01/24/1995 MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
January 24, 1995 - 2:00 P.M.
Commission Chambers, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, FL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
Members Present: Kemper Merriam, Chair
Jay Keyes, Vice Chair (arrived 2:59 p.m.)
Brenda Nixon
Edward Mazur
Robert D. Bickerstaffe
Members absent: John Carassas
Also Present: Scott Shuford, Director, Central Permitting
Pamela Akin, City Attorney (arrived 2:55 p.m.)
Sally Demarest, Board Reporter
Chairman Merriam 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 Department. Florida Law requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the
proceedings to support the appeal.
By motion duly seconded, the minutes of the January 10, 1995 meeting were approved with two changes.
The following requests for extension, deferred and continued items were considered:
B1. (cont. from 01/10/95) E.G. Bradford & Sons, Inc to permit outdoor retail sales, display, and/or storage at 111 S. Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.03, zoned CG (General Commercial).
CU 95-03
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. This item was continued from January 10, 1995 to enable the applicant to submit
a plan indicating the location of the area proposed, and assist staff in making a final recommendation; no plan was submitted. It was noted that an outdoor display of the type requested
has existed at this business location for over 20 years.
The applicant, Mr. Danny Bradford, 111 South Belcher Road, Clearwater referred the Board to a simple site plan which indicated the 5 ft. by 30 ft. area proposed for display; Mr. Shuford
opined the plan would satisfy until a more formal site plan can be submitted for file.
Ms. Nixon made a motion to approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite occupational license shall be obtained within six months from the date of this
public hearing; 2) the applicant shall designate the display area on a plan; 3) the items to be displayed shall not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and 4) the applicant
shall secure the items so that windy weather does not blow them around. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following conditional use items were considered:
C1. Morton Plant Life Services, Inc (Bayview Gardens) to permit a Nursing Home at 2855 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd, Resub of Baskins Replat, part of Lot 2, zoned RM 16 (Multi Family Residential)
& OL (Limited Office). CU 95-04
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. This is a request for a conditional use permit to allow Morton Plant Life
Service (Bayview Gardens) to operate a nursing home with a maximum of 120 residents in the Multiple Family Residential "Sixteen" (RM-16) zoning district.
The Planning and Zoning Board heard a similar request from the applicant to build the nursing home in the eastern portion of the applicant's property on August 2, 1994 . The request
was denied by the Board because of environmental concerns. The decision of the Board was appealed by the applicant. A hearing on that appeal is scheduled for February 23, 1995. As
a condition of approval of this revised conditional use permit application, staff will require that the applicant withdraw the existing appeal.
Mr. Mazur declared a conflict of interest on this item. This left only three members for discussion and vote. Mr. Shuford stated Sec 6C of the Board's Rules and Regulations requires
that a minimum of four votes in favor of a conditional use permit occur in order to approve the request.
The applicant's representative requested a continuance. Mr. Bickerstaffe made a motion to continue the request to February 14, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and upon the vote
being taken, Chairman Merriam, Ms. Nixon and Mr. Bickerstaffe voted "aye"; Mr. Mazur abstained. The motion carried.
C2. Theodosios & Zachoro Mavromichalis/Mayuri, Inc (Rainbow Food Mart) to permit package sales of beer and wine (Change of business ownership) at 1244 S. Highland Ave, Forest Hill Estates,
Lots 155-159 and part of Lot 160, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 95-05
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the application and presented, in writing, the staff recommen-dations. It was indicated this is a request for a continuation of an existing conditional
use permit to allow a change in business ownership to permit an existing alcoholic beverage sales (2-APS) licensed establishment known as "Rainbow Food Mart" to sell beer and wine on
package. The subject property is located at 1244 South Highland Avenue at the intersection of Barry Street.
Speaking for the applicant, Mr. Gordon Killian, 1747 Winfield Road North, Clearwater said the tenant has been operating the well-established business at this location for 23 years.
The property will still retain its previous business name, but with a different ownership at the assumption of the assigned lease by the applicant. The change of ownership will involve
the same 2-APS alcoholic beverage license. No major change in the operation of the business is anticipated other than in the management style which is consistent with new business owners.
He said the free-standing ice machine on the 11 ft. sidewalk does not hinder traffic.
Mr. Jagadish Joshi, 600 Starkey Road, #1503, Largo was present but did not offer to speak.
