Rd, See 19-29-16, M&B 33.03,' zoned CG (General Commercial.)
CU 96.22
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shalf obtain the
requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within six
months from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equIpped with a
900 cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining
residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite
occupational license; 3) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant
shall provide the following as required by Environmental Management; 3a1 fill material that
has been deposited in the retention area near the outfall structure must be removed; 3b)
the required drainage swale must be regraded to direct runoff from the rear service drive
northward to the retention area rather than discharging directly off-site to the east; 3c) the
paint cans, trash, and other debris along the south property line must be removed; 3d)
twenty-two interior landscape shrubs (minimum height 18 inches) and eight shrubs
(minimum height. 18 inches) are required to be planted in the landscape buffer along
Nursery Road at the west end of the property; 4) the use shall be limited to indoor sales
and display of vehicles and retail accessories; there shall be no vehicular service and no
outdoor sales, display andlor storage areas on the site; 5) vehicles may be temporarily
placed in one designated parking space on the property, for the purpose of showing the
vehicle to a customer, test driving and customer paperwork, but vehicles shall not be
....J
P & Z ACTION
04/16/96
, '. . . >,. . ."
. . I . . ~. . ,.
1 ,"' ", '.
f~
", 'J
displayed or stored in excess of two hours for such purposes; and 6) this conditional use
approval is for a one year trial period from the date of this public hearing to determine
whether the applicant has complied with City code and the conditions of approval.
C3. Tom Falone III (Falone Commercial Center) to allow a restaurant occupying
over 10% of gross floor area of a retail complex at 1916 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-
29-15, M&B's 24.01 & 24.02, together with Skycrest Sub, Unit D, Blk B, part of
Lots 5 & 6, zoned CG (General Commercial.) CU 96.23
I\CTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the
requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within six
months from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a
900 cutoff mechanism, with the Ught being directed downward and away from adjoining
residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite
occupational license; 3) No outdoor entertainment or speakers shall be allowed; 4) The
owner shall execute a recordable grant of ~easement to the City to allow for installation of
sidewalks and the provision, for public access along the perimeter of the site prior to the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 5) Landscaping shall be in accordance with
Section 42.47 of the Land Development Code. (Conditions #4 and #5 also were required
for CU 96-06, approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 9, 1996.)
D. Annexation, Zoning, land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text
Amendment. and Local Planning Agency Review
.""''\.
\~
01. 1612 N Betty lane, Stevenson~s Heights Sub, 8lk B, Lot 14 (Robin T. Herbert)
A 96-13
ZONE: RS-8 (Single Family Residential)
ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission
02. 2077 Douglas Avenue, Cleardun Sub, Blk A, part of Lots 5,6,7, & 8 (Loretta C.
Clement) A 96-'4
ZONE: RS-8 (Single Family Residential)
ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission
03.401 S Belcher Rd. Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.11. (Gerry Staring/Natalie Moyles,
Trustee) Z 96-02; LUP 96-01
LUP: From Residential Medium to Commercial General
ZONE: From RMH (Mobile Home Park) to CG (General Commercial)
ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission
04. (cant. from 3/19/96) Ordinance 5962-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida,
relating to the land Development Code; amending Division 26 of Chapter 40, Code
of Ordinances, to provide for revised development standards in the Urban Center
District; providing an effective date.
ACTION: Continued to May 21, 1996
E. Chairman's Items -- None
-...-i
P & Z ACTION
2
04/16/96
t~t>',:::-: :. '
f;::'.~:: ~ '
{,;":,."..,',' ,"
j
.." .:',
, :
.:\-:
.~~: >
, < .
-". >
...: .
j'
; 'i;
,I'
'\";
,;.: .
. ". ~
~. '. .. . .
3 ':>:: .".
.~'t~'>:1 '.
.":.V\ .
;:!~:}<:
::.~ :: :;', .
~~~.,....~,.,.. "1.4~.~~'\.~ .,<,J~. "'.',,,'. . \. ',";d', ..... .,...~
. . '"
, "
....:: .
.:< <: "'. 4'"
" , !".:C ' , ..~.. ~ '.
,."1'-'.'
, , .
.' '
.... ,".\.
