Loading...
06/30/1992 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1992 - 1:30 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION Members Present: Chairman Mazur, Messrs. Bickerstaffe, Hamilton, and Merriam. Members Excused: Messrs. Carassas, Savage and Ms. Martin Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager John Richter, Code Enforcement Manager Vic Chodora, Building Official Pat Fernandez, Recording Secretary, Jan Schopper, Recording Secretary In-Training Chairperson Mazur 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. ITEM A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion (made by Mr. Hamilton, second by Mr. Bickerstaffe) to approve the minutes of the meetings of June 2, 1992 and June 16, 1992. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). B. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION, DEFERRED AND CONTINUED ITEMS: 1. Request for extension (third extension request, second extension request was for building permit in 60 days and Certificate of Occupancy within eight months granted 4/14/92, first extension request was for six months granted 9/17/91, original request was for six months granted 2/19/91) Lots 118 and 119, Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, (348 Coronado Dr.) Robert E. Malke (Rose Garden Restaurant) CU 91-18 Request - To permit on premise consumption of beer and wine Zoned - CR-28 (Resort Commercial) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted in writing, the staff recommendation. The applicant was not present and the item was moved to facilitate his possible arrival. Approved (motion by Mr. Hamilton, second by Mr. Merriam) to put the item to the end of the meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). Since the applicant did not appear, the existing extension would continue to the meeting of July 14, 1992. 2. (Continued from 6/16/92) Lots 3, 4 and 1/2 vacated alley on east, J B Roberts Sub, (1253 So. Ft. Harrison Ave.) Morritt Homes, Inc. (City Pawn & Jewelry), CU 92-39 Request - To permit outdoor retail sales, displays, and/or storage Zoned - IL (Limited Industrial) Mr. Shuford gave the staff recommendation that this item be continued to the July 14, 1992 meeting. A more accurate site plan is required. Approved (motion by Mr. Hamilton, second by Mr. Bickerstaffe) to continue this item to the July 14, 1992 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). 3. (Continued from 6/16/92) M&B 14.05. Sec. 12-29-15, (2131 Range Road); John E. and Patricia A. Sadtler (Shazam Boat Works) CU 92-35 Request - To permit vehicle service, and outdoor retail sales, displays, and storage Zoned - IL (Limited Industrial) Mr. Shuford gave the staff recommendation that this item to continued to the July 14, 1992 meeting. This will give the applicant sufficient time to obtain an adequate site plan. Approved (motion by Mr. Hamilton, second by Mr. Bickerstaffe) to continue this item to the July 14, 1992 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). 4. (Continued from 6/16/92) M&B 33.04, Sec. 17-29-16, (19995 US 19 N), Gateway Investments Inc. (Bennett Car Sales), CU 92-33 Request - To permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage; and vehicle service Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial) Both Items C4 and C5 were heard together. Mr. Shuford gave a detailed staff report at the June 16, 1992 meeting. The Board stated it was not necessary to repeat the lengthy report again. The only addition is that the eastern wall of the structure should be insulated for sound. Applicant's representative, Art Shand, 1445 Court Street, 34626, stated Bennett Motor Cars wishes to redevelop this site and construct a new building sometime in the future. There will be no cars displayed on public right-of-way and no rotating pedestals. He is concerned with recommendation number eleven as it does not permit major repairs. He pointed out the previous site occupant was allowed to make major repairs. Denial of major repairs would have an impact on plans as they hope to obtain a new car franchise. All motor companies insist on the ability to service and repair vehicles on site. These are two adjoining parcels and they currently sell pre-owned vehicles on both sites. When they obtain a franchise, selling of used cars will cease on the south parcel and they will sell new vehicles on that parcel. They filed two applications as while both business have the same owner, they are in effect two separate entities and are being maintained in that manner. Appliant, Don Rotan, 6620 121st Avenue North, Largo 34623, stated new car sales will be on parcel A (Item B4) and service for new and used vehicles will be on parcel B (Item B5). In response to a question, there will be some servicing of used cars. Pro or Con: None The Board discussion indicated that it was not necessary to paint lines to delineate the outdoor display area. Approved (motion on CU 92-33, Parcel A, by Mr. Hamilton, second by Mr. Bickerstaffe) subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain certification of the site plan within one year, and the requisite