10/15/1996PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 15, 1996
Present:
Jay Keyes
Brenda Harris Nixon (arrived 2:07 p.m.)
Kemper Merriam
Robert D. Bickerstaffe
Bernie Baron
Frank Kunnen
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Scott Shuford
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Sandra Glatthorn
Gwen Legters
Central Permitting Director
Assistant City Attorney
Central Permitting Manager
Board Reporter
Absent:
Edward Mazur
Board Member
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.
Minutes Approval -- September 10 and October 1, 1996
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.
C. Conditional Uses
C1. (Trial Period Review) Stephen G. Beneke/Tri High Corp/Jamil Salhab (Wanna Save) to permit package sales of beer and wine (business ownership change) at 1362 Cleveland St, Overbrook
Sub, Blk 1, Lots 8-11, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 96-14
Mr. Shuford presented written background information, stating this conditional use was approved on April 2 subject to conditions, including restriping the parking lot and a six-month
trial period due to concerns regarding the high number of police calls. The police calls have been reduced by one-half, and the applicant has made a good faith effort to restripe the
parking lot. The Traffic Engineer required restriping again to better meet code. As the applicant has been very cooperative, and conditions support the request, Staff recommended approval
with three conditions.
Jamil Salhab, business owner/applicant, stated in response to a question, the parking lot was restriped to meet code.
Duke Tieman spoke in support of the application and submitted ten photographs of the store exterior, illustrating new striping in the parking lot. A question was raised regarding whether
the solid blue painted handicapped parking space was appropriate. Mr. Shuford will check and continue to work with the applicant to ensure the restriping meets code. One member indicated
the amount of window signage seemed excessive and requested staff to investigate. No verbal or written opposition was expressed.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C1, CU 96-14, 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; and 3) All on-site parking spaces shall be restriped within 30 days
to provide for access for disabled persons and to better meet City Code requirements, subject to verification by staff, prior to the issuance of an occupational license. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. (from 9/10/96; reheard due to advertising error) Lucky Louis’ Inc./Louis J. Chaconas (Gulf Coast European) to permit vehicle service at 20 S. Myrtle Ave Gould & Ewing’s 2nd Addition,
Blk 12, Lots 9 & 10, zoned UC(C) (Urban Center (Core)). CU 96-40
Mr. Shuford presented written background information, stating this application was approved at the previous meeting. It is being reheard to correct an advertising error because the
applicant is requesting vehicle service, not sales. One member expressed concern with the condition of the perimeter landscaping, especially the palms along the rear.
Peter Hagen, the business owner, stated the palm trees belong to the adjacent motel. He requested reapproval. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Merriam moved to approve Item C2, CU 96-40, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational
license within one month 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) There shall be no outdoor storage or displays, and no vehicle advertising
or vehicle sales, including auto parts or marine craft of any type; 4) There shall be no public address systems or use of loud speakers to page personnel or play pre-recorded music;
and 5) The property shall be kept clean and orderly and free of debris on a daily basis. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C3. Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Upper Pinellas County, Inc. (St. Vincent de Paul Soup Kitchen and proposed CHIP Shelter) to permit (1) public safety facility-police substation;
and (2) residential shelter at 1339, 13341 & 1345 Park St. Brookwood Terrace, Blk 6, part of Lots 1, 2, 9-13 & N ½ vacated st. and Tagerelli Sub, Blk 2, Lots 2-4 and Overbrook Sub, Blk
6, Lots 7-10 & unplatted land to the South, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 96-46
Mr. Shuford presented written background information, stating the applicant is requesting two conditional uses to expand the soup kitchen operation by adding a police substation and
48-bed homeless shelter with office space. He said the applicant will explain in detail how comprehensive treatment and community-wide effort reduces crime and does not negatively affect
property values. The staff report addressed how the proposal meets each of the standards for approval. To alleviate a concern regarding potential foot traffic through residential areas,
sidewalk access from Cleveland street is recommended. An 11-page report from the Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project, Inc. (CHIP) profiled homelessness at the national, state,
and local levels. The report outlined a plan for the Clearwater Emergency Shelter operations, potential impact on the neighborhood, and CHIP history.
Police Chief Sid Klein, speaking as CHIP Chair, introduced members of the CHIP board of directors. He acknowledged other supporting organizations present. He reviewed the seriousness
of the homeless problem, formation of CHIP, funding sources, and needed services. He said funding is in place for a police substation with six officers and a sergeant. At a recent
community meeting, concern was expressed regarding potential impacts on the neighborhood. He said the soup kitchen will remain at its present location, even if the shelter is not built.
Controls will be established to register clients and require their participation in a homeless intervention program. Shelters in Orlando and Jacksonville have experienced decreased
crime and increased property values where similar shelters were built. While he sympathizes with the public concerns, he said a particular local shelter turns away 30 to 40 people a
day because of insufficient room. He stressed the need for a comprehensive outreach program, stating the City’s transient and homeless situation will not change without a proactive
approach. CHIP and other represented agencies are committed to this program for the long term.