':.~r:,.l"'" '~4.'l;'~~
.Q
F. Director's Items -- Presentation
1. Victor Chodors, Assistant Director of Central permitting: Building Code
Requirements for Pet Shops and Veterinary Offices
2. Don McCarty, Central Permitting Design Planner: Overview of Design
Guidelines draft for Downtown rUe) District
G. Board and Staff Comments -- None
H. Adjournment -- 4:45 p.m.
:,'. .
"
'"
, ,
0'
\'"
o
P & Z ACTION
3
04/16/96
~. .'
, . ,
< . , >
..y;\ , 'l<~ _ r~ .
,~
I ,
, .
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 16, 1996
Present:
Jay Keyes
Brenda Harris Nixon
Edward Mazur
Kemper Merriam
Robert D. Bickerstaffe
Bernie Baron
Frank Kunnen
Scott Shuford
Leslie Dougall~Sides
Sandy Glatthorn
Gwen Legters
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Central Permitting Director
Assistant City Attorney
Central Permitting Manager
Board Reporter
To provide continuity, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily
discussed In that order.
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the
Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process.
A. Minutes Approval - April 2, 1996
.,.;:I..-,P.
l>.....~t>.,
Member Mazur moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member '
by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued ltems -~None
C. Conditional Uses
C1. B.J.E. Inc/Pelican Two. Ino (Klku Japanese Restaurant) to allow restaurants
cumulatively occupying over 15% of gross floor area of a shopping center at
483 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park, 15t Addition Raplat, Blk A, Lots 2-8,
and Clearwater Beach Park, 1 st Addition, Blk B, Lots 32-43 and vac alley, and
Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 43-48, 65-71, and part of Lot 64, zoned CB (Beach
Commercial) and CR 28 (Resort Commercial.) CU 96-20
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information. She explained the numerical,
dimensional, and alcoholic beverage code requirements for the Pelican Walk development.
The addition of the proposal to the six existing restaurants, will bring the total restaurant
square footage to more than 51 percent where 1 5 percent is allowed. The applicant will
have to ensure at least 51 percent non-alcoholic beverage sales, with no package sales and
not more than 15 percent of gross floor area devoted exclusively to alcoholic beverage
service. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two
standard conditions.
'~
mpz04b.96
1
04/16/96
~.
f-...,
Yun C. "Daniel" Chong. the business owner, indicated he wishes to open a second
sushi restaurant due to popular demand. His current location on Ulmerton Road has been
successful and he knows from experience his customers like to have sake with their meals.
He did not expect problems meeting the 51 percent food sales requirement because the
beer and wine will be served only with meals. In response to a question, he understood
and agreed with staff's recommended conditions.
Elias Anastasopoulos, representing the developer, spoke in support of the application.
He pointed out the development was built according to approved plans for a second floor
comprised of restaurants. A subsequent change in the zoning requirements created
difficulty following through with the original plans. He said the correct floor area of the
proposal is 2,400 square feet, instead of the 1 ,500 reported by staff. Ms. Glatthorn noted
the correction, stating it does not affect advertising requirements.
No one was present to speak in opposition to the request.
Member Merriam moved to approve Item C1 subject to the following conditions:
1 ) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and
occupational license within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 2) All site
lighting shall be equipped with a 900 cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed
downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to
issuance of the requisite occupational license. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
I';'"''
..~~:J
C2.loannis & Eva Tagaras {M&M Motorsports, Inc} to permit vehicle sales at
2241A Nursery Rd, See 19.29-16, M&B 33.03, zoned CG (General Commercial.)
CU 96-22
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the board denied the
applicants' March 5, 1996 request for outdoor vehicle sales, displays and/or storage in
addition to vehicle sales. Legal Department review of the new application determined it is
dissimilar enough to process without a nine month waiting period. Staff felt conditions
support the request and recommended approval with five conditions. It was indicated the
Community Response Team has observed illegal outdoor display of automobiles on the site.
Ms. Glatthorn noted one member's request that the applicant shall satisfy Environmental
Management requirements prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. Concern was
expressed with a recommended condition prohibiting engine or road testing. This issue
was discussed at length later in the meeting and the condition was eliminated.
