11/17/1992 MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 - 1:30 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
Members Present: Chairman Mazur, Messrs. Bickerstaffe, Carassas, Merriam, Savage, Ms. Martin
Members Excused: Mr. Hamilton
Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
James M. Polatty, Jr., Director of Planning and Development
Doreen Feldhaus, Recording Secretary
ITEM
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. November 3, 1992
A motion was made by Mr. Carassas, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to approve the minutes of November 3, 1992. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
B. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION, DEFERRED AND CONTINUED ITEMS:
1. (Continued from 9/29/92, 10/13/92, & 11/3/92)
M&B 14.11, Sec. 18-29-16 (20866 US 19 N), Russell and Barbara J. Dilley, Trustees (Personalities),
CU 92-68
Request - To permit on-premise consumption of beer and wine
Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial)
Mr. Shuford stated that the applicant has indicated to staff that they intend to withdraw the request. Mr. Shuford recommended that the Board continue the request to either obtain,
in writing, the applicant's withdrawal, or allow time for the item to be readvertised.
A motion was made by Mr. Bickerstaffe, and seconded by Mr. Savage, to continued the request to the December 1, 1992 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
2. (Continued from 11/3/92)
Lot 1, Clwr. 19 Commerce Park (22067 US 19 N), Frank C. Kunnen, Jr. (Clwr. 19 Commerce Center), CU 92-76
Request - To permit vehicle service; and outdoor retail sales, displays and storage
Zoned - IL (Limited Industrial)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Applicant's representative, Tim Johnson, 911 Chestnut St., stated they had met extensively with staff regarding this request as well as the rezoning request, and felt they have worked
out most of the concerns. Mr. Johnson stated there was a vehicle service business in bay #22019 (Auto Works) which operated for 4 years without complaint, prior to this use requiring
a conditional use permit. He also stated they would like to include bay #22019 in the areas designated to permit vehicle service. Mr. Johnson also requested that "and light trucks"
should be included in staff's recommended condition #4. Mr. Johnson added that they would agree to an additional condition that automobile body work be prohibited any where on the property,
as this type of work causes the most noise.
In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Johnson stated that there are no windows on the east side of the building which faces the residential apartments, and that the building opens
only to the west.
Pro: None
Con: None
Discussion ensued regarding the additional condition of no body work and the requested addition to condition #4.
A motion was made by Mr. Bickerstaffe, and seconded by Mr. Savage, to approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1) Vehicle service shall be permitted in bay #22019 and
in building 22101-22159 (as shown on the concept plan submitted with this application); all vehicle service activities and storage of parts shall be indoors; 2) A site plan, showing
proposed location and type of storage and/or display, landscaping, and structures, shall be submitted for approval, and landscaping and paving associated with the approved site plan
shall be installed prior to initiation of any outdoor retail sales, storage, or display use; 3) The outdoor retail sales, storage or display use shall be discontinued within four years
from the date of this public hearing or within six months of the date that construction shall commence on any highway widening/improvement project affecting the property, whichever is
sooner; 4) All outdoor display areas shall be limited to the display of automobiles and light trucks only and shall be paved; 5) As long as the FDOT anticipates to utilize this site
in connection with improvements for US 19, permanent perimeter landscaping shall not be required; however, any utilization of this site for outdoor retail sales, displays or storage
shall provide for ground cover and shrubbery generally consistent with the perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 136.023 as indicated in condition 2 above; and 6) Vehicle body
work shall be prohibited anywhere on the property.
C. CONDITIONAL USES:
1. Part of Blk. 2, Baskin's Replat Resub (2779 Gulf to Bay Blvd), Herbert E & Jane B Wollowick (Silver Saddle Saloon, Inc./Sweaty Eddy's), CU 92-45
Request - To permit on-premise consumption and package sales of beer, wine and liquor
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Applicant, Rhonda Donnelly, 2041 Glenmore Road No., stated that they have requested a transfer of ownership of the 4-COP license.