Chief Klein said the project’s long range objective is to locate local social service agencies at the 48-bed shelter on an outreach basis. In response to a concern the shelter will
attract more homeless, Chief Klein said they already are here. The shelter will allow the community to deal constructively with transients and homeless. Registration programs have
been proven to decrease transient populations because those who do not want to be identified generally move to other communities.
Barbara Green, administrator for Everybody’s Tabernacle Homeless Emergency Project (HEP), stated she has never received a complaint letter in the 30 years she has run a homeless shelter.
She said street people are advised of the rules when they arrive; they cannot eat or stay unless they follow the rules. As a CHIP advisory committee member, and Director of the State
Coalition for the Homeless, she described homeless living conditions in other parts of the State and commended Clearwater for attempting to create a more positive approach to the problem.
She encouraged board approval, noting four powerful organizations have endorsed the shelter.
Deborah Vincent, Director of Clearwater Housing Authority, stated the proposal will not be a flop house, but a specialized program using a holistic approach to help the homeless, in
a controlled environment. She detailed the opportunities, resources and follow-up that will be provided.
Mary Lou Guthart, President and Director of St. Vincent DePaul Soup Kitchen, said soup kitchen operations have improved since the Police Department became involved in June 1995. Troublemakers
are not allowed to eat, and often relocate. She said the police substation will
not be built without the shelter. She felt officers on bicycle patrol will benefit the neighborhood.
Major John Needham, of the Salvation Army, has been conducting a homeless program for several years. He was excited about this cooperative effort, its resources and benefits.
Vionette Perry stated it is time to put a stop to the “not-in-my-back-yard” attitude. She wants to see transient problems controlled instead of ignored. She stressed the police presence
has improved her neighborhood and an increase of patrol officers will benefit a larger area. She said other local neighborhoods have improved safety due to increased policing.
Ed Brandt, Director of the Salvation Army Homeless Intervention program, said the Salvation Army strives to help homeless people become taxpaying citizens. He said most people are
homeless because they lack money, not because they abuse alcohol or drugs. He said many decent citizens are one paycheck away from being homeless. He responded to questions regarding
the program’s operation, including the number of guests, average length of stay, types of available help, rules, and participant follow-up. He said a St. Petersburg program helps people
who wish to return to their homes out of state when they cannot afford the fare.
Jonas Brummett strictly opposed expanding the soup kitchen operation, stating his business has experienced break-ins, theft, and vandalism. He had to close his restaurant after one
year because of problems at the location. He urged a review of police calls during the past three years. He said panhandlers begging quarters have caused a 20% drop in his self-service
car wash business. He said soup kitchen clientele are not interested in the jobs he has offered. He felt the police presence has not helped the neighborhood and will not encourage
new business development.
Nick Cerrandis stated he is the property and building manager for four lots along Cleveland Street. While he has compassion for the needy, he complained he must clean up after homeless
and transients every day. He expressed concern the business and residential community are affected negatively by people who are too sick or inebriated to clean up after themselves.
He questioned how bringing more economically distressed people into the area will improve it. He said an industrial location could be obtained for less money and would be more suitable
than this high profile redevelopment area. He opposed continuing negative impacts on taxpayers. He doubted a police substation will improve the neighborhood.
Clark Hubbard, said the saloon on his Cleveland Street lot has been open since the 1940’s. He questioned the wisdom of putting a soup kitchen just outside the back door. Since the
soup kitchen opened in 1992, his property’s assessed value has dropped more than $24,000. He expressed concern the City Commission seems to be treating this proposal as a done deal.
He said panhandling and homeless problems have increased dramatically. He requested police calls for the past three years be compared to area conditions three years before the soup
kitchen opened.
Paul Brian Shuh, stated he and his mother own and operate a business on Park Street near the project. He felt the project’s impact would extend beyond the local area. He opposed building
a sidewalk from Cleveland Street to the soup kitchen, stating it is ludicrous to believe large businesses will locate downtown with that kind of view. He expressed concern the project
is inadequate and will not solve the problem. He suggested the shelter will feed everyone who shows up at mealtime. He said last February, the Salvation Army had promised their 15-bed
temporary shelter would not be permanent. He expressed concern the temporary facility is to be replaced by a 48-bed permanent facility. He advocated helping the homeless on a much
larger scale, such as the Orlando facility
where many different service agencies combine their resources. He submitted a three-page letter in opposition.
Mary Shuh, president of the aforementioned Park Street business, said the problem is vast, and it is not safe to use public parks, libraries or go downtown, despite the large investment
in redevelopment. She urged the board to table this item until the City’s new redevelopment director reviews its impact.
David Bacon, attorney representing Evergreen Avenue property owners, stated Chief Klein’s presentation misdirected the focus which should not be on the special needs of the homeless,
the public desire to help, nor the qualifications of facility operators. He said the board should determine if the proposal is a reasonable use of the subject property and if it will
adversely impact the property rights of adjacent property owners. He noted property values have declined and any use that further weakens property values is not appropriate. He felt
expanding the kitchen will not improve the homeless situation, but will adversely impact a stressed neighborhood. He noted the police substation was proposed to mitigate an existing
problem, not solve it.
Pat Wilson said she is committed to her Pierce Street property. She pointed out none of the supporters lives near the soup kitchen. She fights a constant battle to keep vagrants off
her property. She is tired of cleaning up excrement and seeing people urinate on her property. While she believes in helping the homeless, the surrounding community should not be ignored.
