11/05/1996PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
November 5, 1996
Present:
Brenda Harris Nixon
Edward Mazur
Kemper Merriam
Robert D. Bickerstaffe
Bernie Baron
Frank Kunnen
Douglas Hilkert
Acting Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Scott Shuford
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Sandra Glatthorn
Lou Hilton
Gwen Legters
Central Permitting Director
Assistant City Attorney
Central Permitting Manager
Senior Planner
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 Acting Chair at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. Meeting procedures and the appeal process were outlined.
New member Douglas Hilkert was welcomed to the board.
Minutes Approval -- October 15, 1996
Member Merriam requested clarification in the second paragraph on page four. Staff corrected the third sentence to read, “… the police substation will not be built without the shelter.”
Central Permitting Director Shuford requested minutes review regarding conditions of approval in case CU 96-53, for outdoor displays at Drew Street and US 19. He said Dr. Jannelli
requested clarification whether the board intended to allow vehicles sales, and whether the area of outdoor displays was to be restricted to the area under the canopy. Staff had understood
approval was subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report, including the prohibition of vehicle sales. He stressed staff has no effective means of evaluating the request
without an accurate site plan. Discussion ensued whether the minutes accurately reflect the board’s intent. By a show of hands, five members indicated they understood vehicle sales
are not allowed without a new conditional use application to the Planning and Zoning Board. Two members who were not present at the last meeting abstained from voting.
Member Merriam moved to approve the minutes as submitted, subject to correction of the typographical error on page 4. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. Conditional Uses
C1. (Cont. from 10/15/96) 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, 1341 & 1345 Park St., Brookwood Terrace, Blk 6, part of Lots 1, 2, 9-13 & N ½ vacated street 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
This item was continued to investigate an alternate location and obtain more information regarding density calculations. Mr. Shuford said staff researched four major issues raised
at the last meeting, summarizing the results, as follows: 1) Zoning Intensity The proposed mixed use of police substation and residential shelter saturates the allowable density so
no future expansion is possible; 2) Property Value Impacts -- A five year history of property values for properties within 1,000 feet of the subject property, showed no clear indication
the soup kitchen has had a significant negative impact; 3) Crime Research showed a substantial decrease in crime in the vicinity of homeless centers in Orlando and Jacksonville; and
4) Comprehensiveness of Approach Pinellas County uses a decentralized method of locating shelters throughout the County to avoid overburdening any specific area. Staff felt conditions
support the request and recommended approval with four conditions.
Due to the controversial nature of the case, a question was raised whether members absent from the previous hearing may vote on the request today. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded absence
would not prohibit a member from voting as long as the member was provided opportunity to review the minutes and background information packet. Because the public portion of the hearing
had been closed prior to continuance, a question was raised whether the board wished to reopen the hearing to public comment, or receive the requested responses from the applicant alone.
Member Mazur moved to reopen Case CU 96-46 for public comments. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Clearwater Police Chief Sid Klein spoke on behalf of the Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project. He expressed concern regarding two issues he wished to note for the record. He stated
Member Bickerstaffe’s comment at the previous hearing, referring to homeless persons as muscle-bound gorillas, clearly shows a bias. Chief Klein submitted a document reflecting Mr. Bickerstaffe’s
involvement as a consultant to Clearwater Flying Corporation, owned by Dr. Gilbert Jannelli, one of the property owners contesting the conditional use application. Chief Klein felt
such an association constitutes an ethical conflict of interest and asked Mr. Bickerstaffe to recuse himself from voting on this issue. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated, based on the facts
heard today, she did not consider this matter a legal conflict of interest under Florida Statutes. Member Bickerstaffe responded his comments were directed at seasonal street people
who choose not to work, but travel here every winter to “vacation” in Florida’s mild weather at taxpayers’ expense. He said he intended no antagonism and felt the community should help
full time residents who need assistance. He declined to recuse himself from voting.
Referring to the document submitted with the staff report, Chief Klein reiterated the issues and conclusions as reported by Mr. Shuford. He said downtown Clearwater has experienced
a significant decrease in crime due to measures taken at the St. Vincent de Paul soup kitchen. CHIP has worked with Pinellas County comprehensively for three years to follow a planned
five-year strategy to locate shelters throughout the County. He stressed the proposed shelter will be strictly tailored to provide homeless intervention. The proposal meets or exceeds
the standards for
approval of a conditional use and is a good start toward improving conditions existing around the soup kitchen. This shelter is the planned replacement for a temporary shelter that
has operated without complaint since it was approved by the board. He asked the board to focus on the need for the shelter.
Chief Klein responded to questions and discussion ensued regarding a single room occupancy program, funding for the proposed police substation, and how to ensure the substation will
remain open once the three-year COPS grant expires. Discussion continued regarding shelter tenancy requirements, alternatives when capacity is reached, and the proposed client registration
process. In response to a question, Chief Klein affirmed misdemeanor crimes in the area increased when the soup kitchen opened, but that situation would be eliminated by taking the
offenders off the streets. Discussion ensued regarding history of Chief Klein’s involvement with the task force created to study this issue. Concern was expressed the proposal leaves
no room for expansion to accommodate a clearly growing need. The applicant was strongly urged to consider another location where the surrounding uses and the zoning are more compatible
with a homeless shelter. Brief discussion ensued regarding reasons for the crime rate decrease on a neighboring convenience store property.