There were no persons or documents in support of or opposition to the application.
Responding to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Killian said Mr. Joshi has experience in this type of business and owns another business of this type in St. Petersburg.
Ms. Nixon made a motion to approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite occupational license shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public
hearing; and 2) there shall be no consumption of beer and wine on premises. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The following annexation, zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment and Local Planning Agency Review items were considered:
D1. 1200-1222 N. Betty Lane and 1209-1223 Fairburn Avenue, Fairburn Add, Blk C, Lots 1-4 & 7-12. (Homeless Emergency Project, Inc./Otis C. & Barbara C. Green)) Z-94-16
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment and indicated the applicants are requesting the rezoning to facilitate the relocation and expansion of their emergency
shelter from the block to the south on the property of Everybody's Tabernacle. This is a former rental storage facility proposed to accommodate fifteen people, requiring a zoning change
because Neighborhood Commercial does not provide the density needed; staff recommends Infill Commercial zoning and wants to examine similar non-conforming uses in the area for possible
inclusion in this zoning category.
The applicant, Barbara Green, 1101 Fairburn, Clearwater said she is the administrator for the Homeless Emergency Project, explaining the increase is due to elimination of the dorm behind
the church formerly used for housing. The request will cover additional space for office use, a dental clinic, beauty shop, computer and GED classes, and support services.
There were no persons or documents in opposition to the application. It was noted by the Board that the lack of opposition to the application is a testimonial to the good work performed
by the applicant.
Clearwater Deputy Police Chief J. D. Eastridge spoke in behalf of the applicant. He said he appeared at the request of Chief Klein who was unable to attend the meeting due to a prior
schedule commitment. Chief Eastridge reported the police department has worked closely with the Homeless Emergency Project over the years and supports the zoning request because of
the need this organization fills and service it performs within the City of Clearwater, and urged approval of the request.
Ms. Nixon made a motion to recommend endorsement of the proposed Zoning Atlas amendment to Infill Commercial to the City Commission as it appears to be supported by the Standards for
Approval of LDC, Art III, Ch 40. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D2. Ordinance No. 5765-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; rescinding existing Section 36.038, Code of Ordinances, eliminating the North Greenwood
Design Committee; creating a new Section 36.038, Code of Ordinances to establish a Design Review Board, and to establish powers, duties, and jurisdiction for the Board; providing an
effective date.
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the proposed Land Development Code amendment and indicated it involves a Design Review Board for Clearwater Beach, Downtown and North Greenwood, replacing
an earlier draft amendment involving Clearwater Beach only. He said the members shall be comprised of three property owners or merchants from each of the three districts, and will include
design professionals and two at-large members.
In the ensuing discussion Mr. Bickerstaffe congratulated Mr. Shuford for accomplishment of this concept and Ms. Nixon opined the entire community would benefit from such a plan.
Ms Nixon made a motion to recommend endorsement of this item to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D3. Ordinance No. 5766-95 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 36.033, 36.066, 36.083, 37.21, 40.674, 43.03, 43.04, 43.21 through
54.23 and 54.53, Code of Ordinances, to delete the requirement for receipt and referral of annexations, subdivision plats, site plans, Zoning Atlas amendments and Comprehensive Land
Use Pan amendments; to provide for variance approval by the Planning and Zoning Board; to require the posting of properties which are the subject of proposed site plans and subdivision
plats; to authorize the Development Code Administrator to certify site plans and subdivision plats; to authorize the City Manager to determine whether to require the conveyance of land,
payment of cash, or a combination thereof to satisfy the recreation land impact fee and open space impact fee; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford recommended continuance of this item to incorporate additional suggestions by City staff and to accommodate Board input on the site plan issue.
Mr. Bickerstaffe made a motion to continue this item to February 28, 1995. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS
Discussion of Rules & Regulations
The Chairman offered, Mr. Shuford explained and the Board discussed the following comments and suggestions:
pg 1 sec 2 - It was agreed elections will be held at the end of the first meeting in January, prior to annual review of rules and regulations.
pg 1 sec 5 - "Planning Director" will be changed to "Central Permitting Director".
pg 1 at the bottom - "the meeting" shall read "the meeting scheduled"
pg 2 sec 3 - notice of all meetings regular or special shall be given to Board members 24 hours in advance of the meeting
pg 2 abstention - in these instances the board member...must (replaces "should") declare the conflict...
pg 4 sec 8 - "Department of Planning and Urban Development" shall be changed to "Central Permitting Department"
pg 5 sec 8 - "persons supporting may speak in rebuttal" shall read "persons supporting who have spoken previously other than the applicant may speak in rebuttal"...
pg 5 sec 9 - "persons opposing may speak in rebuttal" shall read "persons opposing who have spoken previously may speak in rebuttal"
item C - the Board may at its discretion vote (replaces "adjourn") to continue an item...
item D - if the hearing on an item has been closed (replaces "adjourned")...