She is opposed to funneling foot traffic through residential areas to reach support facilities. She said the soup kitchen created the need for the police substation and six patrol officers
on bicycles will not adequately patrol the large area proposed. She does not want to lie to prospective tenants who ask her if the neighborhood is safe. Ms. Wilson submitted a letter
in opposition.
Martha Champion opposed helping the homeless because she feels everyone can work. She does not want the soup kitchen in her neighborhood. She said the soup kitchen was the first place
police looked after her apartment was burglarized. She felt background checks are insufficient for controlling shelter patrons.
Dr. Gilbert Jannelli, owner of adjacent property on Cleveland Street, said the project adversely affects neighborhood commercial properties. He submitted a comprehensive guide to homeless
shelters and housing services in Pinellas County, noting the large number of facilities available. He expressed concern the shelter will expand to hundreds of beds after every social
service agency dumps their homeless population into Clearwater. He questioned if another shelter is planned for Morningside, Countryside, or Clearwater beach. He felt the soup kitchen
is incompatible in this redevelopment area. He felt no one would want to start a business with a soup kitchen nearby. People dislike visiting his property because of the human waste
present almost daily. He claimed his property value has declined $73,000 since 1992. He noted Chief Klein does not live in Clearwater. He questioned if the applicants will provide
a written guarantee indicating where the homeless will go when the shelter is full and the source of future funding.
Chief Klein spoke in rebuttal to opposition, stating he empathizes with those who experience problems. The police department has been tasked to solve those problems. He responded
to several points: 1) CHIP has looked at potential locations for three years and determined no other suitable location exists; 2) Other shelters are full; 3) The shelter will only provide
1 or 2 meals a day. He expressed concern a recent proliferation of charity feeding
programs is not helping get homeless off the street; 4) Appropriate staffing will be provided, but the police substation will not be manned with six officers, 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, because the officers will be on patrol throughout the neighborhood, supported by other officers in the vicinity; 5) Regarding property rights and values, he reiterated the homeless
have no other place to go. The next component of the homeless program will be to create single room housing where people can stay until they get on their feet; 6) Regarding whether
the shelter is a compatible industry, he stated the homeless are humans, not industry; 7) Federal funding is tied to the operation of a homeless shelter and will benefit downtown. Ongoing
efforts are underway to ensure adequate future funding; 8) He is committed to finding a solution to the homeless problem in Clearwater, wants to achieve the stated objectives, and felt
this project is a good starting point.
Mr. Brummett, Mr. Shuh, Mr. Hubbard, Ms. Wilson, and Dr. Jannelli spoke in rebuttal to the supporters, expressing concern with the heavy need for police involvement, fear of setting
a precedent for more beds in downtown, the need to hire someone to determine the long range impact and create a more coordinated effort, inadequacy of the proposed police staffing, the
need to expand the vision to a much larger scale operation apart from downtown in an industrial area, proximity to downtown residential single and multi-family dwellings and existing
alcoholic beverage business, additional deterioration and debris on surrounding properties, and what will happen when current police programs and funding expire.
Ms. Wilson submitted seven photographs illustrating debris and deterioration on and about the subject property. Dr. Jannelli submitted a petition with approximately 28 signatures from
surrounding business owners in opposition to the proposal. He spoke with two dozen property owners in the vicinity of Everybody’s Tabernacle HEP, none of whom had complaints because
of the exemplary way Ms. Green runs the program. During his visit, he noticed several properties for sale at a reasonable price, a short distance away from other social service agencies.
He challenged Chief Klein to look at obtaining some of these less expensive properties and relocating the project.
Chief Klein issued a final statement on behalf of the applicants. In response to questions from one board member, he said funds are not available to buy more property and construct
a new feeding facility. He has asked Mrs. Green to consider assuming administration of the project. When funding for the police facility runs out in three years, the City assumes financial
responsibility. Alluding to previous discussion that homeless go where they are fed, the board member advocated closing the downtown soup kitchen and starting a program in an industrial
location near Hercules Avenue. It was indicated living near jobs and getting help with transportation to social service agencies makes more sense. Chief Klein responded this issue
was studied in depth at the direction of a previous City Commission, and no legitimate reason was found for closing the soup kitchen under the existing guidelines. He firmly reiterated
the soup kitchen will stay where it is and the clientele will be regulated. He requested a decision on the issue at hand. The board member expressed concern with rushing the decision,
and reiterated the recommendation to move the facility to a location with less impact on the surroundings.
One member questioned why the registration process was not implemented years ago and why soup kitchen clientele are not required to clean and maintain the facility, or assist handicapped
residents, to help repay the community. Concern was expressed it is not safe to visit the libraries. It was indicated Clearwater has become well known as a haven for transients, due
to lenient homeless programs and mild winters.
One member expressed concern six officers do not provide adequate staffing. Chief Klein responded to questions regarding officer deployment, hours of operation, number of people fed,
details of the registration program, and the need to have the officers on bicycles to get into areas where cars cannot go.
