Loading...
11/14/1995PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER November 14, 1995 Present: Kemper Merriam Jay Keyes Robert D. Bickerstaffe Edward Mazur Brenda Nixon Bernie Baron Frank Kunnen Leslie Dougall-Sides Scott Shuford Sandy Glatthorn Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Central Permitting Director Central Permitting Manager Board Reporter      The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process. To provide continuity, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Minutes Approval - October 31, 1995 Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items 1. (Continued from 10/17/95) Trial Period Review - Michael & Patricia Vlamakis (Skycrest Auto Sales) to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage for vehicle sales at 2010 Drew St., Skycrest Terrace, Blk C, Lots 5 & 6, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 95-18 Ms. Glatthorn gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. She stated the applicant has complied with many, but not all the eleven conditions of approval imposed at the April 18, 1995 public hearing. She listed numerous violations that have not been corrected and said, for these reasons, staff recommends denial of the request. A question was raised regarding compliance with standards for ingress and egress. Ms. Glatthorn responded the Traffic Engineering Department had expressed concern with congestion on the site and recommended conditions related to parking and removal of inoperable equipment. Michael Vlamakis, the owner/applicant, explained the delays he experienced bringing his two businesses into compliance. He said he worked with Traffic Engineering and Environmental Management to meet their requirements. He submitted photographs of his two parking lots, illustrating how most conditions have been met since the last inspection by Central Permitting staff. In response to a question, Mr. Vlamakis explained what remains to be done to finish the landscaping. Discussion ensued regarding what is proposed for the property. Concern was expressed with cars parking all over both lots. Mr. Vlamakis explained the parking areas intended for employees, customers and lease vehicles. Concern was expressed with cars backed into stalls appearing to be for sale. Mr. Vlamakis explained those cars were in storage and have been eliminated. Discussion ensued regarding the planned Drew Street widening and how is will affect this business. In response to a question, Mr. Vlamakis said the area formerly occupied by the fruit stand will be leased. Concern was expressed the amount of existing parking will not be sufficient if another retail use goes in there. Mr. Shuford clarified the fruit stand was considered a retail use and the lot has sufficient parking for another retail use in its place. As staff had recommended denial, discussion ensued regarding whether to continue this item or to condition approval on verification that all standards are met. Member Keyes moved to continue Item B.1 to the next meeting to ensure the conditions are met. The motion was duly seconded. Member Keyes voted "Aye"; Members Merriam, Mazur, Nixon, Bickerstaffe, Baron and Kunnen voted "Nay." Motion failed. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item B.1 subject to compliance with the 11 conditions imposed on April 18, 1995, plus the following: The applicant will provide confirmation that proper parking lot striping and landscaping are in place within two weeks of the date of this public hearing, or automatic denial will result. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. (Continued from 10/17/95 & 10/31/95) Luverne M. Loken, TRE (Pinch A Penny) to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage at 1480 S. Belcher Rd, Sec 24-29-15, M&B 41.02, 41.03, & 41.04, zoned CC (Commercial Center). CU 95-60 Ms. Glatthorn gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. She stated the applicant is seeking approval of a permanent, outdoor display on tables located to the left and right of the main entrance of the pool equipment store. It was indicated the applicants will need to submit a plan indicating the dimensions of the proposal to ensure sufficient sidewalk width for pedestrian access. Chuck Saunders appeared to present the application. The Board noted Mr. Saunders was not listed as an authorized representative. Janet Lopeman, the authorized representative, verified Mr. Saunders was speaking on her behalf. Mr. Saunders distributed copies of a drawing of the proposal requested by staff. He said they are asking for two 4 by 6 foot display tables. The display merchandise is to secured so nothing will blow away. Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. It was indicated over nine feet of sidewalk width will remain. Staff verified the drawing was sufficient to satisfy their request. Concern was expressed by one member who felt window displays, not sidewalks, should be used to attract customers. Member Keyes moved to approve Item B.2 subject to the following conditions: 1) A plan of the display areas, with dimensions of the outdoor retail display area, and pedestrian access shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to initiation of the use with a minimum of six feet of sidewalk width available solely for pedestrian use; and 2) The applicant shall secure outdoor display items from wind activity. The motion was duly seconded. Members Merriam, Keyes, Mazur, Nixon, Baron and Kunnen voted "Aye"; Member Bickerstaffe voted "Nay." Motion carried. Conditional Uses 1. Asa J. & Katherine G. Lewis (Suncoast Inn) to permit noncommercial parking at 20162 US 19, Sever Park, part of Lot 3, and Sec 18-29-16, M&B 44.04, zoned OG (General Office) and RM 8 (Multi Family Residential). CU 95-64 Ms. Glatthorn gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. She stated the applicant wishes to expand his motel, adding the necessary parking on an adjacent parcel. She explained the parcel is in the process of being annexed and will need either replatting, or a Unity of Title Declaration. Staff recommended approval subject to five conditions. Mark Menna, the motel owner, stated he has contracted to purchase the adjacent lot from Mr. and Mrs. Lewis. Concern was expressed the application was filed on behalf of the Lewis’ and Mr. Menna is not listed as an authorized representative. In response to a question, Mr. Menna said he could provide authorization before the end of the meeting. Member Keyes moved to continue Item C.1 to the end of the meeting to allow time to verify authorization of the representative. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Discussion of this item resumed after the conclusion of Item D.1. Mr. Menna presented written verification of authorization from Attorney Donald McFarland, the representative of record. Mr. Menna and Ms. Glatthorn responded to questions concerning the parking lot in relation to a proposed swale and wetlands mitigation. Mr. Menna stated he has met with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), US Army Corp. of Engineers and City Environmental Management to ensure all regulations are met. Ms. Glatthorn stated approval of this request will enable proceeding with site plan certification and permitting. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C.1 subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall file an executed Unity of Title Declaration with Official Records Pinellas County, which declaration shall combine as a single property the property subject of this request together with the property subject of the certified site plan known as the "Menna Motel", except if the applicant has the lots replatted together, a Unity of Title Declaration will not be needed; 2) The applicant shall have the requisite major amendment to the certified site plan for the "Menna Motel" certified within six months of the date of this public hearing; 3) The requisite building permit shall be obtained within 6 months of the date of certification of a major amendment to the certified site plan known as the "Menna Motel"; 4) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90 degree cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the motel addition; 5) Perimeter landscaping requirements of Sec. 42.27 shall be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy/occupational license, and such landscaping shall be continuously maintained thereafter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Staff was requested to devise a means by which to ensure that applicants understand they must appear at the public hearing to present their application, or authorize a representative in writing. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment and Local Planning Agency Review Rezoning 1. A 0.67 acre parcel located on the East side of Poinsettia Ave in the center parking isle of the Memorial Civic Center Parking lot, being a portion of Lot 7, City Park Sub, for the purpose of leasing to Sky Towers Corp. for the placement of a tower. (City of Clearwater). Z 95-17 ZONE: from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) to CBPD (Clearwater Beach Planned Development) Scott Shuford, representing the City of Clearwater, gave the background of this item and presented, in writing, staff recommendations. The staff report, indicated the City Commission has entered into a lease agreement that would allow placement of the proposed "Sky Tower" on Clearwater Beach in the City-owned parking lot immediately across Poinsettia Avenue from Clearwater Beach Civic Center. This lease agreement is contingent upon the representative of the tower project obtaining appropriate zoning and construction approvals. The representative, Mr. James Grogan, has submitted a request for planned development zoning to address the unusual and site-specific design issues associated with the project. At the request of staff, two separate concept plans have been submitted for consideration. Plan One maximizes parking, providing 71 spaces (a reduction from the current 74), but does not meet the minimum perimeter landscaping requirements. Plan Two meets the landscaping requirements, but provides only 48 parking spaces. Either plan can be approved as a planned development. Based on revenues, the parking lot in which the tower is to be placed has a current average occupancy of around 8%, indicating this lot is not frequently utilized. A photograph and specifications provided by Mr. Grogan, along with several letters supporting the tower were included with the Board packet. City staff reviewed this request and determined it meets the minimum City Code requirements, as well as the applicable standards of approval (Sec. 40.674) for such requests. The site does not meet the minimum area requirements for a Clearwater Beach Planned Development District, as the stated minimum area for such zoning is 4.0 acres. To approve this reduced area, according to the ordinance establishing the CBPD, the City Commission must find that deviation from the minimum acreage is in the public interest. A photograph and specifications of the tower, provided by Mr. Grogan, were filed with the application. Several letters supporting the tower were copied to the Board. Mr. Shuford discussed the rationale associated with the development of each site plan. He asked, if the Board endorsed the request, to specify which plan they recommended. He said he was interested in hearing Board and public input whether they felt parking or landscaping to be more important. He indicated the tower could be considered a character defining structure and asked the Board to consider whether they felt the height deviation from the low level style of construction common on the beach was in the public interest. In response to a question, he discussed height limits in various beach zoning districts, stating the tower would exceed all of those. Referring to parking available at various locations in the area, Mr. Shuford stated his opinion that availability would be more than sufficient to meet the demand. He said the most distant parking space was about 3,000 feet from the proposed site, compared to about 2,400 feet at Countryside Mall. He said people will generally walk farther to an attraction than they would to a restaurant or a store. A question was raised regarding how the proposal would affect future development. Mr. Shuford indicated the potential for large scale development of either business or a causeway extension was considered and the tower would fit in either way. A question was raised if consideration had been given to placing the tower