Tim Johnson, attorney representing the applicants, gave an' overview of the
commercial establishments in the immediate area. He stated the proposed indoor
vehicles sales use will have significantly less impact on the surroundings than the
permitted uses for this district. Among the permitted uses, he listed gas station,
transportation station, and animal boarding. No outdoor equipment or sales, and no
adverse impacts to the neighbors will result from this operation. He complained the
applicant was not informed an indoor vehicle sales occupation license did not require
conditional use approval at the time of the original application for outdoor sales. A
'-......I
mpz04b.96
2
04/16/96
. ~ J' . . _ 01'.' . . ~
.' ,
.....' '1~
~'''''',
subsequent code amendment changed that requirement. He said no engine work or
testing will be done on site and expressed concern with the recommended condition
prohibiting road testing.
Mr. Johnson submitted and discussed two groups of photographs of the subject
property and surroundings. He objected to the notice of violation for outdoor display of
automobiles, pointing out signs in the windows indicated the establishment was not open
for business yet. After lengthy discussion, it was indicated vehicle inventory may not be
parked outside at any time in this distract, without conditional use approval for outdoor
sales or storage.
A petition with five signatures, representing five businesses within 500 feet of the
subiect property, was submitted in support of the application.
I J';:'""~
'..-:r
Joe Garrison spoke in opposition to the request. He stated he represents a
professional office building at 2233 Nursery Road, behind the subject property. His
partner and one tenant object to the proposal as incompatible with his professional
office building. Mr. Garrison pointed out the businesses represented on the petition in
support are not professional offices. He objected to the vehicles parked outside the
subject property since April 6, expressing concern the non-compliance will continue.
Discussion ensued regarding City code enforcement procedures. Mr. Garrison
responded to questions regarding tenancy in his building. It wci's indicated public
hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property.
Mr. Garrison submitted a group of photographs of the vicinity, including vehicles
parked outside the subject property. Discussion continued regarding the vehicles
depicted outside the subject property. At the March 5 hearing, it was indicated
vehicles for sale may not be parked in the pedestrian area adjacent the building or in
the surrounding area without conditional use approval.
Responding to t~e opposition, Mr. Johnson pointed out Mr. Garrison's building is
separated from the subject property by another office building. Mr. Johnson reiterated his
comparison of the proposed business with permitted uses. He did not know why vehicles
were stored outside pending opening of the business.
Discussion ensued regarding the application. Clarification of the outdoor storage
prohibition was requested. Ms. Glatthorn read into the record what was denied at the
last meeting, and the code definition of storage. She explained the vehicles depicted
around the outside of the building ara not parked legally. She stressed nothing may be
stored or parked outside for any reason. Concerns were expressed the applicant has
shown poor faith by parking vehicles outside in violation of the code and contrary to
the board's decision to deny such a use. In response to a question, It was indicated
adequate parking exists on the subject property.
Member Bickerstatfe moved to approve Item C2 subject to conditions as
recommended by staff. The motion was duly seconded.
,
j,~
mpz04b.96
3
04/16/96
.. . . . . . . ,>. ~ ~.' '" ,
,\
, .
Discussion ensued regarding suggested amendments to the recommended conditions
of approval. It was felt one parking space should be designated outside for the safety and
convenience of customers wanting to transact business or test drive a vehicle. Assistant
City Attorney Dougall-Sides suggested such a condition. A condition imposing a trial period
was suggested.
Member Bickerstaffe withdrew the motion on the floor. The seconder concurred.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C2 subject to the following conditions: 1) The
applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational
license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be
equipped with a 900 cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from
adjoining residential properties and street rights-at-way prior to issuance of the requisite
occupational license; 3) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
provide the following as required by Environmental Management; 3a) fill material that has been
deposited in the retention area near the outfall structure must be removed; 3b) the required
drainage swale must be regraded to direct runoff from the rear service drive northward to the
retention area rather than discharging directly off-site to the east; 3c) the paint cans, trash, and
other debris along the south property line must be removed; 3d) twenty-two interior landscape
shrubs (minimum height 18 inches) and eight shrubs (minimum height 18 inches) are required
to be planted in the landscape buffer along Nursery Road at the west end of the property;
4) the use shall be limited to indoor sales and display of vehicles and retail accessories; there
shall be no vehicular service and no outdoor sales, display and/or storage areas on the site;
5) vehicles may be temporarily placed in one designated parking space on the property, for the
ti<i_} purpose of showing the vehicle to a customer, test driving and customer paperwork, but
..,....t. vehicles shall not be displayed or stored in excess of two hours for such purposes; and 6) this
conditional use approval is for a one year trial period from the date of this public hearing to
determine whether the applicant has complied with City code and the conditions of approval.