In response to questions by the Board, Ms. Donnelly stated she understands and has no problem with the conditions recommended by staff; and that the operation of the business will not
be changed. Ms. Donnelly stated that she will manage the business and has several years experience.
Pro: None
Con: None
A motion was made by Mr. Savage, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational
license within six months of the date of this public hearing; 2) The package sales of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to beer and wine only; 3) There shall be no deliveries
to the establishment and no building or property services for the premises may be performed after 10:00 p.m. or before 6:00 a.m. on any day; and 4) There shall be no customer accessible
display for package sales. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
2. M&B 33.02, Sec. 28-28-16 (2530 McMullen-Booth Road), John Hancock Mutual LIfe Ins. Co. (Hancock Realty Investors Inc./Pickles Plus, Inc.), CU 92-73
Request - To permit on-premise consumption of beer & wine
Zoned - CC (Commercial Center) and OL (Limited Office)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation.
In response to a question by the Board, Mr. Shuford stated staff had not received a report back from the Police Department and does not anticipate any problem with this applicant.
Applicant's representative, Ralph Natale, 249 Woodlake Lane, Oldsmar, stated he operated this business in Safety Harbor for 2½ years and has moved the business to this new location.
In response to a question by the Board, Mr. Natale stated he has been open at the current location for 3½ weeks.
Pro: None
Con: None
A motion was made by Mr. Carassas, and seconded by Mr. Savage, to approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite occupational license shall be obtained within
6 months from the date of this public hearing; 2) The sales of beer and wine shall be limited to
consumption on premises with no package sales; and 3) The applicant shall obtain from the City Commission the requisite separation variance. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
D. ANNEXATION, ZONING, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW:
1. Lot 1, Clwr "19" Commerce Park (22067 U.S. 19 N.) Frank C. Kunnen, Jr., Z 92-07
Request - Zoning Atlas Amendment
ZONED:
FROM: IL (Limited Industrial)
TO: IPD (Industrial Planned Development)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford discussed in detail the conditions recommended by staff.
Discussion ensued with the Board and staff concerning the previous concerns regarding this request and the "conceptual" site plan requirement.
Applicant's representative, Tim Johnson, 911 Chestnut St., stated they are in agreement with the staff's conditions. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Shuford to clarify the landscaping condition
Mr. Shuford explained that the plan must show the landscaping as it will be installed after the road construction is completed.
Pro: None
Con: None
A motion was made by Mr. Bickerstaffe, and seconded by Mr. Carassas, to recommend that the City Commission approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1) All freestanding
signage shall meet the requirements of the Highway Commercial zoning district; all attached signage shall meet the requirements of the General Commercial zoning district; 2) There
shall be no more than a cumulative total of 20,185 sq. ft. of gross floor area for retail and restaurant uses, of which no more than 1,500 sq. ft. shall be for restaurant uses; 3)
New uses or revisions to existing uses within the center shall continue to be reviewed, on a case by case basis, for any required impact fees; 4) The applicant shall improve the retention
area adjacent to the drain on the south side of his property in accordance with his agreement with Public Works, including the sodding of the bank along the section to be improved;
maintenance shall be in accordance with standard City policy, and the City shall perform maintenance required to maintain flow; 5) There shall be no additional door or window openings
on any building wall which faces a residential area; 6) Prior to the first reading of this IPD request by the City Commission, the applicant shall submit a revised conceptual site
plan which reflects the changed site conditions likely to result from the proposed highway improvement project and which shows perimeter landscaping along US 19 in conformance with City
Code requirements. Such landscaping shall be
installed within six months after completion of the highway improvement project. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
2. Multiple Rezoning, Land Use Plan, Zoning and Land Development Code Amendments associated with the Downtown Plan
Mr. Shuford explained the Downtown Plan and its changes in detail for the benefit of the public present for the public hearing.