occupational license shall be obtained within 18 months of this public hearing; 2) The outdoor display, sales and/or storage areas shall be clearly delineated and dimensioned on the requisite certified site plan, and clearly delineated on the site to assist in code enforcement. Parking or display of vehicles shall be prohibited within any required open space/yard areas or street rights-of-way; 3) There shall be no door/window or other openings on the east side of the proposed repair structure, except emergency exits and non-opening windows. However, if opening windows on the east side are desired for ventilation, they shall be no lower than 10 ft. from the finished floor of the structure and the ceiling and eastern wall of the structure shall be specially insulated for sound; 4) No repairs shall occur between the hours of 6:00 pm and 7:00 am Mondays through Saturdays and all day on Sundays; 5) The requisite interior and perimeter landscaped areas shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 136.023 of the Land Development Code and a landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Development Director and Environmental Management prior to the issuance of a building permit on the site; 6) There shall be no outdoor speakers; 7) All permitted vehicle service shall be indoors; 8) All parts shall be stored indoors; 9) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a continuous opaque fencing with appropriate landscaping material shall be installed in accordance with Section 136.023 of the Code along the eastern property line; 10) All lighting shall be oriented away from the residential areas; 11) Major repairs including engine or transmission dismantling, painting, body, fender, muffler, and upholstery work shall be not be permitted; 12) There shall be no outdoor displays and/or storage of boats; 13) There shall be no revolving displays or elevated displays of automobiles; 14) A cross-access agreement between Parcels "A" and "B" shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 15) Permits shall be obtained for any existing signage, as needed, and all signage shall be brought into compliance with the sign code on or before October 13, 1992. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). 5. (Continued from 6/16/92) M&B 33.03, Sec. 17-29-16, (19995 US 19 N), Gateway Investments Inc. (Bennett Car Sales), CU 92-34 Request - To permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage; and vehicle service Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial) Both items C4 and C5 were heard together. The only addition was a suggested change to the conditions that the eastern wall of the structure be insulated for sound. The following motion came after the vote on Item C4. Approved (motion on CU 92-34, parcel B, by Mr. Hamilton, second by Mr. Bickerstaffe) subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain certification of the site plan within one year, and the requisite occupational license shall be obtained within 18 months of this public hearing; 2) The outdoor display, sales and/or storage areas shall be clearly delineated and dimensioned on the requisite certified site plan, and clearly delineated on the site to assist in code enforcement. Parking or display of vehicles shall be prohibited within any required open space/yard areas or street rights-of-way; 3) There shall be no door/window or other openings on the east side of the proposed repair structure, except emergency exits and non-opening windows. However, if opening windows on the east side are desired for ventilation, they shall be no lower than 10 ft. from the finished floor of the structure and the ceiling and eastern wall of the structure shall be specially insulated for sound; 4) No repairs shall occur between the hours of 6:00 pm and 7:00 am Mondays through Saturdays and all day on Sundays; 5) The requisite interior and perimeter landscaped areas shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 136.023 of the Land Development Code and a landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning and Development Director and Environmental Management prior to the issuance of a building permit on the site; 6) There shall be no outdoor speakers; 7) All permitted vehicle service shall be indoors; 8) All parts shall be stored indoors; 9) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a continuous opaque fencing with appropriate landscaping material shall be installed in accordance with Section 136.023 of the Code along the eastern property line; 10) All lighting shall be oriented away from the residential areas; 11) Major repairs including engine or transmission dismantling, painting, body, fender, muffler, and upholstery work shall be not be permitted except upon obtaining the permits for a new car dealership on Parcel B; 12) There shall be no outdoor displays and/or storage of boats; 13) There shall be no revolving displays or elevated displays of automobiles; 14) A cross-access agreement between Parcels "A" and "B" shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; and 15) Permits shall be obtained for any existing signage, as needed, and all signage shall be brought into compliance with the sign code on or before October 13, 1992. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). C. CONDITIONAL USES: None D. ANNEXATION, ZONING, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: 1. Lot 21, Blk. A, Douglas Manor Lake Sub (1457 Dexter Drive.) Thomas W. & Sherry L. Johnson A 91-04, LUP 91-05. Request - Annexation, Land Use Plan, and Zoning Atlas Amendments LAND USE PLAN: FROM: Unclassified TO: Low Density Residential ZONING: RS-6 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Pro or Con: None Recommended that the City Commission approve (motion by Mr. Hamilton, second by Mr. Merriam) the proposed Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential, and Zoning Atlas Amendment to RS-6 as they appear to be supported by the Standards for Approval of Land Development Code Section 132.005[annex.], 137.015(e)[zoning], 137.016(e)[LUP]. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). 2. Part of Lots 23 and 24, Suban's Sub (1843 West Drive) David H. & San L. King A 91-06, LUP 91-07. Request - Annexation, Land Use Plan, and Zoning Atlas Amendments LAND USE PLAN: FROM: Unclassified TO: Low Density Residential ZONING: RS-8 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Pro or Con: None Recommended that the City Commission approve (motion by Mr. Merriam, second by Mr. Hamilton) the proposed Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential, and Zoning Atlas Amendment to RS-6 as they appear to be supported by the Standards for Approval of Land Development Code Section 132.005[annex.], 137.015(e)[zoning], 137.016(e)[LUP]. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). 3. Lot 12, Blk. C, Pine Ridge Sub (1308 Springdale Street) Willie L. & Bertha M. King A 92-04, LUP 92-09. Request - Annexation, Land Use Plan, and Zoning Atlas Amendments LAND USE PLAN: FROM: Unclassified TO: Low Density Residential ZONING: RS-8 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Pro or Con: None Recommended that the City Commission approve (motion by Mr. Merriam, second by Mr. Hamilton) the proposed Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential, and Zoning Atlas Amendment to RS-6 as they appear to be supported by the Standards for Approval of Land Development Code Section 132.005[annex.], 137.015(e)[zoning], 137.016(e)[LUP]. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). 4. Downtown Land Use Plan: The City of Clearwater proposes to change the zoning and land use classifications within the shaded area shown on the map in the advertisement and as described below. The City of Clearwater further proposes to include the subject property in the Downtown Clearwater Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). The City of Clearwater also proposes to change the permitted and conditional uses, parking standards, and other requirements associated with the Urban Center district. Zoning Changes. The City of Clearwater proposes to change the zoning districts for the subject property from Limited Industrial, Urban Center (core), General Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Resort Commercial "Twenty-four", Limited Office, Public/Semi-Public, Multiple Family Residential "Twenty-eight", Multiple Family Residential "Sixteen", Multiple Family Residential "Eight", and Open Space/Recreation to Urban Center (Bayfront), Urban Center (Core), Urban Center (Eastern Corridor), and Urban Center (Transition). Land Use Changes. The City of Clearwater proposes to change the land use classification for the subject property from Industrial, Commercial/Tourist Facilities, Residential/Office, Public/Semi-Public, High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Recreation to Downtown Development District/Regional Activity Center. Mr. Shuford provided a detailed summary of The Downtown Development Plan, noting a changes proposed to the Plan from the earlier presentation. Two letters have been received regarding the plan, one from Richard Whissell with zoning concerns and another from Mary G. Cumming who is against the proposed Plan Amendment and rezoning. A Board member stated the City in the past had usurped his rights by changing the zoning without his approval and he would not want to adversely affect another property owner. Pro or Con: Todd Hertzberg, 2165 Karan Way, Clearwater, stated he would renovate and remodel a residential property he owns at 303 N. Osceola into an office and move his office from the airport area to downtown. He feels the change to office zoning is well suited for surrounding properties. William D. Wallace, 606 Turner Street, Clearwater, stated he has mixed feelings and wants to know what will happen after the interim plan. Why expand CRA and the downtown when the downtown is shrinking. He pointed out that on the cross-hatched maps showing under-developed property that some parcels (i.e. the station at the corner of Rogers Street and S. Ft. Harrison) had part of the parcel with one shading and the balance was shaded differently. Mr. Shuford advised the property appraiser's land values