Members Keyes, Nixon, Mazur, Bickerstaffe, Baron, and Kunnen voted "Aye"; Member
Merriam voted toNay." Motion carried.
C3. Tom Falone III (Falone Commercial Center) to allow a restaurant occupying over
10% of gross floor area of a retail complex at 1916 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-29-15,
M&Bts 24.01 & 24.02, together with Skycrest Sub, Unit D, Blk B, part of Lots 5 & 6,
zoned CG (General Commercial.) CU 96-23
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the property is currently
being redeveloped into a three unit retail complex. The current conditional use will allow the
applicant to open a bagel shop in the complex. A previous conditional use approved on
January 9, 1996 was to allow a car stereo business to conduct vehicle service. It was
indicated the property will comply with landscaping, open space and parking standards. Staff
felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with five conditions.
Tim Bauer, representing the owner/applicant, displayed two presentation boards depicting
the building and site before and after proposed remodeling. He pointed out where a portion of
the existing building was demolished and the adjacent parking lot reconfigured. In response to
a question, he indicated no changes to the plan since January, other than to the proposed
occupancy.
I...J
mpI04b.96
4
04/16/96
. . - ~ II . .., " . . .......
" " , " , ' ,', ,
"
."....,..
,,~
j~
No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C3 subject to the following conditions: 1) The
applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and
occupational license within six months from the date of this public hearing: 2) All site
lighting shan be equipped with a 900 cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed
downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights~of-way prior to
issuance of the requisite occupational license: 3) No outdoor entertainment or speakers
shall be allowed; 4) The owner shall execute a recordable grant of easement to the City to
allow tor installation of sidewalks and the provision for public access along the perimeter
of the site prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy: and 5) Landscaping shall
be in accordance with Section 42.47 of the land Development Code. (Conditions #4 and
tl5 also were required for CU 96~06, approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on
January 9, 1996.) 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
01.1612 N Betty Lane, Stevenson's Heights Sub, Blk B. Lot 14 (Robin T. Herbert)
A 96~ 13
ZONE: RS~8 (Single Family Residential)
{:>
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating staff recommends
endorsement. The reason for the request is for City garbage pickup service. No one was
present to speak in support or opposition to the request.
, Member Mazur moved to endorse Item D1 to the City Commission. The motion was
duty seconded and carried unanimously.
02. 2077 Douglas Avenue, Cleardun Sub, Blk A, part of Lots 5,6,7, & 8 (Loretta C.
Clement) A 96~14
ZONE: RS~8 (Single Family Residential)
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating staff recommends
endorsement. The reason for the request is for City sewer service. No one was present to
speak in support or opposition to the request.
Member Mazur moved to endorse Item 02 to the City Commission. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
03. 401 S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29~16, M&8 23.11. (Gerry Staring/Natalie Moyles,
Trustee) Z 96~02; LUP 96~O 1
LUP: From Residential Medium to Commercial General
ZONE: From RMH (Mobile Home Park) to CG (General Commercial)
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the Planning and Zoning
board unanimously endorsed this item to the City Commission on March 5, 1996. The
~~
mpz04b.96
5
04/16/96
, \ . '" .' . \. : . " . , . . .' .
~,~~,. +, ,"
("'1
item is coming back to the board in order for the applicant to comply with the statutory
requirement to notify the mobile home park residents of the proposed rezoning. She noted
staff received five letters of objection and copied them to the board. It was indicated the
applicant wishes to rezone the mobile home park north of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and east
of Belcher Road. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported an additional requirement that no agency
shall approve rezoning or request relocation of existing property owners without providing
for the relocation of the property owners. One member expressed concern the applicant's
representative had incorrectly stated during the March hearing that all state notification
requirements were met.
