Loading...
04/16/1996PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER April 16, 1996 Present: Jay Keyes Brenda Harris Nixon Edward Mazur Kemper Merriam Robert D. Bickerstaffe Bernie Baron Frank Kunnen Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member   Scott Shuford Leslie Dougall-Sides Sandy Glatthorn Gwen Legters Central Permitting Director Assistant City Attorney Central Permitting Manager Board Reporter   To provide continuity, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. 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. A. Minutes Approval - April 2, 1996 Member Mazur moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items --None C. Conditional Uses C1. B.J.E. Inc/Pelican Two, Inc (Kiku Japanese Restaurant) to allow restaurants cumulatively occupying over 15% of gross floor area of a shopping center at 483 Mandalay Ave, Clearwater Beach Park, 1st Addition Replat, Blk A, Lots 2-8, and Clearwater Beach Park, 1st Addition, Blk B, Lots 32-43 and vac alley, and Clearwater Beach Park, Lots 43-48, 65-71, and part of Lot 64, zoned CB (Beach Commercial) and CR 28 (Resort Commercial.) CU 96-20 Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information. She explained the numerical, dimensional, and alcoholic beverage code requirements for the Pelican Walk development. The addition of the proposal to the six existing restaurants, will bring the total restaurant square footage to more than 51 percent where 15 percent is allowed. The applicant will have to ensure at least 51 percent non-alcoholic beverage sales, with no package sales and not more than 15 percent of gross floor area devoted exclusively to alcoholic beverage service. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Yun C. “Daniel” Chong, the business owner, indicated he wishes to open a second sushi restaurant due to popular demand. His current location on Ulmerton Road has been successful and he knows from experience his customers like to have sake with their meals. He did not expect problems meeting the 51 percent food sales requirement because the beer and wine will be served only with meals. In response to a question, he understood and agreed with staff’s recommended conditions. Elias Anastasopoulos, representing the developer, spoke in support of the application. He pointed out the development was built according to approved plans for a second floor comprised of restaurants. A subsequent change in the zoning requirements created difficulty following through with the original plans. He said the correct floor area of the proposal is 2,400 square feet, instead of the 1,500 reported by staff. Ms. Glatthorn noted the correction, stating it does not affect advertising requirements. No one was present to speak in opposition to the request. Member Merriam moved to approve Item C1 subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90º cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. Ioannis & Eva Tagaras (M&M Motorsports, Inc) to permit vehicle sales at 2241A Nursery Rd, Sec 19-29-16, M&B 33.03, zoned CG (General Commercial.) CU 96-22 Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the board denied the applicants’ March 5, 1996 request for outdoor vehicle sales, displays and/or storage in addition to vehicle sales. Legal Department review of the new application determined it is dissimilar enough to process without a nine month waiting period. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with five conditions. It was indicated the Community Response Team has observed illegal outdoor display of automobiles on the site. Ms. Glatthorn noted one member’s request that the applicant shall satisfy Environmental Management requirements prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. Concern was expressed with a recommended condition prohibiting engine or road testing. This issue was discussed at length later in the meeting and the condition was eliminated. Tim Johnson, attorney representing the applicants, gave an overview of the commercial establishments in the immediate area. He stated the proposed indoor vehicles sales use will have significantly less impact on the surroundings than the permitted uses for this district. Among the permitted uses, he listed gas station, transportation station, and animal boarding. No outdoor equipment or sales, and no adverse impacts to the neighbors will result from this operation. He complained the applicant was not informed an indoor vehicle sales occupation license did not require conditional use approval at the time of the original application for outdoor sales. A subsequent code amendment changed that requirement. He said no engine work or testing will be done on site and expressed concern with the recommended condition prohibiting road testing. Mr. Johnson submitted and discussed two groups of photographs of the subject property and surroundings. He objected to the notice of violation for outdoor display of automobiles, pointing out signs in the windows indicated the establishment was not open for business yet. After lengthy discussion, it was indicated vehicle inventory may not be parked outside at any time in this distract, without conditional use approval for outdoor sales or storage. A petition with five signatures, representing five businesses within 500 feet of the subject property, was submitted in support of the application. Joe Garrison spoke in opposition to the request. He stated he represents a professional office building at 2233 Nursery Road, behind the subject property. His partner and one tenant object to the proposal as incompatible with his professional office building. Mr. Garrison pointed out the businesses represented on the petition in support are not