in the little park near the water tower. Mr. Shuford responded the City charter does not allow long term lease of that property. In response to questions regarding parking, Mr. Shuford said a survey team was scheduled to start having public hearings at the end of November. He said if the tower is more successful than they anticipate, any parking problems that arise can be addressed at that time. He discussed his Commission directed involvement with other beach redevelopment issues. He stated, while metering could become necessary in the future, tower parking would remain open to the public. Brief discussion ensured regarding road traffic rating and flow. It was noted the 8 percent parking lot occupancy based on revenues does not take into account those with free parking passes. One member pointed out some of the offsite parking is outside the area being rezoned. Mr. Shuford agreed, stating Plan One would require a right-of-way utilization agreement with Florida Department of Transportation. He noted all Plan Two parking is on City-owned property. One member expressed strong concern with the potential danger of placing a structure over 300 feet tall along an evacuation route. Mr. Shuford assured the Board staff will insist on all engineering standards being met with an acceptable margin of safety. Concern remained that even the most superior structures can fall under the right conditions. James Grogan, the tower owner, addressed the Board. He read from a handout detailing the tower’s dimensions, manufacturer, history, maintenance and construction. He said any needed structural improvements to meet or exceed code requirements will be done. He explained the wind dynamics of cylindrical shaped structures, stating the tower will withstand 125 mph winds. He said the tower will be an educational tool for helping children and adults learn about ecosystems and has the endorsement of many local groups. He did not feel the tower had the potential for damaging property in excess of the $10 million liability insurance he will carry. Discussion ensued regarding possible adverse conditions during a major storm, including wind and storm surge. Referring to a model of the tower, Mr. Grogan responded to questions regarding elevation, floodproofing the base, foundation construction and depth and storage of the parts since the tower was dismantled in 1990. He said the mechanical and electronic components were stored in a warehouse, while the body was urethane coated and kept outside. Discussion ensued regarding the technology, planned development format and economic impact. Mr. Shuford also asked the Board to consider whether the proposal would create unreasonable demands on the infrastructure, or enhance the health, welfare and safety of citizens. In response to a question if height variance would be requested, Mr. Shuford said a planned development allows for waiver of standards such as setback and height, etc. Six people spoke in support of the tower proposal as follows: Ralph Howes, speaking on behalf of Clearwater Marine Aquarium, said the tower will help increase attendance at the non-profit aquarium as well as benefit the economy. He felt the influx of tourists and residents would also increase trade with local merchants. John Doran, representing the Clearwater Beach Association, stated they endorse the tower. He submitted two photographs comparing the view of the Smoky Mountains from a tower in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, to what could be seen from the proposed tower overlooking Clearwater Beach. Dr. Kenneth Rosenow, representing the Clearwater Beach Tourism Council, stated he has been a Clearwater businessman for over 20 years. He indicated the most common complaint he hears from his motel guests is lack of things to do except visit the beach. He felt the tower would be a positive step toward creating more family-oriented eco-tourism. Charles Pollock, representing the Clearwater Tourism Council, spoke regarding engineering reports, errors and omissions insurance, no harm to vista and increasing tourism. The meeting recessed from 4:00 to 4:10 p.m. David Little stated he has served on various task forces and advisory boards during his 25 years as an area resident. He felt the tower is a good opportunity that will attract tourists and residents. He compared parking needs to any other attraction or shopping mall, stating times of peak demand will occur. If approved, he asked that an American flag be correctly flown from the tower. Al Lijewski spoke in favor and asked the Board to support the proposal. Ed Armstrong, attorney representing Dave Spalding of Clearwater, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He did not agree with staff’s comparison of the tower proposal to that of a private development and said it will not be in the public interest. He felt several of the eleven standards for approval are not being met, stating the parking issue is the largest problem. He referred to a parking deficit at the Clearwater Marina and submitted copies of a letter to this effect his client received from the City Harbormaster. Charles Pollock and David Little spoke in rebuttal to the opposition, stating the supporters feel very strongly the tower is in the public interest due to the potential educational and financial benefits. Mr. Pollock said the opinion of Mr. Spalding is not representative of the majority at the Marina. Mr. Little said visitors would support the tower for the same reason penthouse and corner real estate is more desirable; because of the view it affords. Mr. Armstrong spoke in rebuttal to the supporters. He referred to a recent City Commission campaign, stating those who went out into the community and spoke to the public found most do not support the tower. Mr. Grogan made his closing statements. He pointed out the issue involving Mr. Spalding was because he exceeded his parking allowance when he increased his boating capacity. He said the opposition is usually the most verbal in any issue and felt it was a good sign the supporters outnumbered the opposition by such a large margin. Mr. Grogan stated he submitted his proposal in March and has been present to answer questions at numerous meeting since then. He emphasized his credibility as a businessman, stressing that he was