were used to determine if the land value exceeded the value of the structure. Mrs. C. C. Morgan, 313 Eldridge Street, stated people are moving from the downtown area because the nearby area is not viewed as a prime residential area. The downtown is the gateway to the beaches and should not have slum areas nearby. She does not approve of people selling items from pushcarts as it will lower property values. Mr. Shuford pointed out that vendors would be on public property and be approved by a franchise agreement with the city. Carol Cicero, 1730 Rosary Road, stated the changes would drastically affect their business and was concerned about making businesses a conditional use. They would then need permission for anything they wished to do rather than being grandfathered in. Costs to obtain a conditional use permit would be high and she is uncomfortable as a conditional use permit can be revoked any time for any reason. Eighteen years ago the City rejected several of their chosen locations and suggested Greenwood with its zoning as being ideal. She feels the downtown is on a down slide and mentioned several failed businesses. Many homes near her are being boarded up. She feels it should not be necessary to spend time fighting to maintain what they already have. Since the City does not want to buy her property, she feels the City should hire a developer, get a plan together and then offer alternatives to property owners. Mr. Shuford pointed out that it will be impossible to please everyone but some grandfathering could be put in the zoning. Albert Guy, 1689 Oak Place, stated he owns two businesses in their twentieth year and two old commercial buildings at 605 Spruce and 604 Railroad Avenue. His property is now Light Industrial and under the proposed uses he would not be able to service equipment. Mr. Shuford will contact him to discuss his particular problem. If he does not expand, he could continue his present use. Loretta Cruder, 904 Railroad Avenue, inquired if her property was involved and would the proposals have a negative effect on her. Mr. Shuford will contact her later. James C. Rembert, 423 S. Greenwood, stated as a lifelong resident that he recalls a quieter country-like area. His community has dwindled and he feels businesses have deteriorated neighborhoods. Residential areas keep downtowns alive. He feels that if the surrounding residential areas were kept up in the past that the downtown would have had people to keep it alive. He now wonders if the new zoning and incorporation of other areas into the downtown would have a negative effect and cause them to become blighted. Altonise Bryant, 402 Railroad Avenue, stated she is not a property owners but was appearing for aged relatives in the area. She feels that if tenants were required to keep property up that the area would not appear to be a slum. A Board member expressed his view that the downtown should be developed around businesses that have been successful. Concern was voiced by the Board relative to three members being absent at today's meeting. It was felt these members had valuable input and since circumstances at the last minutes prohibiting them from being here, believe it should be put off till the meeting of August 4, 1992. The July meeting has a number of cases coming before it and it since it does not affect the City's timetable, it would be more effectively decided at the first meeting in August. Continued (motion by Mr. Hamilton, second by Mr. Merriam) the above request to the meeting of August 4, 1992. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). 5. An Ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; Amending Chapter 134, Code of Ordinances, relating to signs and sign regulations; amending Section 137.005, Code of Ordinances, relating to definitions; providing an effective date. Mr. Richter, Code Enforcement Manager, made a presentation on the proposed sign code. The purpose is to bring Clearwater's code into general conformance with the county code. Board member concerns related to page 5 under definition of political signs and usage of the working referendum for approval. They would like reference to a referendum removed to allow signage for any related political issue, not a ballot item, such as pro-life/pro-choice or MIA. Concern should be on the time limit the sign can remain up and not the content. On page 9 reference is made to banners and flags and its application to condo owners. The Code says one banner/flag on any residential property. As a condo resident, it appears only one unit owner could display the flag. The word unit should be inserted for residentially owned property. The internal display of merchandise against business windows was discussed. Signage on glass buildings is sometimes a problem. Verbiage on signs is usually quantitative rather than qualitative which is difficult to control. Pro or Con: William C. Jonson, 2694 Redford Court West, stated the sign code parallels the county and is excellent. He suggested a change stating the county has a first amendment protection clause. He is concerned with neon to frame signage