professional offices. He objected to the vehicles parked outside the subject property since April 6, expressing concern the non-compliance will continue. Discussion ensued regarding City code enforcement procedures. Mr. Garrison responded to questions regarding tenancy in his building. It was indicated public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Mr. Garrison submitted a group of photographs of the vicinity, including vehicles parked outside the subject property. Discussion continued regarding the vehicles depicted outside the subject property. At the March 5 hearing, it was indicated vehicles for sale may not be parked in the pedestrian area adjacent the building or in the surrounding area without conditional use approval. Responding to the opposition, Mr. Johnson pointed out Mr. Garrison’s building is separated from the subject property by another office building. Mr. Johnson reiterated his comparison of the proposed business with permitted uses. He did not know why vehicles were stored outside pending opening of the business. Discussion ensued regarding the application. Clarification of the outdoor storage prohibition was requested. Ms. Glatthorn read into the record what was denied at the last meeting, and the code definition of storage. She explained the vehicles depicted around the outside of the building are not parked legally. She stressed nothing may be stored or parked outside for any reason. Concerns were expressed the applicant has shown poor faith by parking vehicles outside in violation of the code and contrary to the board’s decision to deny such a use. In response to a question, It was indicated adequate parking exists on the subject property. Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C2 subject to conditions as recommended by staff. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued regarding suggested amendments to the recommended conditions of approval. It was felt one parking space should be designated outside for the safety and convenience of customers wanting to transact business or test drive a vehicle. Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides suggested such a condition. A condition imposing a trial period was suggested. Member Bickerstaffe withdrew the motion on the floor. The seconder concurred. Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C2 subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90º cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall provide the following as required by Environmental Management; 3a) fill material that has been deposited in the retention area near the outfall structure must be removed; 3b) the required drainage swale must be regraded to direct runoff from the rear service drive northward to the retention area rather than discharging directly off-site to the east; 3c) the paint cans, trash, and other debris along the south property line must be removed; 3d) twenty-two interior landscape shrubs (minimum height 18 inches) and eight shrubs (minimum height 18 inches) are required to be planted in the landscape buffer along Nursery Road at the west end of the property; 4) the use shall be limited to indoor sales and display of vehicles and retail accessories; there shall be no vehicular service and no outdoor sales, display and/or storage areas on the site; 5) vehicles may be temporarily placed in one designated parking space on the property, for the purpose of showing the vehicle to a customer, test driving and customer paperwork, but vehicles shall not be displayed or stored in excess of two hours for such purposes; and 6) this conditional use approval is for a one year trial period from the date of this public hearing to determine whether the applicant has complied with City code and the conditions of approval. Members Keyes, Nixon, Mazur, Bickerstaffe, Baron, and Kunnen voted "Aye"; Member Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. C3. Tom Falone III (Falone Commercial Center) to allow a restaurant occupying over 10% of gross floor area of a retail complex at 1916 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 13-29-15, M&B's 24.01 & 24.02, together with Skycrest Sub, Unit D, Blk B, part of Lots 5 & 6, zoned CG (General Commercial.) CU 96-23 Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the property is currently being redeveloped into a three unit retail complex. The current conditional use will allow the applicant to open a bagel shop in the complex. A previous conditional use approved on January 9, 1996 was to allow a car stereo business to conduct vehicle service. It was indicated the property will comply with landscaping, open space and parking standards. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with five conditions. Tim Bauer, representing the owner/applicant, displayed two presentation boards depicting the building and site before and after proposed remodeling. He pointed out where a portion of the existing building was demolished and the adjacent parking lot reconfigured. In response to a question, he indicated no changes to the plan since January, other than to the proposed occupancy. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C3 subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90º cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) No outdoor entertainment or speakers shall be allowed; 4) The owner shall execute a recordable grant of easement to the City to allow for installation of sidewalks and the provision for public access along the perimeter of the site prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 5) Landscaping shall be in accordance with Section 42.47 of the Land Development Code. (Conditions #4 and #5 also were required for CU 96-06, approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 9, 1996.) The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review D1. 