Mr. William Robertson, 1701 Harbor Drive, stated that he owns property between Greenwood and Missouri Avenues and asked what is being done with the property owned by the City; and what
the zoning will be for that area.
Mr. Shuford stated that what Mr. Robertson is referring to is the East End Project. He explained that the City requested proposals from developers for developing the East End Project,
and it is undecided whether the City Commission will accept any of the proposals received, one of which was for a medium to medium high density multi-family development. Mr. Shuford
explained that the City does not have immediate plans to purchase any more property in regard to the East End Project at this time.
No other persons were present to comment on the Downtown Plan.
Mr. Shuford stated he would like the Board to recommend endorsement of the Downtown Plan and its associated Land Use Plan amendments, rezonings, and Land Development Code amendments
to the City Commission which will consider it on December 3, 1992.
Discussion ensued with the Board and staff regarding concerns including: alcoholic beverages being sold without conditional use permits in certain areas, vendors, uses becoming nonconforming,
and the reconstruction of homes should they be destroyed.
In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Shuford stated that with both the Downtown Plan and the North Ft. Harrison/North Myrtle Avenue Zoning study that nonconforming uses, or any
use made nonconforming by these changes, can continue indefinitely so long as it is not damaged or destroyed in excess of 50% of the value of the property. He added that change of ownership
would allow the use to continue. Mr. Shuford stated that in the case of alcoholic beverage sales uses requiring a conditional use permit would require a new conditional use permit but
not for any other nonconforming use. If totally damaged or destroyed, however, it cannot be replaced and if the use is discontinued for a period of one year or more, it cannot be continued.
In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Shuford stated that in regard to alcoholic beverage sales not requiring conditional use permits that the operators would still be required
to obtain a State license and police background checks. Mr. Shuford stated that the City will be aware of these uses as occupational licenses will still be required and that the City
receives periodic reports from the State alcoholic beverage licensing authorities regarding these uses.
Discussion ensued regarding the rebuilding of homes affected by the rezoning to Commercial districts should they be destroyed.
In response to questions by the public, Mr. Shuford explained stated that single family homes have been purposely excluded from these areas to ensure owners will be able to use their
properties for their homes.
Discussion ensued regarding the payment of insurance claims should a home be destroyed that is not permitted to be rebuilt on the same property.
Motion was made by Mr. Savage, and seconded by Mr. Merriam, to recommend that the City Commission approve the Downtown Plan subject to the staff researching and adding language allowing
existing single family homes located in areas where they would become nonconforming to be reconstructed within the original footprint should they be destroyed. Motion carried unanimously
(6 to 0).
Mr. Savage left the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
3. Multiple Rezoning, Land Use Plan, Zoning and Land Development Code Amendments associated with the North Fort Harrison/North Myrtle Avenue Zoning Study
Mr. Shuford explained the zoning study and proposed changes in detail for the public.
The following persons appeared to speak in regard to the North Ft. Harrison/North Myrtle Avenue Zoning Study and expressed the following questions and comments.
Mr. Demetrios Panoutsakos, 11 Edgewater Drive, Dunedin, stated he had lived at 1105 No. Osceola for 13 years. He stated the zoning changed four times during that time. He stated that
he felt the residential uses in the area cannot survive further changes in zoning. Mr. Panoutsakos stated there were problems with drugs and prostitution and that the police would not
help. He stated that he owns 18 units there and when people find out where the location, they are not interested. Mr. Panoutsakos felt the rezoning should go all the way to Osceola.
Mr. Ed Carnegie, stated that he owns property (5 units) at the southeast corner of Osceola and Engman and that he also felt that the commercial zoning should go all the way Osceola,
because the properties are too narrow for any quality commercial business.
Mr. Shuford stated that the City recognizes the problems with the depth of the property along Ft. Harrison and N. Myrtle Avenues and that is one reason we suggested that the Commercial
zoning be extended into that RM-8 area long Garden Avenue and also under the Infill Commercial district reduced the front yard setback from 25 ft. to 15 ft. to allow buildings closer
to the front property line. Also, another alternative would be for persons to apply for a conditional use permit for noncommercial parking which would allow them to put their noncommercial
parking facilities on their property to the west.