Discussion ensued regarding providing for the relocation of the property owners. Ms.
Dougall-Sides indicated the provision is for reasonable, not necessarily comparable
facilities. She stated staff does not recommend whether or not the replacements are
adequate. She said the board may inquire if the rents are comparable. In response to a
question, it was indicated eight mobile homes in the park are owned by the residents. The
remaining mobile homes are rental units belonging to the mobile home park owner.
I~)
Tom Nash, attorney representing the applicants, responded to the board member's
concern regarding notification. He said original notification was given two years ago. The
applicant felt renewed notice should be given that the rezoning and land use change
application was coming before the City Commission. He said the rezoning request is
reasonable and will allow the property to be used in a manner consistent with the
surrounding commercial uses. Referring to the statutory notification requirements, he said
the applicant prepared a list of available mobile home parks and submitted it to staff. Mr.
Nash distributed copies of a chart listing a sampling of facilities in the local area. He said
they have spoken with the president of the residents' association and the residents
concerning the application.
Discussion ensued regarding the average size and age of the mobile homes to be
moved and whether the replacement facilities can accommodate them. Average lot rents
were discussed.
No verbal or written support was expressed.
Seven residents appeared to express opposition to the request, as follows: 1) Mike
Mizell stated he owns two homes in the park, residing in one & renting out the other. He
questioned whether the replacement facilities will accept older and larger mobile homes
and felt he would not recover his investment jf he sells his mobile homes. 2} Madeline
Casper stated she and her husband have lived in the park for 33 years and raised their
family there. She said her husband is disabled and they are still paying off their home
improvement loan. She discussed what is involved in moving a large mobile home in terms
of cost estimates, cutting apart, moving, and setting up, electrical work and inspections. If
forced to move their home, they will lose their new canopy because it will not meet code
in a new location. She is a director of the residents' association and neither she nor the
immediate past prosident was contacted regarding the proposal. She has letters from all
the homeowners in objection to the application. Five persons in the audience raised their
hands in agreement with Mrs. Casper's statement.
'..~
mpz04b.96
6
04116/96
l . , . " .' . ~ . . L , '. . I . . 1 .~ f
~,.....,' ,. c
n
Mr. Nash responded to the opposition, stating the two primary issues are whether the
application for rezoning is appropriate and If other facilities Bre available for relocation. He
stated the answer to both questions is yes. His clients are within their rights to pursue
this request.
Discussion ensued regarding details of relocating the mobile home owners. Board
members expressed concern with imposing undue hardship on residents. In response to
questions. Mr. Nash listed numerous additional costs the applicant would pay to relocate
the mobile home owners. They will meet and work with the home owners regarding
purchase prices and/or relocation cost negotiations. Discussion ensued regarding who is
responsible for code compliance in the new location. Mr. Nash discussed what he had
gleaned regarding age requirements in the parks he contacted. Ms. Dougall-Sides
explained the one-year notification and settlement provision are the park owner's
responsibility and not at issue here. She stated grievance procedures exist to allow mobile
home park owners to seek satisfaction. ,
Discussion ensued regarding the rental units. Mr. Nash did not know whether the
tenants are aware of this action. In response to a question. he said of the 36 lots, 26 are
occupied by renters. Most of the rentals are week to week arid he did not know if the
owner is actively seeking new tenants. He said the owner recently obtained several
mobile homes at a drastically reduced cost and' refurbished them for rental units. In
response to a question. Mr. Nash indicated the park owner would be agreeable to relocate
owners who request relocation prior to the end of the formal notification time period.
~'~t\
. I '.
, ''lWf'J
Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item 03 to the City Commission. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Glatthorn stated this issue will be on the
May 2 City Commission agenda.
,
04. (cont. 'rom 3/19/96) Ordinance 5962-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida,
relating to the Land Development Code; amending Division 26 of Chapter 40, Code
of Ordinances. to provide for revised development standards in the Urban Center
District: providing an effective date.
Staff requested this item be continued to the meeting of May 21, 1 996.
Member Kunnen moved to continue Item 04 to the meeting of May 21, 1996. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E. Chairman's Items
Member Keyes requested staff to Jetter and number the agenda items to correspond
with the agenda for ease of reference.