1612 N Betty Lane, Stevenson's Heights Sub, Blk B, Lot 14 (Robin T. Herbert) A 96-13 ZONE: RS-8 (Single Family Residential) Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement. The reason for the request is for City garbage pickup service. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Member Mazur moved to endorse Item D1 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D2. 2077 Douglas Avenue, Cleardun Sub, Blk A, part of Lots 5,6,7, & 8 (Loretta C. Clement) A 96-14 ZONE: RS-8 (Single Family Residential) Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement. The reason for the request is for City sewer service. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Member Mazur moved to endorse Item D2 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D3. 401 S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.11. (Gerry Staring/Natalie Moyles, Trustee) Z 96-02; LUP 96-01 LUP: From Residential Medium to Commercial General ZONE: From RMH (Mobile Home Park) to CG (General Commercial) Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the Planning and Zoning board unanimously endorsed this item to the City Commission on March 5, 1996. The item is coming back to the board in order for the applicant to comply with the statutory requirement to notify the mobile home park residents of the proposed rezoning. She noted staff received five letters of objection and copied them to the board. It was indicated the applicant wishes to rezone the mobile home park north of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and east of Belcher Road. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported an additional requirement that no agency shall approve rezoning or request relocation of existing property owners without providing for the relocation of the property owners. One member expressed concern the applicant’s representative had incorrectly stated during the March hearing that all state notification requirements were met. Discussion ensued regarding providing for the relocation of the property owners. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated the provision is for reasonable, not necessarily comparable facilities. She stated staff does not recommend whether or not the replacements are adequate. She said the board may inquire if the rents are comparable. In response to a question, it was indicated eight mobile homes in the park are owned by the residents. The remaining mobile homes are rental units belonging to the mobile home park owner. Tom Nash, attorney representing the applicants, responded to the board member’s concern regarding notification. He said original notification was given two years ago. The applicant felt renewed notice should be given that the rezoning and land use change application was coming before the City Commission. He said the rezoning request is reasonable and will allow the property to be used in a manner consistent with the surrounding commercial uses. Referring to the statutory notification requirements, he said the applicant prepared a list of available mobile home parks and submitted it to staff. Mr. Nash distributed copies of a chart listing a sampling of facilities in the local area. He said they have spoken with the president of the residents’ association and the residents concerning the application. Discussion ensued regarding the average size and age of the mobile homes to be moved and whether the replacement facilities can accommodate them. Average lot rents were discussed. No verbal or written support was expressed. Seven residents appeared to express opposition to the request, as follows: 1) Mike Mizell stated he owns two homes in the park, residing in one & renting out the other. He questioned whether the replacement facilities will accept older and larger mobile homes and felt he would not recover his investment if he sells his mobile homes. 2) Madeline Casper stated she and her husband have lived in the park for 33 years and raised their family there. She said her husband is disabled and they are still paying off their home improvement loan. She discussed what is involved in moving a large mobile home in terms of cost estimates, cutting apart, moving, and setting up, electrical work and inspections. If forced to move their home, they will lose their new canopy because it will not meet code in a new location. She is a director of the residents’ association and neither she nor the immediate past president was contacted regarding the proposal. She has letters from all the homeowners in objection to the application. Five persons in the audience raised their hands in agreement with Mrs. Casper’s statement. Mr. Nash responded to the opposition, stating the two primary issues are whether the application for rezoning is appropriate and if other facilities are available for relocation. He stated the answer to both questions is yes. His clients are within their rights to pursue this request. Discussion ensued regarding details of relocating the mobile home owners. Board members expressed concern with imposing undue hardship on residents. In response to questions, Mr. Nash listed numerous additional costs the applicant would pay to relocate the mobile home owners. They will meet and work with the home owners regarding purchase prices and/or relocation cost negotiations. Discussion ensued regarding who is responsible for code compliance in the new location. Mr. Nash discussed what he had gleaned regarding age requirements in the parks he contacted. Ms. Dougall-Sides explained the one-year notification and settlement provision are the park owner’s responsibility and not at issue here. She stated grievance procedures exist to allow mobile home park owners to seek satisfaction. Discussion ensued regarding the rental units. Mr. Nash did not know whether the tenants are aware of this action. In response to a question, he said of the 36 lots, 26 are occupied by renters. Most of the rentals are week to week and he did not know if the owner is actively seeking new tenants. He said the owner recently obtained several mobile homes at a drastically reduced cost and refurbished them for rental units. In response to a question, Mr. Nash indicated the park owner would be agreeable to relocate owners who request relocation prior to the end of the formal notification time period. Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item D3 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Glatthorn stated this issue will be on the May 2 City Commission agenda. D4. (cont. from 3/19/96) Ordinance 5962-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Division 26 of Chapter 40, Code of Ordinances, to provide for revised development standards in the Urban Center District; providing an effective date. Staff requested this item be continued to the meeting of May 21, 1996. Member Kunnen moved to continue Item D4 to the meeting of May 21, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. Chairman's Items Member Keyes requested staff to letter and number the agenda items to correspond with the agenda for ease of reference. F. Director's Items -- Presentation 1. Victor Chodora, Assistant Director of Central Permitting: Building Code Requirements for Pet Shops and Veterinary Offices A question was raised regarding whether fire sprinklers can be required in places where animals stay overnight without human supervision. Mr. Chodora highlighted the fire protection and fire sprinkler requirements in mercantile stores and doctors’ offices, stating sprinklers are not required for buildings less than 1,500 square feet. A one-hour fire separation is required to all time for people to evacuate, but no such provision can be enforced for animals, under the current building code. When asked if this requirement can be changed, Mr. Chodora explained the procedure for presenting proposed building code changes to the national and county authorities, where the reason for the change and the financial impact to developers are examined. He indicated most people are not interested in investing in fire sprinklers. As an example, he discussed how a proposal to amend the Life Safety Code to retroactively require fire sprinklers in condominiums was defeated three years ago. Fire sprinklers are still required for residential dwellings containing eight or more units. Questions were raised regarding automatic fire alarms or security alert systems. Ms. Dougall-Sides said will research related cases and report to the board. Mr. Chodora was thanked for his presentation. 2. Don McCarty, Central Permitting Design Planner: Overview of Design Guidelines draft for Downtown (UC) District Mr. McCarty explained the Design Review Board (DRB) was created in 1995 by the City Commission to review design proposals for building improvements and signs in the Downtown, commercial areas of Clearwater beach and the North Greenwood zoning districts. He distributed copies of the draft Design Guidelines for downtown, prepared by the DRB based on guidelines already put together by the Downtown Partnership. He stressed the main objective is to emphasize the use of design review rather than aesthetic controls. He pointed out Clearwater has not adopted a design theme or color palette, so the guidelines consist of examples of what is encouraged and discouraged in terms of on-street and off-street facades, lighting, infill development, building and cornice heights, rhythm and setbacks. Coordinating style and materials with the surroundings will be encouraged, as will reflecting these elements in the public improvement areas such as sidewalks, benches, landscaping, lighting, bicycle racks and waste receptacles. Mr. McCarty explained the Project Evaluation Analysis form, stating it provides an opportunity for people doing projects to see how the City values various design elements of rehabilitation and new construction. He stressed the evaluation is simply a means of ensuring adequate weight is given to all design elements and does not require a design project to obtain a minimum “score.” Mr. McCarty said the downtown Design Guidelines will be going to the City Commission for adoption soon. Member Nixon praised the lighting design in the St. Petersburg streetscape program. She hoped for a more appropriate lighting design for Clearwater than what currently exists. Mr. McCarty thanked her for her comments, stating he was involved in the St. Petersburg streetscape program. Two members expressed concerns that design preferences are subjective and design review adds another layer of site plan review. Ms. Glatthorn did not feel the majority of site plans would have to seek both Design Review Board and Development Review Committee approvals. Requiring conformance with a specific theme was not wanted for Clearwater. Mr. McCarty offered assurance that no effort has been made to mandate a particular style. He explained the City Commission felt it necessary for the City to have oversight regarding design elements. In response to a question, Mr. McCarty said he has met with the Downtown Partnership, Downtown Development Board and the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce. He will arrange to meet with other interested individuals and groups as requested. G. Board and Staff Comments -- None H. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.