One member questioned code requirements regarding zoning, property use, and occupancy. Mr. Shuford responded to questions regarding property acreage, land use impacts, and density
calculations under the mixed zoning. He said the project is an outgrowth of the community’s direction regarding community policing and neighborhood relationships. He assured the board
the property area, density and intensity restrictions will not allow future expansion.
General discussion ensued regarding philosophy of the homeless issue. Board members reiterated their recommendations and concerns. Discussion ensued regarding standards for approval.
One member spoke from his experience as an active participant in a charitable food outreach program. He stated he has hired more than 100 people from the HEP program, some of whom
have developed into wonderful employees. He stated a food and housing program with the proper restrictions helps, rather than hinders neighborhood conditions. Some members felt a continuance
was needed to: 1) gather land use and zoning information regarding the soup kitchen’s present location; and 2) investigate another location where the proposal would have less impact
on the surroundings and room for expansion.
Member Baron moved to continue Item C3, CU 96-46, for two weeks, to obtain more information regarding density calculations and investigation of an alternate location. The motion was
duly seconded. Members Keyes, Merriam, Baron and Kunnen voted "Aye"; Members Nixon and Bickerstaffe voted "Nay." Motion carried. The item was continued to the meeting of November
5, 1996.
The meeting recessed from 4:26 to 4:39 p.m.
C4. Kenyon Dodge, Inc. To permit a utility facility (transmission tower) at 19660 US 19, Sec 19-29-16, M&B’s 11.05, 11.061 and 11.06, zoned CH (HighwayCommercial). CU 96-50
Mr. Shuford presented written background information, stating the applicant is requesting approval a transmission tower on the Kenyon Dodge property. Because of federal laws regulating
telecommunication towers, the Assistant City Attorney outlined specific suggestions how to handle the proceedings. She requested the board to direct the City Attorney’s office to prepare
written findings to submit at the following meeting. A court reporter was present to provide the required transcript. She requested board members to ensure the motion to approve or
deny is very specific regarding the code criteria and reasons for the decision. While local authorities have authority to act in accordance with their local ordinances, she cautioned
that the telecommunication act does not allow denial based on perceived tower emissions.
It was indicated certain local jurisdictions have declared moratoriums on this type application, but Clearwater has not and the law requires responding in a timely manner. Mr. Shuford
indicated a City telecommunication task force will be working on a wide range of issues, including tower siting. He had hoped to delay this application until their report is completed
in December, but must follow the low for timely processing. In response to a question, he said a height variance was recently approved for a tower along Fort Harrison.
Mr. Shuford reviewed the staff report, stating a 100 foot tower within 150 feet of a residential area is not compatible with the standards for approval in terms of size, scale and mass
of the structure. Such a tower would have an obvious impact on the Tropic Hills neighborhood to the west. Staff recommended denial, stating the application does not appear to meet
standards for approval #5 and #7 of Section 41.052, regarding the affect on the use, enjoyment, value and character of surrounding properties.
A question was raised regarding whether any homes are within the fall zone for the tower. Mr. Shuford discussed fall zones, stating due to the design of monopole towers, safety is
not a concern, but staff is concerned with the size and proximity to the residential area. In response to a question about the height, Mr. Shuford stated the Development Code Adjustment
Board is scheduled to hear a height variance request next week. He suggested the board focus on compatibility of the use with the surroundings.
Heidi Amato, authorized representative for American Portable Telecom (APT), highlighted their range of services and what they offer to the community. She described the self-supporting
lattice-type structure and related site specific compatibility details. She circulated and explained a composite photographic display of the site from various vantage points and pointed
out the proposed location on an aerial map. In a fax received by staff on October 14, she outlined how the application meets each of the standards for approval. Regarding standards
#5 and #7, she stated the base will be sufficiently landscaped to buffer any noise, activity, or objectionable views. The facility has no equipment that generates noise, and is not
staffed, so no hours of operation limitation is needed. She noted painting has not been required because the galvanized steel and concrete structure should not glare in the sun. The
structure will be compatible with the existing environment of power lines and wooden poles. No evidence exists to indicate cellular carriers in the area for more than 10 years have
had a detrimental effect on the surroundings or property values. While telecommunication towers do not offer many design options, she offered to work with the neighborhood to minimize
any impacts they might experience. She stressed, from a visual standpoint, the existing overhead power lines pose much more of an impact. She distributed color copies of an enlarged
photograph of the neighborhood with a representation of the tower imposed into the picture, demonstrating the minimal impact on the view.
In response to questions, Ms. Amato said the soil and wind conditions on the site will determine the dimensions of the tower base, but she estimated the legs would be about five feet
apart, and the minimum wind load would be 105 mph. Concern was expressed the extra weight of other carriers’ equipment could increase the tower’s risk of falling. Mr. Shuford pointed
out the City encourages multiple users, to reduce the number of new towers needed. Ms. Amato explained each carrier is required to perform structural analyses to ensure their equipment
will not exceed a tower’s weight and wind loading capabilities. Some felt a proliferation of hardware would adversely affect aesthetics, while others would not support the tower without
assurance it would serve more than one or two carriers. In response to a question about colocating cellular equipment on power poles, Ms. Amato said such installation would cause a
great amount of electrical service loss during the time of installation. In response to a question, she said the subject location is green space within the Kenyon boat sales and lease
area. She thought the area was fenced to keep intruders out of the lot.