Discussion ensued with Mr. Shuford explaining noncommercial parking.
Mr. Daniel Troisi, 1605 No Ft. Harrison Ave., stated he has lived there for 12 years, asked if N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and N. Myrtle Avenue will be made
one way streets to better move the traffic. He felt that traffic would not move faster if this is done and that the road is narrow and cannot be widened.
Mr. Shuford stated that the State commissioned a study to be done to determine where the Alt. 19 designation should be, and that he has not heard any specific information on this as
yet. Mr. Shuford added that the City's Traffic Engineering Department reports that traffic on N. Fort Harrison seems to flow quite well.
Mr. Troisi stated he feels that parking at the public library should be free.
Discussion ensued regarding parking meters at the public library.
Mr. Shuford noted that issue this does not pertain to this study.
Mr. Bob Fierstein, 1868 Oak Park Drive, stated he owns two lots, one at 1500 Osceola and the vacant lot next to it. He felt that if there is no difference between RS-8 and RM-8 that
it shouldn't be changed.
Mr. Shuford explained that when there is multi-family classification on the property, it gives the false impression in this particular case that there could be multi-family development
on the property, which there could be, but it would involve acquiring several lots. Mr. Shuford stated that the single family zoning better reflects what can be done on the property,
which would prevent someone from developing the property with a large scale low density multi family project, such as townhomes, which is not in keeping with the character of that area.
Mr. Fierstein stated that this area is highly multi-family residential with a lot of rental units, garage apartments, etc. and that there are only a few lots vacant in that area and
felt the zoning should not be changed.
Mr. Shuford responded that most of the multi-family uses in that area are nonconforming, but are grandfathered in.
Mr. Oliver Ackerley, 1216 Sunset Drive, stated that he is not opposed to the rezoning of N. Ft. Harrison, but is opposed of rezoning RM-8 to RS-8 because there are properties that can
be changed. He stated that when purchasing the property he took into account being able to use the property as multi family, and it has already been down zoned once from RM-12 to RM-8.
He felt the City should not have changed the zoning then. Mr. Ackerley added that he wants to put an apartment on his property and have someone living there to watch over the property
when he is away. He also felt that the density in the downtown should not be reduced, and that the zoning should be such that would encourage people to live in this area and that mix
of zoning as exists should remain.
Mr. Fierstein asked how this will affect tax assessments.
Mr. Shuford stated that staff researched this issue and was told by the Property Appraiser's Office that the tax is based upon the use of the property and not the zoning of the property.
Mr. Dennis Henegar, 314 Venetian Dr., stated that he received a notice yesterday in the mail that Lots 10, 11 and part of Lot 9 is being upgraded
from RM-8 to RM-20. He stated that he owns the other part of Lot 9, and Lot 8 and part of Lot 7 and a he notice he received last week stated that it is proposed to change his property
from Residential and Commercial Tourist Facilities to Residential Urban. He felt this is not fair that his neighbor is getting upgraded and he that should have the same benefits and
rights as his neighbor. Mr. Henegar stated that for continuity the whole block should be zoned the same classification.
Mr. Shuford stated the reason for the change to RM-20 is to legitimize the largest multi-family development in that area which is why that zoning is suggested for that property.
Mr. Richard Owens, 300 Venetian Dr., stated that he is the owner of the 12 unit apartment building that is being rezoned from RM-8 to RM-20. He stated that this building was built in
1959 and he has owned it since December of 1985. He did not request this change, but is in favor of the rezoning of his property because currently it is nonconforming due to a rezoning
that took place some time between 1959 and 1985. Mr. Owns asked when the property was rezoned that made the building nonconforming.
Mr. Shuford responded that zoning change to RM-8 took place in October of 1985 as part of a comprehensive Citywide rezoning of the area. He stated that the reason for this proposed
rezoning is to bring this property into conformity as it is the largest multi-family property in the study area.
