Loading...
11/01/1988 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1988 - 1:30 PM Members Present: Acting Chairman Schwob, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, and Hamilton Also present: M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney Members Absent: Chairman Johnson and Vice Chairman Hogan A. No action was taken on minutes of October 18, 1988 since the minutes were not completed. Acting Chairman Schwob outlined the procedures for public hearings conducted for annexations and zoning atlas and Land Use Plan amendments. ITEMS ARE LISTED IN AGENDA ORDER THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DISCUSSED IN THAT ORDER. B. Annexation and Zoning: 1. Part Lots 29 & 30, Clearwater Manor (Located on the east side of Belcher Road, north of South Lagoon Circle) (Underwood) A 88-33 Request - Annexation and Zoning, RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") The above property is located on the east side of Belcher Road, north of South Lagoon Circle. The applicant was not present. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation and RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning; there is an existing single family residence on the property; and, the request is made to obtain City sewer. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation and RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning. Motion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the request for annexation and RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). C. Zoning Atlas and Land Use Plan Amendments: 1. Part Lots 12 through 23, Blk. C, Part Lot 35 & Lots 36 & 37 & Part Lots 38 through 42, Blk. D, Mount Orange Revised Sub. (Located on the east and west side of Prospect Avenue, north of Magnolia Drive) (Diocese of St. Petersburg) Z 88-20 LUP 88-20 Zoning Atlas: FROM: RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") & RM-8 (Multiple Family Residential "Eight") TO: P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) Land Use Plan: FROM: Low Density Residential TO: Public/Semi-Public The above property is located on the east and west side of Prospect Avenue, north of Magnolia Drive. Mr. Tom Morrison, Construction Manager for applicant, stated most of the property is currently zoned Public//Semi-Public. He stated the Bishop's residence is zoned single family residential and the church wants to incorporate all of its property into Public/Semi-Public zoning with a Land Use Plan designation of Public/Semi-Public. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Morrison stated the property at 905 Prospect is vacant and the Church wants to build a two-story office building for use as the tribunal office and to bring the existing parking lot up to Code. Atty. Emil C. Marquardt, representative of applicant, stated the City prefers one kind of zoning district for property under one ownership. Ms. Harvey advised this is a request for a zoning atlas amendment from RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") and RM-8 (Multiple Family Residential "Eight") to P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public. Ms. Harvey felt it would be appropriate that the Church improvements be made a part of the site plan record in order that all of the Church property would be under one site plan. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for a zoning atlas amendment from RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") and RM-8 (Multiple Family Residential "Eight") to P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public. After questioning by Mr. Green, Ms. Harvey stated, if the City did not have any indication that the vacant property was owned by the Church during the areawide rezoning, the City would not have rezoned the property from residential since the area is primarily residential. Mr. Marquardt stated the property on the east side of Prospect was not owned by the Church at the time. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend approval of the request for a zoning atlas amendment from RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") and RM-8 (Multiple Family Residential "Eight") to P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 2. Part Lot 17, Clearwater Industrial Park (Located on the south side of Calumet Street, west of Belcher Road) (UPARC, Inc.) Z 88-21 LUP 88-23 Zoning Atlas: FROM: P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) TO: IL (Limited Industrial) Land Use Plan: FROM: Public/Semi-Public TO: Industrial The above property is located on the south side of Calumet Street, west of Belcher Road. Mr. Mike Robertson, representative of UPARC, stated UPARC is in the process of relocating its operations and the first stage has resulted in a contract for the sale of a portion of UPARC's property along Calumet Street. He advised the intended use will not be consistent with the Public/Semi-Public zoning as offices and warehouse are proposed for the property. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Robertson stated part of the property being sold is where the garden center is located. Mr. Chris Hughes, representative of UPARC, stated the garden center is already in the process of being relocated. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for a zoning atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) to IL (Limited Industrial) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Public/Semi-Public to Industrial; the proposed use of the property will be in accordance with the industrial zoning category; the property previously was zoned as Industrial and was amended during the areawide rezonings to more appropriately reflect UPARC's use of the property; and, it will be necessary that a site plan and plat be submitted for development of the property. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for a zoning atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) to IL (Limited Industrial) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Public/Semi-Public to Industrial. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to recommend approval of the request for a zoning atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) to IL (Limited Industrial) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Public/Semi-Public to Industrial. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). D. Annexation, Zoning, and Land Use Plan Amendment: 1. Part Lot 1, Pinellas Groves & M&B 32.011 and Part vacated street SE 1/4 Sec. 01-29S-15E (Located on the west side of Belcher Road, south of Sunset Point Road) (Bennett & Pennington, Trustees) A 88-32 LUP 88-22 Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL (Limited Industrial) Land Use Plan: FROM: Medium Density Residential TO: Industrial The above property is located on the west side of Belcher Road, south of Sunset Point Road. Mr. Curtis DeYoung, representative of applicant, stated the CG zoning has existed in the county and by virtue of a special exception, the property was approved as a mini-storage facility. He stated the facility is under construction and is expected to be completed in the near future. He also stated it is a completely dead storage facility; approximately 1/3 of the facility is air conditioned; and, the request for annexation is being made in order to obtain City water and sewer, as the property now is using an approved septic tank. He advised that the applicant recognizes it will be better if the property is located in the City. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. DeYoung stated his business firm recommended to applicant that it annex into the City. Ms. Nixon expressed concern that the subject parcel previously was proposed to be annexed with a Limited Office zoning and the applicant withdrew the application. After questioning by Mr. Green, Mr. DeYoung stated the applicant would be permitted to use the septic tank but Mr. DeYoung's business firm recommended to applicant that it hook up to City water and sewer. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. DeYoung stated the applicant bought the property as vacant land then began development. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation, IL (Limited Industrial) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Industrial; the requested zoning is for the use now in effect, which use came about after receiving County approval of a special exception; the property had previously been before this Board and when Limited Office was approved for the property, the applicant withdrew the application; and, water and sewer are available. Ms. Harvey stated, when the City was notified of a special exception proposed for the property, the City objected to the proposed use. Ms. Harvey stated that, by special request and direction of the City Commission, the City performed a courtesy review of the site plan approved by the County under which the project is now being constructed. She stated the Development Review Committee, in its review on October 13, 1988, reviewed the plan from the standpoint of what the requirements would be if the property were in the City of Clearwater and if the permits were obtained in the City of Clearwater, the following conditions would need to be met: 1) A setback of 10 feet along the north property line would be required; 2) All traffic aisle would need to be a minimum of 24 feet wide; 3) The number of parking spaces is deficient but that was anticipated; 4) Sufficient fire hydrants must be provided since the property is within the City's fire district regardless if property is annexed; 5) Drainage and retention provided does not meet City standards; 6) The water distribution system was to be amended to provide a looped system to assure a complete flow of water through the property; 7) Dumpster locations must meet City requirements; 8) Easements for sidewalks to be constructed along Belcher Road must be provided; and 9) If there is a change made to the property other than dead storage, the applicant will be required to go through a site plan review process with the City of Clearwater. Ms. Harvey stated sometimes there has been interest in converting storage facilities to small offices and other uses. Ms. Harvey stated the property is being built under a permit issued by the County and the County will issue a Certificate of Occupancy. She also stated that with the exception of providing easements to Clearwater, providing for proper dumpster location, and providing sufficient fire hydrants for the property. She stated the actual request is not inappropriate in terms of what is the current use of the property. She advised the City made a conscientious effort not to have the property developed in this fashion but she felt the City will have better control of the property after it is annexed. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation, IL (Limited Industrial) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Industrial. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey advised if the above request is approved the mini-storage use will not be nonconforming; however, if the Board approves the annexation and Limited Office zoning, the mini-storage use would be nonconforming. Ms. Harvey stated she is unsure what would be accomplished by zoning the property as Limited Office. She further stated the City has no control over what is developed in the County and whether the City annexes the property or not, the use will be on the property. Ms. Nixon expressed concern that approval of the above request may show the County and other applicants that a property may be developed in any way under County guidelines and then the City will annex the property whether it agrees with the use or not. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give her comment: Ms. Vera McGinnis, 2101 Sunset Point Road, Raintree Village, expressed concern about the watershed and standing water as the subject property is higher than Raintree Village. She stated the residents were under the impression there were to be two office buildings constructed on the property. She stated there is no landscaping and felt there should be some landscaping. She expressed concern about future development of the parcels to the north and south of the subject property. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised the property to the south is in the City and is under City jurisdiction and the property to the north is not in the City and the City has no jurisdiction over the property. In rebuttal, Mr. DeYoung advised as follows: The drainage will go into dry detention ponds that are underdrained; the landscaping requirements have basically been met with the possible exception of the north property line where there is a zero-foot setback; the septic system was installed in order to get a Certificate of Occupancy from the County; the property will service only two bathrooms that are occasionally used; and, the applicant does intend to vacate the septic system and tie into the City sewer system. After questioning by Mr. Ferrell, Ms. Harvey stated the City did not actually receive a landscape plan with the drawings and the City's concern would have been about landscaping along the right-of-way of Belcher Road and landscaping to provide buffering. After questioning by Ms. Harvey, Mr. DeYoung stated the landscaping would be completed before receiving a Certificate of Occupancy from the County prior to December 1. After questioning by Mr. Ferrell, Mr. DeYoung stated that along the west property line there is a six-foot, concrete wall and with the exception of grass, there is no other landscaping in the retention area. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated there is not sufficient room for the City to maintain its easement if the applicant plants trees in the easement. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Ferrell to recommend approval of the request for annexation, IL (Limited Industrial) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Industrial. Motion carried (4 to 1) with Ms. Nixon voting "nay." Mr. Green felt it is better to have the property in the City to have more control. Mr. Hamilton felt the City will be able to control any changes that were made. Ms. Nixon stated she had no objection to the annexation of the property but felt the property could be zoned as nonconforming to show others that property developed contrary to what the City feels is appropriate and then requesting annexation is not acceptable. She felt this will not be the only time this kind of situation will occur. F. Director's Items A list of the Planning and Zoning Board Meetings for 1989 was distributed to the Board and the Board was notified that the dates would be voted on at the next meet. Ms. Harvey advised the dates are set up according to the Board's bylaws. Mr. Galbraith advised that in the future the City will advertise its public hearings in the Clearwater edition of the St. Petersburg Times.