Loading...
08/14/1990 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1990 Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messers. Mazur, Ferrell, and Gans Members Excused: Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Schwob Also Present: James M. Polatty, Director of Planning and Development Scott Shuford, Planning Manager John Richter, Development Code Manager Chairperson 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. A. Motion was made by Mr. Gans, and seconded by Mr. Mazur to approve the minutes for July 31, 1990. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). B. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION, DEFERRED AND CONTINUED ITEMS: NONE C. CONDITIONAL USES: NONE D. ANNEXATION, ZONING, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, LANE DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: 1. Lot 20, Rolling Heights Sub., Located on the east side of Dora Dr., Approximately 100 ft. so. of Sharkey Rd. (Rimer), A 90-10, LUP 90-12 Request - Annexation and Zoning, RS-6 (Single Family Residential) LAND USE PLAN: FROM: Unclassified TO: Low Density Residential Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. The applicant was not present and no persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Ferrell, and seconded by Mr. Mazur, to approve the above request as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 2. Part of Lots 15 and 23 and all of Lots 16-22, Barrett Manor Sub., Located on the north side of Sunset Point Road adjacent to and between Meadow Drive and Elliott Drive (Peacock, National Safety Council, Campagna), Z 90-5, LUP 90-14 Request - Zoning CG (General Commercial) LAND USE PLAN: FROM: Residential/Office TO: Commercial/Tourist Facilities Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation, and advised that one letter of objection and one petition of objection signed by 47 residents had been received. Discussion ensued with the Board members expressing concern regarding the Level of Service (LOS) for Sunset Point Road, traffic impact, and land use intensity. Mr. Shuford advised Sunset Point Road carries a current LOS "F" and is scheduled for widening. Mr. Shuford pointed out this is not an actual change of use as the rezoning would not by itself constitute a final development order requiring concurrency review. Any building permits obtained to convert the offices to retail uses would be subject to concurrency review. William C. Luten, 1675 Sunnybrook Lane, representing the applicants, stated he is a broker with Luten Properties and has been working with the National Safety Council for over 2 years to lease or sell this property. Mr. Luten stated that the surrounding community has changed significantly in the last 10 years and the current use of the property is obsolete and there is no demand for residential/office uses and have therefore been unable to lease or sell this property as an office building. He felt the existing use is not compatible with the needs of the community and requested the Board approve this request. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Luten stated the property has been listed for sale for 2 years, 4 months and that the National Safety Council moved from this location January 29, 1990. Linda Fair, 2475 Neburns Avenue, Safety Harbor, stated the National Safety Council has 8 suites at this site and there is only 1 in use as a classroom to prevent vandalism. The entire parcel has a total of 19 suites, of which there are 3 vacant suites. No persons appeared in support of the above request. The following persons appeared in opposition: Ernest W. Williams, Jr., 2357 Pineland Lane, stated he feels the surrounding property values will decrease, drainage problems will increase, and that traffic in the neighborhood will increase. Mr. Williams stated he has lived at this location for 5 years and the offices on the subject property have never been painted, they are in rundown condition and that the side of the building facing his property is covered with mold and mildew. Marjorie Sands, 2369 Pineland Lane, stated she has never noticed any vacancies in the past, only since the National Safety Council moved out, but it is still being used at night. Mrs. Sands stated she was circulating a petition among the neighbors and had been told by a neighbor (who has his property for sale) that any one who signed the petition would have a lien put on their house, and asked the Board if it is permissible to circulate a petition in the neighborhood without it interfering with their property. She felt that additional traffic would be a hazard to the neighborhood children and that this request would degrade her property value. Mr. Johnson responded that it is his opinion that anyone can circulate a petition at anytime. Howard K. Perry, 1920 Elliott Drive, stated that he and his wife have cancer and their son is disabled and wants to live his remaining years in his quiet neighborhood and felt that this request would adversely affect the neighborhood and asked the Board deny the request. Enid J. Schmit, 2363 Pineland Drive, stated she has lived at this location for 20 years and felt that granting this request would result in adding to the already hazardous traffic situation, the present parking situation for this property is inadequate and would increase with the proposed zoning change, and that the owners have not tried to rent the property and are still using it. Mrs. Schmit felt that if a commercial zoning were approved a strip shopping center could result and further add to the traffic problem. She stated that she did not want any retail use of this small property, and asked the Board deny this request. Mr. John