Mr. Carnegie, stated that south of Engman on the east side of Osceola is where most of the multi-family dwellings are. He felt this should be reconsidered and not rezone these lots
to single family which is going to create a situation where single family lots next to commercial property and they are not going to be worth anything because they are just to shallow
to do anything with.
Ms. Vera Brinson, 1010 Eldridge St. stated she is concerned with the strip to the north between Nicholson St., Garden Ave. and the Pinellas Trail. She stated that this is such a small
area and felt that if that property is zoned commercial that those homes will be "squashed" by commercial uses. She asked if the City will relocate these homes, or purchase their homes
so that they can buy another home.
Mr. Shuford stated that it is not likely to relocate homes unless the City were to purchases the property for potential commercial development.
Mr. Mazur stated that if this property is changed from residential to commercial zoning that the property would be more valuable and that the property owners could sell their property
at a profit and relocate to another single family home.
Ms. Brinson stated that she is concerned that her sister's home will be surrounded by commercial uses and that if her house should be destroyed that it could not be rebuilt.
Mr. Polatty added that this study will not make anyone move from their homes or sell them, they can remain as long as they wish.
Mr. Shuford added that this rezoning will likely make the properties more valuable, not less.
Dr. Deborah Weible, 1208 Sunset Drive, stated that she also owns a business at 1006 N. Ft. Harrison. Ms. Weible stated that she is active with the North Ft. Harrison Business District
and the Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association and that for several years they have been looking for ways to improve the residential and commercial area and that improving the neighborhood
was not enough and needed to concentrate efforts on the N. Ft. Harrison area. Dr. Weible added that they have worked with the Police Department and Code Enforcement and have seen a
lot of positive changes. She stated that this plan has been presented to the Board of Directors of both the Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association and the N. Fort Harrison Business
District and it was approved unanimously and it will soon be presented to the entire membership. She stated she is in favor of the study and felt it will provide incentive for businesses
to move into the area.
Mr. Shuford presented a letter in support of the study from the Old Clearwater Bay Association for the Board to review.
Mr. Robert Harn, 904 Garden Avenue, stated he purchased his property in 1982 and that he is in favor of the study and the proposed changes.
Ms. Clearether Gross, 915 Garden Avenue, stated she is in favor of study and the proposed changes.
Mr. Shuford suggested that the Board continue this request to the next meeting in order to give staff an opportunity to prepare a list of the points brought out by the public today.
Mr. Shuford presented another letter in support of the study from Mr. James J. Thorton.
Mr. Bickerstaffe stated he is in favor of the changes, but he felt that as is the case with Andy's Autos that there will be similar problems with parts of properties being different
zonings. He felt that properties should be one zoning classification is order to have full use of the property.
Mr. Shuford responded that in determining where the appropriate dividing line for zoning districts should be that along streets and along rear property lines is common practice. The
reason that rear property lines are used to divide single family zoning and commercial zoning is that the impact is minimized.
Dr. Deborah Weible, stated she felt that this area serves as a buffer to the neighborhood and that there would be a fight from the neighborhood if commercial zoning were to go all the
way to Osceola. Ms. Weible stated she felt Andy's Autos is just a very unusual situation.
A motion was made by Mr. Bickerstaffe, and seconded by Mr. Merriam, to continue the N. Ft. Harrison/N. Myrtle Avenue Zoning Study to the December 1, 1992 meeting. Motion carried unanimously
(4 to 0).
E. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS
F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
G. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Bickerstaffe stated that there are signs on Clearwater Beach which state that it is "illegal to sell drugs..." and asked why is the significance of these signs.
Mr. Shuford stated that State law allows more severe penalties to apply within locations that are so signed, and that is the reason for posting the signs.
The meeting adjourned 4:50 p.m.
_____________________________________________________________
James M. Polatty, Jr., Director of Planning and Development