and sandwich signs allowed downtown. He reviewed bonuses allowed to large businesses such as Home Depot, Gayfers, Loehmann's Plaza, Albertsons at Countryside and several others. He suggested the bonus may encourage a sign war and cause businesses to enlarge their attached signs to compete with the business next door. Downgrading bonuses should be considered. Paul Taylor, Thomas Sign & Awning Co., 10990 49th Street North, stated a business entity far from the road needs a larger sign to get the same visual effect a business closer to the road would get with a smaller sign. The County code has been endorsed by the various mayors and the City should take it and use it. He favors the 10% of building facade evaluation factor on a store and in fact suggested it to St. Petersburg. It is proportionate, fair, and not excessive with 90% being building and the remaining 10% as sign. Problems start with the Illegal signs that remain due to lack of enforcement. A Board concern was what happens when replacing a sign located in an area where the right of way changed due to road widening. They felt the code should cover and provide an answer when a business received a bonus and now needs to replace a sign, but has a different setback. What size sign would they be allowed to erect. The previous size or would the rules on the actual setback at the time of replacement apply. Staff was asked about wording of a provision of sign bonuses either existing or projected right of way, whichever is less. Motion (made by Mr. Merriam, second by Mr. Bickerstaffe) to recommend to the Commission that the Ordinance relating to signs and sign regulations be adopted with the three following changes: 1) On page 5...on political signs/issues - remove reference to referendum; 2) On page 9...on flags allowed for multiple-family residences - allow one flag per unit; and 3) Add First Amendment protection clause similar to the one in the county code. Motion carried unanimously (4 to 0). 6. Ordinance No 5201-92 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to flood protection; amending Section 164.004, Code of Ordinances, to revise the definition of "substantial improvement" in order to comply with Florida law relating to the length of time in which certain costs are to be accounted for and limited in certain flood-prone areas of the City; providing an effective date. Request - Land Development Code Text Amendments Vic Chodora, Building Official, made the presentation relating to the ordinance. The state law has changed and our ordinance was to bring Clearwater into compliance with the state law and make it uniform. They are desirous of treating the rest of the flood prone areas in the City in the same manner. Flood zones have been defined per the federal maps. In addition to the coastal barrier islands, it is recognized that Alligator Creek and some other locations inland are flood-prone. One Board members expressed the view that this was making it virtually impossible for Island Estates home owners to sell their homes at any reasonable price. On recent purchases, buyers are extensively remodeling. The limit of improvement over 5 years will affect the tax base for these high-paying taxpayers. A roof repair alone is costly and would be a large part of the allowable repair. Another Board member was reluctant to add areas that are not mandated by the state government. Pro or Con: Rita Canan, 484 Island Way, has been a resident for 23 years and came with members of the Island Estates Civic Association. She concludes that the affected areas should be clearly named and identified. There is considerable difference between "prone to" indicating tendency or history of flooding and "subject to" which could refer to any area. Properties on Island Estates would be devalued even through they have no flood-prone areas. She concluded that a lower tax base would most likely follow. Mr. Shuford stated the properties in question are in the 100 year flood zone as defined by the FEMA maps. A Board member stated the whole city would suffer if a severe hurricane came through. As a resident of Island Estates he was required to evacuate and went to a friends well within the city boundaries. Water from a nearby creek came into the yard and that property sustained damage while his property in Island Estates remained unscathed. They objected to the City exceeding the requirements of the state law. They feel the recommendation should have been written to meet the state law and not include a wish list. Deny (on a motion by Mr. Hamilton, second by Mr. Merriam) item D6 in its present form. Motion carried (4 to 0). E. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS -- None F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Mr. Shuford passed out a memorandum concerning the roller skating rental issue. He pointed out that the packets also included data concerning the issuance of alcoholic beverage licenses. Mr. Shuford thanked both John Richter and Vic Chodora for coming and presenting their own items. G. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS The meeting was adjourned at 5:58 pm.