Canu, 1915 Elliott Drive, stated he has lived here for 13 1/2 years and stated that when the National Safety Council hold classes the persons attending go to nearby convenience stores on break and leave trash and debris in the parking lot and also throw trash over the fence behind the building, which the area neighbors have to clean up. There are dumpsters left open and when trash is emptied the papers blow all over the neighborhood. If this use changes to commercial this problem will only be worse. There are 10 illegal parking spaces and a Pac N Send business, which is a commercial use, being operated illegally, which he has been told has been cited. The property has not been maintained, has never been painted, there are broken bottles in the parking lot, and when grass is mowed a catcher is not used and grass blows all over the neighborhood. Mr. Canu stated that the property values will decrease a great deal if this property is zoned commercial and felt that if commercial, 2 story buildings would result. He felt that the City should consider providing sewer service to the neighborhood before any commercial businesses are considered for this area. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Canu stated commercial zoning with a 2 story building had been requested when the building was first built, but the request was denied. Howard K. Perry, added that he also lived there when the application was made for commercial zoning and it was denied. In rebuttal, Mr. Luten stated that they only desire to find users for the property, feels the parking is adequate and would like to be part of the pride of the neighborhood and expect to upgrade the facility. They do not plan to create any problems, they have been unable to find users for the property as the area is no longer compatible with an office use and asked the Board to approve this request. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Luten stated he is not aware if any of the 30 parking spaces will be affected by the widening of Sunset Point Road, and that none of the 30 spaces are in the 100 ft. right-of-way. Discussion ensued with the Board members expressing concerns including the following: Motion was made by Mr. Gans, and seconded by Ms. Nixon, to deny the request of the Land Use Plan amendment and the Zoning amendment as the requests do not appear to be supported by the Standards for Approval of Section 137.015(e) and Section 137.016(e) since the proposed uses under the requested amendments are not appropriate to the property in question and are not compatible with the existing and planned uses in the area; the proposed change is contrary to the established land use pattern; the proposed change would negatively alter the population density pattern and increase or overtax the loads on the streets; the proposed changes would adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood; the proposed change would increase traffic congestion; the proposed change will create a drainage problem; and the proposed change would adversely affect the property values in the adjacent area. Discussion ensued with the Board members expressing concerns including the following: the permitted uses under commercial zoning, the traffic impact on Sunset Point Road, and that if granted it would be spot zoning. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 3. Land Development Code Text Amendment: An ordinance relating to family, group and congregate care facilities, and residential shelters Mr. Richter explained to the Board that the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code which was prompted by 2 factors: 1) a change in State laws addressing family and group homes; and 2) the City Commission has expressed concern regarding the lack of ability of shelter the homeless. Discussion ensued with the Board members expressing concerns including the following: what a residential shelter is, the requirement of conditional use approval, and allowing residential shelters as conditional uses in residential zoning districts. Motion was made by Mr. Ferrell, and seconded by Ms. Nixon, to approve the above proposed Land Development Code Text Amendment. Motion carried 4 to 1 (Mr. Gans voting "nay" as he felt residential shelters should not be permitted in any residential zoned district). E. Chairman's Items F. Director's Items Mr. Polatty reminded the Board that the Land Development Code amendments have been divided into 3 phases. The Board discussed the proposed amendments and made comments for staff consideration. Mr. Shuford stated he will take comments under advisement and these amendments will be presented for public hearing before this Board at its meeting of September 4, 1990 for official recommendations. G. Board & Staff Comments Ms. Nixon asked staff to check on the Pick Kwik on Greenwood Avenue and Court Street regarding a problem with cardboard boxes behind the store and asked if a "cardboard only" dumpster could be placed at stores of this type for recycling cardboard rather than having the boxes pile up or blow around surrounding neighborhoods. Ms. Nixon also asked staff to check the landscaping requirements for the repaving of the St. Cecelia's parking lot. Mr. Mazur asked staff to investigate the Surfside Condominiums using some of the units as a "hotel" use. He stated he as seen printed brochures advertising this. Mr. Polatty stated this practice is in violation and will be investigated. Ms. Nixon suggested an informational packet be distributed to condominium associations so they are aware of what they can and cannot do. Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. James M. Polatty, Jr., AICP Director of Planning & Development