No verbal or written support was expressed.
Glenn Grenier, adjacent property owner, strongly opposed a utility facility transmission tower in the area, agreeing with staff’s concerns the size, scale, mass and appearance of the
structure are not compatible with the neighborhood. He submitted a petition with 46 signatures, reiterating the above concerns. He stated many people did not know of the proposal because
of the inadequacy of the City’s public hearing notification process. He felt affected property owners should be notified by certified mail. He complained, if the advertising had specified
the application was for a 100 foot tower, many more people would have appeared to object. He stated today’s presentation was too vague, and gave a false impression of the potential
impact to the abutting neighborhood. He noted other communities have declared moratoriums on new tower proposals, and felt an industrial location would be more appropriate for this
use. He complained of the poor condition of a fence on the subject property. In response to a question, he explained the location of his home in relation to the proposal.
Susan Rosetti, FDOT representative, stated she was present to address Item C6, below, but became concerned during earlier discussion of falling towers. Due to its proximity to US 19,
she wanted 1000% assurance the proposed tower will not fail.
Ms. Amato responded to the opposition, stating she was not aware of a problem with the fence, but will take it up with the landlord. Regarding height concerns, she profiled wireless
communication history, stating heights are decreasing. She agreed many other sites exist, but the subject property is in a commercial area. She indicated APT has been in business for
some time, and have four other sites in Clearwater where equipment is located on rooftops or existing towers. This is the last site needed to complete coverage in Clearwater. She explained
specifications exist to determine how a tower is designed to fall safely, if it does fail. She pointed out the location is far enough from US 19, that it could not hit the road, even
if it fell straight from the base.
Vern Piper, APT design engineer for the Clearwater, St. Petersburg, and Tarpon Springs area, explained their objective is to have seamless coverage with as few towers as possible.
They have demonstrated their sensitivity to public issues by locating most of the necessary equipment on existing structures. He explained telecommunication towers siting requirements,
stating it is unfortunate that there is not a great demand for cellular service in the remote industrial locations where the objectors would prefer to locate the towers. He elaborated
on the range of the coverage that can be achieved from the proposed location.
Mr. Grenier raised additional concerns about lightening safety, high winds, flocking birds, and noise. He referred to a tower in Largo that experienced structural damage recently.
He felt the applicants are avoiding full disclosure regarding details of the project and how it will affect neighborhood appraisal values. He thought the tower could become an advertising
gimmick for Kenyon.
Ms. Amato responded a lightening protection system will be included to protect the more than a quarter-million dollars worth of electronic equipment on the tower. She reiterated the
tower will generate no noise and nothing can be done about birds. She pointed out the tower in Largo did not fall, but bent because it was 10 to 15 years old and in need of maintenance.
With the current design
and materials, she did not feel the concern about falling is valid. She indicated moratoriums were declared in other communities, not because of any imminent danger, but to allow time
to address these issues from an industry standpoint, and create regulations to protect their communities. She did not feel Kenyon has any intention of using the tower for advertising.
She requested the board focus on the land use issue, stating APT has been a good neighbor in the community.
In response to questions, Mr. Piper stated he could reduce the height to 75 feet, but two towers and another site would be needed to achieve the same coverage. The proposed angle iron
lattice tower is designed to colocate other carriers’ equipment. He reiterated additional carriers would need to calculate wind loading based on their height needs, reinforcing the structure
as necessary. He repeated the range of coverage and other colocation factors. In response to a question, he indicated a higher tower would not necessarily enable more coverage, due
to capacity issues. While he could not predict how many subscribers they will have in the future, he indicated once the proposed tower is built, capacity to meet future needs could
be obtained by adding antennae, making it unnecessary to build additional towers.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to deny Item C4, CU 96-50, as inconsistent with standards for approval #5 and #7, and to refer it to the City Attorney’s office for written findings. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C5. Frank C. & Venie W. Brinson/Shop N Go Food Market of Clearwater to permit package sales of beer and wine (business ownership change) at 1760 Drew St., Woodmere Heights, Lot 31, zoned
CG (General Commercial). CU 96-52
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the request seems appropriate and should not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff recommended approval with
three standard conditions plus conditions to restripe the parking lot, and install a six foot wood fence buffering the adjacent residential area to the north.
Don Brinson, the property owner, spoke on behalf of the business owner. Mr. Brinson responded to questions regarding conditions on the subject property. He stated a previously existing
six foot wood fence fell down prior to his purchase of the property, leaving the fence posts standing. He said the surrounding commercial property owners do not want the fence put back
because it restricts foot traffic to their businesses. He stated he thought the restriping had already been done. Ms. Glatthorn provided clarification regarding the extent of the fence
staff is requesting. She stated, if it is determined the surrounding property owners do not want the fence, the posts must be removed.