F. Director's Items -- Presentation
1. Victor Chodora, Assistant Director of Central Permitting: Building Code
Requirements for Pet Shops and Veterinary Offices
. "
.........."
mpz04b.96
7
04/16/96
~ . ~. . . .' . -"'.. / . I. "'. ,. '. ~
",.,. .
I'-''\. A question was raised regarding whether fire sprinklers can be required in places
· where animals stay overnight without human supervision. Mr. Chodora highlighted the
fire protection and fire sprinkler requirements in mercantile stores and doctors' offices,
stating sprinklers are not required for buildings less than 1,500 square feet. A one~hour
fire separation is required to all time for people to evacuate, but no such provision can
be enforced for animals, under the current building code.
When asked if this requirement can be changed, Mr. Chodora explained the
procedure for presenting proposed building code changes to the national and county
authorities, where the reason for the change and the financial impact to developers are
examined. He indicated most people are not interested in investing in fire sprinklers. As
an example, he discussed how a proposal to amend the Life Safety Code to
retroactively require fire sprinklers in condominiums was defeated three years ago. Fire
sprinklers are still required for residential dwellings containing eight or more units.
Ouestions were raised regarding automatic fire alarms or security alert systems.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said will research related cases and report to the board. Mr.
Chodors was thanked for his presentation.
2. Don McCarty, Central Permitting Design Planner: Overview of Design
Guidelines draft for Downtown (UG) District
Mr. McCarty explained the Design Review Board (DRB) was created in 1995 by the
City Commission to review design proposals for building improvements and signs in the
~:,:,~~4 Downtown, commercial areas of Clearwater beach and the North Greenwood zoning
districts. He distributed copies of the draft Design Guidelines for downtown, prepared by
the ORB based on guidelines already put together by the Downtown Partnership. He
stressed the main objective is to emphasize the use of design review rather than aesthetic
controls. He pointed out Clearwater has not adopted a design theme or color palette, so
the guidelines consist of examples of what is encouraged and discouraged in terms of on-
street and off-street facades, lighting, infill development, building and cornice heights,
rhythm and setbacks. Coordinating style and materials with the surroundings will be
encouraged, as will reflecting these elements in the public improvement areas such as
sidewalks, benches, landscaping, lighting, bicycle racks and waste receptacles.
Mr. McCarty explained the Project Evaluation Analysis form, stating it provides an
opportunity for people doing projects to see how the City values various design elements
of rehabilitation and new construction. He stressed the evaluation is simply a means of
ensuring adequate weight is given to all design elements and does not require a design
project to obtain a minimum "score." Mr. McCarty said the downtown Design Guidelines
will be going to the City Commission for adoption soon.
Member Nixon praised the lighting design in the St. Petersburg streetscape program.
She hoped for a more appropriate lighting design for Clearwater than what currently exists.
Mr. McCarty thanked her for her comments, stating he was involved in the St. Petersburg
streetscape program.
'V
mpz04b.96
8
04/16/96
I,", c" ...
.. ..,
",. '
i< ~ ,I . 'If
- "/.
, ,
..
. "
J1i11'-'1"~t-"""'J~''''''''\:'d '~".""'.1~.~ ~ >" '~ "., . :"", . .'.). , ,e' " ,o, .;". ~'::"
\. '
, .. ~." . ' - '. e ::.'. ~, ., .... _, . . ~ , ~ "<l",,
1'"""\ Two members expressed concerns that design preferences are subjective and design
, '"fl-""! review adds another layer of site plan review. Ms. Glatthorn did not feel the majority of
site plans would have to seek both Design Review Board and' Development Review
Committee approvals. Requiring conformance with a specific theme was not wanted for
Clearwater.
Mr. McCarty offered assurance that no effort has been made to mandate a particular
style. He explained the City Commission felt it necessary for the City to have oversight
regarding design elements. In response to a question, Mr. McCarty said he has met with
the Downtown Partnership, Downtown Development Board and the Clearwater Chamber of
Commerce. He will arrange to meet with other interested individuals and groups as
requested.
G. Board and Staff Comments -- None
H. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
oI)lf~
U Attest:
. k- ,~~Z-~
sOard Repor~~ / 7(,C.."'l
v
mpz04b.96
9
04/16/96