Mr. Shuford and City Attorney Pamela Akin will draft language to stipulate that a member who arrives at a meeting in the middle of a discussion or after a public hearing is closed, will
not be able to vote on that item. Ms. Akin opined when the Board is making recommendations on zoning issues, code changes or legislative issues, a member may vote regardless what the
member heard. On quasi-judicial matters, her concern would be the Board member did not have the benefit of all testimony. Ms. Akin had additional concern relative to abstentions from
voting and offered to research this matter further.
In the ensuing general discussion, it was stressed the Board wanted to be as aware of the public interest as possible, not preclude a new member from participating, or any concerned
citizen from addressing the Board on any matter.
Mr. Shuford will submit the revised Rules and Regulations to the Board with changed sections highlighted, adding Ms. Akin will received a copy of all changes suggested.
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
City Attorney Information
Responding to a request from the Board, Ms. Akin spoke at considerable length, dealing with issues of concern. Ex parte communication and quasi-judicial matters were addressed in some
detail. She indicated an evolution in the law since 1992 now requires members to follow quasi-judicial rules when sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity (applying general law to a specific
situation). Legislative capacity is rule- or policy-making. Zoning actions, variances, conditional uses, and site plan approvals are all quasi-judicial. In a quasi-judicial role,
certain procedural requirements must be met and all decisions must be reached only from testimony at the public hearing, without ex parte contact.
Ex parte contact means one-sided or partisan contact, i.e. talking to neighbors, and phone calls from concerned individuals. On quasi-judicial matters it is clearly prohibited. She
said if members are acting in a reasonable fashion there is no liability. In the instance of knowingly violating the guidelines, the City will defend a board member, but the City will
not pay any judgment for punitive damages awarded against an individual Board member. If guidelines are followed and members do what they believe individually and professionally is
best for the community, they have qualified immunity.
A discussion ensued as to the duties and responsibilities of the Board with regard to surrounding natural environment of the use. Mr. Shuford gave the seven criteria for conditional
use approval and several hypothetical examples of quasi-judicial and ex parte communication were discussed.
A prior commitment to a scheduled meeting mandated Ms. Akin conclude her participation and she left the meeting at 4:01 p.m., ending the discussion.
Site Plan Submittal Requirements/Board expectations
Ms. Nixon complimented the Central Permitting Department, saying it has been extraordinary in taking the Board's directives and implementing them in a way that protects the community
for the future. Mr. Shuford replied that he and his staff have two areas of concentration in the promotion of development: 1) streamlining the development review process; and 2) promotion
of the existing natural and built environment.
Data from The Zoning Report cites the difference between the technical nature of site plan review and the use-type decisions City Planning Commission (CPC) would act upon, as well the
elements of the site plan which are carefully reviewed by staff. Mr. Shuford stressed the point that site plans which are presented to the Board are invariably modified before final
approval. He requested advice relative to the level of detail on the preliminary conditional use site plans which the Board would require to effect a decision, i.e. tree survey, proposed
utilities, precise sizes of retention areas and drainage features.
Mr. Mazur emphasized in his opinion it was totally wrong to go to more detail, adding the City has very competent staff. He cited environmental circumstances and suggested a presentation
by Environmental to explain their review process and satisfy the environmental concerns of the Board.
Mr. Shuford said he would return with suggestions to balance the streamlining of the review process and environmental concerns. Mr. Bickerstaffe said he believed staff is headed in
the right direction and, with a little fine-tuning, the proposal will be beneficial for the City.
Mr. Shuford noted the City Commission adopted the alcoholic beverage ordinance at its January 19, 1995 meeting and the appeal process will go to the Commission on a trial basis for six
months.
Mr. Mazur and Mr. Shuford complimented the Chairman on a first meeting well-run.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
______________________________
Scott Shuford
Director, Central Permitting