invited to Clearwater to make his proposal. In response to questions, Mr. Grogan said he will not operate the gondola in winds over 35 mph or during electrical storms. He indicated the narrated ride lasts 8 to 10 minutes and can accommodate 64 people at once, although he did not expect to use that capacity. Mr. Shuford summarized his position. He stated staff found the 11 standards for approval were met, the structure is character defining and is compatible with surrounding uses. He did not feel the proposal seeks special privileges or that the owner would benefit more than the citizens and visitors of Clearwater. He indicated the proposal does not burden public facilities or private properties, but enhances the health, welfare and safety of citizens, and adds economic and educational benefits. He said lease agreement issues with the City Commission had also been resolved. He said it was up to the Board to decide whether or not they agree with this analysis. Board members indicated their positions as follows: Member Kunnen expressed concern with the trend toward building increasingly taller structures. He felt the tower would create an amusement park atmosphere in contradiction to the benefits currently existing on the beach. He did not support the item but he did agree it should be examined. Member Bickerstaffe felt the proposal is definitely in the public interest since tourism is Clearwater’s number one industry. He felt this is a good opportunity to raise funds without increasing taxes. He said the tower will be busy all the time because it is different and will appeal to people who flock to take pictures. He did not feel it would have any adverse impact on parking because of the large amount of pedestrian traffic already at the beach. Referring to the terms of the agreement, he felt the City has everything to gain and nothing to lose. Member Keyes felt the tower was a way to help build beach economy and increase occupancy. He did not feel it would create parking problems because people would not come just to ride up and down all day. He supported the proposal, stating his home will actually be in the shadow of the tower. Member Merriam stated he spoke with the president of the Civic Association, who was opposed to a tower until he saw this proposal. He felt the majority of the opposition has the mistaken impression the tower is much larger and more complicated than it actually is. He said he is not worried about it falling down because he understands wind action on a cylindrical structure. He compared the tower to lighthouses that have stood for hundreds of years. Member Mazur expressed strong concern with placing the tower in an evacuation corridor. While he was inclined to accept the opinions of experts regarding safety, he did not feel the liability insurance would come near to satisfying claims resulting from loss of life and property in the event of a disaster. He said he would vote against it because of the location. Member Baron said he was dead set against the tower. He compared this proposal to other developments that were denied or experienced major difficulties with the City’s maximum height standards. Member Nixon said, while initially against the idea, she would now support the proposal because she did not feel it was extremely negative or harmful. From a safety standpoint, she compared it to emergency radio communication towers in heavily residential areas. While she did not feel it was a great idea to place it in a parking lot, she said that lot is not especially useful with one hour parking meters. She felt the location in the park near the water tower would be a better location. Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item D.1 to the City Commission with the original site plan that maximizes parking spaces. The motion was duly seconded. Members Merriam, Keyes, Nixon, and Bickerstaffe voted "Aye"; Members Mazur, Baron, and Kunnen voted "Nay." Motion carried. Land Development Code Amendment 2. Ordinance No. 5942-95 of The City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to The Land Development Code; Amending Section 35.11, Code Of Ordinances, to revise the definition for "delicatessen;" amending Sections 41.071 and 41.074, Code Of Ordinances, to provide for Conditional Use permits for certain types of alcoholic beverage uses; providing an effective date. Mr. Shuford stated staff worked with the alcoholic beverage regulations for six months before taking them to the City Commission for direction. This amendment represents minor revision to the definition of “delicatessen” and eliminates the “cap” on floor area percentage that can be considered as a conditional use. One member questioned removing from the definition on page one the phrase, “with only incidental sales of grocery or non-food items.” Mr. Shuford responded it was not his intent to strike that language and he would restore it to the definition. Member Keyes moved to endorse Item D.2 to the City Commission, as amended with regard to the definition of delicatessen. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Chairman's Items Member Merriam reported he was told by a Police Department representative that it is permissible to stop a car in a pedestrian crosswalk in the case of visual obstruction. He questioned if a new pub opened at 2284 Gulf to Bay applied for a change of ownership. Staff is to investigate. He questioned if the Board approved the amended 1996 meeting schedule. Staff was requested to remail the schedule as not everyone received a copy. Director's Items Ms. Glatthorn distributed copies of a planning and zoning association newsletter. She stated she brought responses to Board questions from previous meetings. Due to the late hour, it was decided to hear this information at the next meeting. Board and Staff Comments Discussion ensued regarding the Board’s annual Christmas luncheon. Member Keyes recommended the Anchor Room at 880 Mandalay. He stated it is under new management and the food is wonderful. He also volunteered to make the reservation. Consensus was to accept the recommendation and schedule the luncheon for December 19, before the regularly scheduled Board meeting. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:31 p.m.  Chair Planning and Zoning Board  Attest:    Board Reporter