Jean Saliba stated he bought the business three months ago and is requesting approval to sell beer and wine.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C5, CU 96-52, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite 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) Hours of operation shall be limited to: 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. weekdays and 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight
on weekends; 4) A six foot high wood fence shall be installed along the west
side property line within one month from the date of this public hearing OR the applicant shall obtain and submit letters from the adjacent property owners expressing their opposition
to the fence, in which case the existing fence posts shall be removed within one month from the date of this public hearing; 5) The parking lot shall be striped and maintained as shown
on the site plan subject to approval by Traffic Engineering and verification by staff. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C6. Florida Department of Transportation to permit (1) outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage; and (2) vehicle sales at 21466 US 19, Campus Walk Sub, Lot 2B, Sec 18-29-16 M&B
11.01, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). CU 96-53
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information. The City’s Community Response Team and Building Official have expressed concerns about numerous City Code and Building Code
violations on the site, including nonconforming electrical and sewer connections to an inhabited travel trailer. Concerns were expressed the proposed range of outdoor displays has the
potential to create a negative visual impact at this high visibility intersection of US 19 and Drew Street. Staff recommended denial, indicating the request does not appear to support
community goals in terms of aesthetics, land use compatibility, maintenance of surrounding property values, nor the spirit and intent of the Land Development Code. If approved, staff
recommended eight conditions.
Gilbert Jannelli, authorized representative, stated the State bought the property from Texaco in preparation for the future Drew Street overpass of US 19. He stated he worked with
staff to develop the proposed conditions of approval. He clarified he is not seeking to combine the requested uses, but when the outdoor display of merchandise is gone, he would like
the opportunity to use the property for recreational vehicle and car sales. He pointed out approval would allow use of the property to produce tax income for the City and provide six
to eight jobs, rather than letting the property sit vacant while waiting for the FDOT improvements. He requested approval with amendments to conditions #5, #6, and #8. Ms. Glatthorn
said she had indicated to the applicant the board would consider modification of the recommended conditions, at their discretion.
Mr. Shuford reiterated staff recommended denial, due to the high incidence of traffic accidents at this intersection. It was felt large outdoor displays will unduly distract motorists.
He expressed concern the applicant has not submitted a site plan, and emphasized the importance of delineating any outdoor display area clearly on a plan. Mr. Jannelli submitted a sketch
of the site with the proposed outdoor display area highlighted, to extend approximately 8 to 10 feet out from the canopy. Mr. Shuford could not concur without a scaled site plan.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. While the majority agreed with realizing a return on the property, concerns were expressed with the lack of aesthetics and property maintenance.
It was indicated having someone live in the travel trailer for security is not appropriate. Consensus was the property could and should be brought up to code quickly with minimal expenditures.
Discussion ensued regarding site lighting.
David Campbell, citizen, spoke in opposition to approval, stating FDOT should install traffic barricades similar to those in use at other locations. He advocated bringing the site
up to code immediately. If approved, he requested restricting outdoor sales to the area under the canopy. One photograph was submitted, showing an outdoor display of merchandise behind
the Kmart store at US 19 and SR 580.
Susan Rosetti, FDOT property administrator, stated she is responsible for overseeing about 400 leases associated with road improvement projects. She indicated every effort is made
to ensure the properties are maintained, but they can only be mowed once a month because of limited funding. She has worked with Geri Doherty of the City’s Community Response Team,
and fully supported staff conditions to bring the property into compliance and make it attractive. While some members felt the request should be approved as requested, others felt it
should be limited to one use. Ms. Rosetti stated she has heard good things about Dr. Jannelli and hoped he will be allowed to use the property in compliance with staff’s recommended
conditions. She responded to questions regarding FDOT property ownership issues.
Inspections Specialist Geri Doherty stated she has monitored conditions on the site since the pottery sales started. She submitted a report containing Community Response Team comments
and photographs of conditions on the subject property during the past six months. While most of the violations have been brought into compliance, concerns continue regarding parking,
traffic flow and property address numbers.
A question was raised regarding the dumpster requirement for the subject property. Mr. Jannelli said he has two dumpsters on site, but is having problems getting them serviced by the
Solid Waste division. One member felt the condition of the property is solely the responsibility of FDOT and questioned whether the City can clean it up and bill the State.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C6, CU 96-53, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and
occupational license within two 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) The applicant shall submit a site plan drawn to scale
and drawn in such a way as to allow on-site impacts to be reasonably evaluated and satisfactorily addressed prior to issuance of an occupational license; 4) All City landscaping, parking
and access requirements shall be met to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of the occupational license; 5) Displays shall be limited to the area immediately
around the building and under the canopy as shown on the page labeled “SUGGESTED DISPLAY AREA”; this area should be fenced and clearly marked on the site plan prior to the issuance of
an occupational license; 6) Vehicle sales, storage and displays shall not be permitted; 7) All building code and land development code violations on this site shall be corrected prior
to issuance of the occupational license; and 8) Approval shall be for a period of not more than two years from the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded. Members
Keyes, Nixon, Bickerstaffe, and Kunnen voted "Aye"; Members Merriam and Baron voted "Nay." Motion carried.
