Loading...
12/19/1989 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1989 - 2:00 PM Members Present: Vice Chairman Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, Mazur and Schwob ALSO PRESENT: M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney Members Absent: Chairman Johnson A. Due to noncompletion of the minutes of October 31, 1989 and November 14, 1989, no action was taken. Vice Chairman Nixon 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 2 and 3, Bamboo Sub. (520 and 522 Bamboo Lane) SDS Investments (Carlisle Motors)/Emil C. Marquardt, Jr. CU 89-96 Request - Vehicle Service Zoned - CG (General Commercial) A letter was received from applicant's representative requesting continuance of the above request to the Planning and Zoning Meeting of January 2, 1990. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to continue the above request to the Planning and Zoning Meeting of January 2, 1990. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 2. Lot 7, Windsor Woods (1693 Elm Place) Donald Fulton (St. Croix) CU 89-97 Request - Level I Group Care (Total of 8 residents) Zoned - RS-6 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Richter also advised that Clearwater has a pending ordinance that would bring the City's Code into conformance with State Law. He stated that one of the proposed changes is to eliminate facilities that would have 7 or more cared-for persons within a household. He added that State Law makes it a requirement that 1 to 6 cared-for individuals be permitted as a matter of right within single family zones provided the separation distance is met but the State Law does not make any requirements regarding 7 or more individuals. He stated that Clearwater's Code is proposed to be amended to exclude 7 or more individuals in single-family zones. Mr. Donald L. Fulton, applicant, advised the State has recently changed its rules that allows up to six (6) residents. He stated he only has live-in staff and he wants to increase his staff. He states his facility does a large amount of after-hospital rehabilitation for persons who have broken hips or fractured backs and who are ambulatory but still have some difficulties and cannot go home yet. He stated he has been opened for 1 1/2 years without complaint and he was open 6 months without area residents knowing the facility was at the location. Mr. Fulton submitted a statement signed by 4 area residents which states the ACLF does not detract from the neighborhood (see attached). He stated he is allowed the clientele and is merely asking for approval of additional staff. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Fulton advised as follows: He currently has 5 patients and 1 staff; he is allowed 6 clients and he wants 2 staff members; the average age is 75 to 80 years of age; the average length of stay varies from 6 weeks to 6 months; there are no plans for remodelling as the dwelling is now built for 6 clients and 2 employees; the garage will be used for parking; the house has 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms to be used by 6 clients and 2 employees. After questioning by Mr. Polatty, Mr. Fulton stated he currently has one staff person and 5 residents. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give her comments: Ms. Mary Moran, 2055 Nugget Drive, stated the facility has increased traffic in the neighborhood, mainly due to visitors or ambulances picking up or dropping off people. She stated she and her neighbors have called City Hall and different places during the past year to complain. She also stated when she bought her home 8 years ago the area was residential and she did not know a business would be conducted at the subject location. She felt the facility was not safe for the children. She stated all the neighbors she spoke to in the development are against the request but most of the neighbors work and cannot be present. She felt the residence was not large enough to accommodate so many people in a single-family neighborhood. After questioning by Ms. Nixon she stated she is aware he is allowed a total of 6 persons. She also stated Mr. Fulton does not reside at 1693 Elm Place. In final rebuttal, Mr. Fulton stated 1693 Elm Place is one of his residences. He stated he is currently residing at 1693 Elm Place since the facility is not full. He stated he will be the second person living there to take care of clients. He further stated the people who signed the statement signed it on their own. He stated he has never had a problem nor a complaint through HRS or the City. After questioning by Board Members, Mr. Fulton stated as follows: He has never had 6 residents; and, the gentlemen who wrote the letter of objection previously worked for Mr. Fulton and now works in an unlicensed facility next door, which is being investigated by HRS. After questioning by Board Members, Mr. Richter advised as follows: State law makes provisions to not require local government approval for up to 6 residents within single-family district provided a certain separation distance is met but no provision whatsoever is made for 7 or more individuals within single-family districts; if an ACLF is located outside the corporate limits, the City may not have knowledge of it; the State Law was passed because there are too many jurisdictions in Florida that make no provisions for such facilities and the State's lack of addressing 7 or more should not be looked at as though the State does not want to provide for it but leaves the discretion up to the jurisdiction; and, Staff is recommending denial because it believes the facility with eight adults is not compatible in a single-family zone, in which there is typically located 2.2 persons per household. Ms. Nixon expressed concern that this Board has approved many requests to increase number of people from 6 to 8 people. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Richter stated the Board would not be selective in disapproving the request because we are now looking to tailor our laws in conformance with State law. He further stated Level II Group Care allows 7 to 10 persons, but the City is choosing to be more selective of the location of facilities located in single family zones. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Richter stated that City laws are changing but they have not changed as of yet. Mr. Polatty stated the issue before the Board is whether 8 adults in one house is too many is the issue. Mr. Nixon felt 8 adults in one house is too many but she thought this Board has allowed an increase from 6 to 8 unless there were flagrant violations of rules. Mr. Schwob stated each case is handled individually but there is now State involvement and a proposed Code amendment. He felt this Board has always looked at the circumstances of the case and made a decision based on those circumstances Ms. Nixon stated the applicant is not change the footprint or size of the building and she expressed concern about changing policy before the Land Development Code amendment is finalized. Mr. Green stated he has no problem agreeing with staff on this request and, though he is not against ACLFs, if they get too large the ACLFs are incompatible with surrounding properties. He stated compatibility is one of the criteria whether a use should be approved. He felt the applicant seems to be a good man but he agrees with staff in regard to the number of people at the ACLF versus the neighborhood. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Mazur, to deny the request. Motion to deny carried (5 to 1) with Ms. Nixon voting "nay." Ms. Nixon advised the applicant he has two weeks from this date to file an appeal with the City Clerk's Office. Ms. Nixon stated for the record she agrees with the decision and she felt it is a good idea to have an ordinance change the requirements; however, since the ordinance in not in effect at this time and consistently in the past this Board has allowed up to 8, she felt it was unfair to Mr. Fulton. 3. Lot 1, Northside Square (3211 U.S. Hwy 19 North) Northside Square Associates (Felice Italian Pork Store and Deli)/Bowers/Alford CU 89-98 Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of Beer and Wine) (CHANGE OF BUSINESS OWNERSHIP) Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial) Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. He also advised the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Mr. Richter advised that one letter of support and two letters of objection were received regarding the subject request. Mr. William Alford, representative of applicant, stated the business has been operating for three years. He stated applicant sells specialty type beer and wine which is very expensive. He stated the request is for a change of business ownership. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Alford advised as follows: The percentage of alcoholic beverage sales is less than 1% of gross sales; the new owner will operate under the same hours of the current owner; the operation is not open on Sunday; and there are beer sales by the single unit. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give her comments: Ms. Margaret Becker, 2465 Northside, Unit 502, stated the residents were solicited the support the shopping center when it was developed and were told the center would be a daytime commercial area. She stated the residents were told the center would be compatible with the area. She felt approval of this request would lead to the downfall of the original agreement. She felt since the percentage of sales from alcoholic beverages is so small it should not have an adverse economic impact to the owner. After questioning by Board members, Ms. Becker advised she understands any changes at the establishment must go before this Board and she still objects to the request. In rebuttal, Mr. Alford assured Ms. Becker that no changes will be taking place at the establishment. He stated the establishment is a place to buy specialty meats and beer or wine to go with the meats. Mr. Schwob felt there should be no affect on the neighborhood since the hours of operation and the operation itself are not changing. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) the requisite occupational license being obtained within six (6) months; and, 2) the following hours of operation: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. weekdays and weekends. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). C. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendments, and Local Planning Agency Review: 1. Blk. 5, Lot 12, Bayview City Sub. (Located at 3000 Caroline Avenue) (Secure Rental Housing) A 89-21 LUP 89-17 Request - Annexation & Zoning, RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") Land Use Plan FROM:None TO:Low Density Residential The above property is located at 3000 Caroline Avenue. The applicant was not present. Mr. Polatty gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Mazur, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the request for annexation, RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from none to Low Density Residential. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 2. Lot 18 and west 50 feet of Lot 17, Blk. C, Sunny Park Groves (located at 1401 Citrus Street) (Smyth) A 89-19 LUP 89-15 Land Use Plan FROM:None TO:Low Density Residential The above property is located at 1401 Citrus Street. The applicant was not present. Mr. Polatty gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the Land Use Plan amendment from none to Low Density Residential. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). D. Chairman's Items Ms. Nixon stated she received a verbal requested to bring up the subject of reconsidering the Board decision of October 3, 1989 wherein the Board denied the request of Chubby's Cafe (CU 89-74) for on premises consumption of alcoholic beverages under a 2-COP license. Mr. Hamilton felt if the request is heard before a hearing officer the Board's decision will be overturned. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of reconsidering conditional use requests. The Board expressed concern that if a reconsideration procedure is put in effect the Board will be reconsidering every request it now denies. Mr. Polatty advised that the Land Development Code does not provide for reconsideration and the applicant would be required to wait 9 months to refile an identical application. Mr. Galbraith stated the only conditional use he recalls being reconsidered was a request that was incorrectly advertised. He advised that, should the Board decide to reconsider the request, the request should be re-advertised. He advised that an affected party can appeal a decision and the decision is not final until after conclusion of the hearing officer appeal. He stated that, should the Board decide to effectuate a reconsideration procedure, the Board may only want to consider those items where the staff recommendations and the Board decisions differ. Mr. Galbraith advised no motion is necessary unless the Board decides to reconsider the request of Chubby's Cafe. E. Director's Items DISCUSSION ITEM: RE: Proposed Land Development Code Text Amendments Discussion followed regarding the proposed Land Development Code Text amendments that will be scheduled before the Board in the next several months. Mr. Galbraith suggested the amendments be placed in the following two categories: 1) Those amendments that must be completed by May 31, 1990 in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; and, 2) Those amendments that must not be completed by May 31, 1990. Discussion followed regarding streamlining the application procedures and the different criteria used by the Development Code Adjustment Board and the Planning and Zoning Board in making their decisions. Meeting adjourned at 4:24 PM. _______________________________________ James M. Polatty, Jr., AICP, Director Planning and Development Department