C7. Twenty Island Way, Inc. (The Crab House) to permit a restaurant serving alcohol beverages with outdoor seating where the service area is located within 200 ft of a residential zone
at 20 Island Way, Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 5, Blk C, Lot 2 and part of Lots 1 & 4, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 96-54
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant proposes to remodel an existing restaurant, adding a new entryway with ramps and stairs on the east side,
and an outdoor patio/cafe area on the southeast corner. It was indicated the request seems appropriate, and should not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff recommended approval
with four conditions, including one to limit hours of operation as required by the board. Ms. Glatthorn noted several people, who wished to express concerns about the hours of operation
and potential noise from the outdoor seating, had to leave due to the late hour.
Andrew Slavin, authorized business representative, stated he is the Property Development Manager for Landry’s Seafood House - Florida, Inc. He was aware of neighborhood concerns with
the potential for noise from the outdoor seating area and reassured the residents the restaurant will not have an outdoor bar. The outdoor seating area is across Island Way, more than
110 feet from the nearest residential building. Consisting no more than 10 tables, the outdoor area will seat approximately 40, depending on the season, climate, and inclination of
the clientele. He said Landry’s restaurants typically see no more than 20% of alcoholic beverage sales and service will be limited to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 11:00 p.m. on weekends,
with an additional hour for cleanup each night. He pointed out the conditional use is for outdoor seating, not alcoholic beverages. It the restaurant did not serve alcoholic beverages,
a conditional use for outdoor seating would not be required.
A question was raised regarding the restaurant’s concept and menu prices. Mr. Slavin elaborated, stating the Crab House will have a casual family atmosphere. In response to a question,
he requested amendment of the condition prohibiting outdoor speakers, allowing soft background music. He offered assurance they will not rock the neighborhood with music. Discussion
ensued regarding the acoustics of sound across water.
No verbal or written support was expressed.
Ken Wadsworth and Russell Sacks spoke in opposition, on behalf of Horizon House and 51 Island Way property owners, citing concern with the potential for noise. Mr. Wadsworth said the
quiet FM radio music played by previous restaurant owners from ceiling speakers along the outdoor walkway was not a problem. He said he did not object if the current operation follows
a similar format, but he did not want music playing until midnight. His main concern was with setting a precedent for outdoor service and not being able to regulate what might go in
that location in the future. Mr. Shuford stated the board may choose to impose a condition limiting the conditional use to this particular applicant. Mr. Sacks expressed concern with
the location of the outdoor seating, pointing out the adjacent sewage lift station and boat sanding and painting facility. He cautioned the restaurant to take adequate safe food handling
precautions.
Petitions with 30 signatures were submitted in opposition to serving food and alcoholic beverages to the public in the open air, from residents of Horizon House and 51 Island Way.
Mr. Slavin responded to the concerns, stating he feels he has a working relationship with the neighbors. He was comfortable with a condition prohibiting live outdoor entertainment,
and
reiterated they will not put in an outdoor bar. He agreed to restrict music to the above stated hours of service, and said restaurant patrons will not be rowdy. The outdoor seating
is to be located on the opposite side of the restaurant building from the boat maintenance operation. In response to a question, he said employees are trained through the responsible
vendor program. One member noted the small number of police calls reported from this location, compared to the relatively large calls reported for businesses in other neighborhoods.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C7, CU 96-54, 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 shall be permitted except
for quiet background music played no later than 10:00 p.m. nightly; 4) Hours of operation are limited to 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on weekdays; 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on weekends; and
5) No outdoor bar shall be provided. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C8. Thomas A. & Frederic T. Nott (Fritz’s Skate Shop) to permit outdoor commercial recreation (skate rental) at 700 Cleveland St., Gould & Ewing’s 2nd Addition, Blk 14, Lots 6 & 7, zoned
UC(C)2 (Urban Center (Core)). CU 96-55
Mr. Shuford presented written background information, stating the applicants’ proposal to rent in-lines skates to Pinellas Trail users and downtown commuters is a good use for the area.
Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions, plus three conditions regarding adequate sidewalk width, dumpster screening, and no
outdoor skateboards ramps. In response to a concern, Mr. Shuford said the property will be reviewed for sign code compliance.
Brian Gardner, authorized business representative and store manager, outlined his proposal to add skate rental to his current retail skate business. He has a portable launch ramp that
is sometimes used in a controlled area of his parking lot. He was not aware before today that a citizen had complained about the ramp. He was familiar with complaints that a particular
group of skaters damage downtown streetscape features with their skates. He noted much public attention and interest is attracted to his business when these skaters are performing on
his temporary ramp. He requested permission to continue to use the ramp as a constructive outlet for them. Mr. Shuford acknowledged the issue is subject to board debate, but staff
review has indicated prohibition is the best means of controlling unwanted skating activity on private property. Discussion ensued regarding the need for a skate park to keep kids off
the streets.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Nixon moved to approve Item C8, CU 96-55, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 6 months of 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) The sidewalk area shall be marked to provide a minimum 5 foot width for pedestrian areas; 4) The dumpster shall
be screened with vegetation or a low fence in a manner acceptable to the City Design Planner; and
5) Any outdoor skateboard ramps shall be portable or temporary in design, shall not be left unattended, and shall be taken inside at the end of the working day; and 6) Signage shall
meet City code requirements. 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. (cont. from 10/1/96) Request to consider an amendment to the Wal-Mart Commercial Planned Development zone (CPD) to increase nonresidential development intensity by allowing the construction
of a Wendy’s restaurant along the US 19 frontage between the Kinko’s and Jiffy Lube outparcels. 23105 US 19 N, Loehmann’s Plaza, Lot 1, Loehmann’s Plaza Replat, Lots 1-3. (Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc./Wendy’s International, Inc./Taheri Family Trust/Kinko’s of Georgia, Inc./Brandon Nu-West Clearwater, Ltd) Z 96-09 Zone: CPD (Commercial Planned Development)
Mr. Shuford presented written background information, stating this item was continued from the previous meeting to enable the applicants to address site specific issues concerning access,
concurrency, and the visual corridor to the Wal-Mart store from US 19. These issues have been addressed as indicated in the site plan and staff recommends endorsement.
Richard Harris, authorized representative, with Florida Design Consultants, addressed the board on behalf of Wendy’s. He stated they have been interested in getting back into the Countryside
area since their previous location was purchased by FDOT for stormwater retention. He requested endorsement, stating a site plan configuration has been created that satisfies Wendy’s
and City staff.
Nicholas Contakos, adjacent residential property owner to the west, complained that when Loehmann’s Plaza was taken out, it was replaced by acres of asphalt, a building that looks like
a circus tent, a 24-hour operation with intrusive site lighting and outdoor storage that must be protected by City police resources. He said the landscaping provided by Wal-Mart was
insufficient to ever provide an adequate buffer, and expressed concern a fast food restaurant will add to the confusion. He submitted a photograph of his view of the Wal-Mart store
from across the 500 foot Florida Power easement. Mr. Shuford stated Environmental Management was satisfied with the augmented landscaping plan and suggested a condition for staff to
continue monitoring the landscaping. He will ask the Community Response Team to investigate the complaint about commercial site lighting shining onto residential property. Discussion
ensued regarding landscaping materials that would provide a better visual buffer.
Mr. Harris responded, when Wal-Mart was approved for 24-hour operation, 81 five to six foot tall wax myrtles were installed as a condition of approval. The trees are fast growing and
should provide adequate buffering soon. One member asked staff to work with the applicant about concentrating landscaping within the residents’ field of view.
Member Kunnen moved to endorse Item D1, Z 96-09, to the City Commission with direction to staff to: 1) Reexamine the landscaping along the western boundary for adequacy in visually
screening the subject property from the residential area to the west, and 2) Examine existing site lighting to determine whether or not it meets the conditions of previous approval.
The motion was duly seconded. Members Keyes, Nixon, Merriam, Baron and Kunnen voted "Aye"; Member Bickerstaffe voted "Nay." Motion carried.
D2. (Cont. from 10/1/96 for advertising) Ordinance 6092-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development code; amending Section 40.544 establishing funeral homes
as a Conditional Use in the Public/Semipublic Zoning District; amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary conditional use permit standards for funeral homes
in the Public/SemiPublic Distirct; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford explained this item was endorsed to the City Commission at the meeting of October 1, 1996, as amended in Section 49.544, changing “permitted” to “allowed.” The item appears
on today’s agenda for advertising purposes. No action was taken.
D3. Ordinance 6093-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish additional supplementary conditional
use permit standards consistent with the Pinellas Planning Council Rules; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford presented written background information, stating this amendment is needed to make the high tech manufacturing ordinance fully consistent with Pinellas Planning Council
rules. Staff recommended endorsement.
Member Merriam moved to endorse Item D3, Ordinance 6093-96, to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D4. Ordinance 6100-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 41.221 to allow outdoor cafes in the Public/Semipublic and Open Space/Recreation
zoning districts on Clearwater Beach; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford presented written background information, stating this amendment will allow an existing restaurant at the City Marina to have an outdoor café with relaxed parking requirements,
similar to most other beach zoning districts. Staff recommended endorsement.
Member Nixon moved to endorse Item D4, Ordinance 6100-96, to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D5. (cont. From 10/1/96) Ordinance 6091-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; creating Section 42.36, Code of Ordinances, to establish site lighting
restrictions for residential and nonresidential properties; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford stated staff is requesting a two-meeting continuance to sufficient time to prepare the amendments requested by the board at the last meeting.
Member Kunnen moved to continue Item D5, Ordinance 6091-96 to the meeting of November 19, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
Discussion resumed regarding site lighting regulation. Member Kunnen asked Member Nixon to clarify in writing her concerns about site lighting issues. Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested
submitting such a documents in memo form for the next agenda packet.
Member Keyes announced this is his last meeting and he was sorry to be leaving the board because he has enjoyed his three years of service. He expressed gratitude to Central Permitting
staff for their professionalism, courtesy, and friendliness, stating they can serve as a model for other cities. He hoped his replacement will receive the same helpful introduction
to board service that Mr. Keyes received from other board members. Member Nixon appreciated Mr. Keyes as an advocate and opponent, proving that board members can disagree on issues
and still have a good relationship. Member Merriam said Mr. Keyes has been a good chair. Mr. Shuford expressed appreciation for three years of service as a member and chair, the sense
of humor and valuable perspective Member Keyes has contributed to the board.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Chair
Planning and Zoning Board
Attest:
Board Reporter