One person spoke in support of the application, stating the focus has been steered away from the real issue. The shelter is not the problem, but the solution to the problem caused
by soup kitchen visitors. Putting a shelter a mile or two away from the soup kitchen will not solve existing problems in the residential and commercial areas. One letter from the soup
kitchen President was submitted in support, citing additional details about the proposed shelter.
Fifteen persons spoke in opposition to the application, reiterating many concerns expressed at the previous hearing regarding the adverse impact on the business and residential community.
Additional concerns were cited as follows: 1) a financial institution has delayed financing a local property purchase pending the decision in this case; 2) fears of life endangerment;
3) difficulty selling tourist related businesses; 4) business vehicle trespass, vandalism, and fears of robbery; 5) transients bypassing the registration process; 6) trespassers, illegal
activities, and personal belongings hidden in bushes on nearby residential properties endangering the health safety and welfare of neighborhood children; 7) request for more complete
statistics regarding declining property values and numbers of people fed during the winter; 8) an organizational effort may be underway to relocate the soup kitchen; 9) request for a
three year trial period, if approved, to ensure the police substation remains after grant funding runs out; 10) sufficient appropriate use exists on the subject and surrounding properties;
11) frequency and numbers of soup kitchen meals served to more than 180 people daily; 12) actual versus assessed property values; 13) property owners cease to report crimes experienced
frequently and/or repeatedly over a long period of time, affecting accuracy of the police calls reports; 14) problems have quadrupled since the soup kitchen opened; 15) more homeless
people will come to the area if they know they may find a place to sleep; 16) insufficient parking, vehicular and pedestrian access; 17) many street people choose to be homeless and
are creating another welfare generation; 18) proposed shelter zoning and the inappropriate location next door to a bar; 19) Chief Klein may have a financial conflict of interest because
he stands to get more police officers; 20) seniors must board up windows to feel safe in their homes and are not able to sell their businesses and retire; and 21) a central approach
would better contain the objectionable behaviors. Nine letters, two handouts and two petitions containing approximately 38 signatures, were submitted in opposition to the request, restating
the above concerns. One photograph was submitted showing debris, bedding, and waste on a sidewalk outside a commercial property. An Associated Press newspaper article reported Justice
Department grants funded many additional Florida police officers who only appear on paper.
One supporter spoke in rebuttal, stating not all of the 180 people fed daily at the soup kitchen are homeless. He reiterated the shelter and the police substation are the solutions,
not the problems.
Six objectors spoke in rebuttal, restating many earlier concerns plus the following: 1) problems persist despite frequent police visits to the soup kitchen; 2) The location is not
appropriate and 48 beds are not sufficient; 3) Reverse discrimination is being practiced against the taxpayers; and 4) funding is not in place to continue the operation after the first
three years.
Chief Klein issued a final statement and responded to questions from the board. He felt a three year trial period is an acceptable compromise. He said, if the situation does not turn
around and the crime rate does not decrease, the shelter and police substation can be closed. He reiterated the property owners have met or exceeded every standard for approval for
conditional use of their land. Regarding proof the use will not be detrimental to assessed values, he noted no negative pattern exists, but he cannot predict the future. He discussed
the crime rate, hours of operation, and shelter supervision. Police officers will staff the shelter during peak hours, and cover the streets where they are needed the rest of the time.
He asked the board not to focus on what can be accomplished by six new officers, but how they will supplement the policing community on duty around the clock. In response to questions
it was indicated a full review of the case would occur at the end of any trial period. Chief Klein said the three years’ Federal funding is not contingent upon the officers, but is
intended to build the shelter.
Public discussion was closed and board discussion ensued.
One member said the issue is not the combined use, but how the proposed use will impact surrounding property. The property owner has met the burden of showing the impact on surroundings
and the potential benefit to the community. The shelter would be making a huge commitment by risking their operation on a three year trial period.
One member suggested more perimeter lighting, no trespassing signs, a public relations committee to ease tensions with neighbors, and adequate sidewalk lighting. If one person gets
a fresh start from the facility, the project will be worthwhile because how we deal with our homeless is important.
One member said voting against the proposal would leave the area as it is, while voting in favor would increase police presence in the area.
One member said the decision must be based on whether the applicant has shown the standards of approval are met. The applicant has not shown the use will have no detrimental effect,
or that a benefit will result. A question was raised regarding how the property value percentages are obtained and whether the numbers are accurate, if property owners give up reporting
crimes after a while.
One member said surrounding property owners should not be asked to set aside their potential for increase in favor of people who contribute nothing to the community. The proposal has
not had sufficient long range planning, the site is too small, and the use is not compatible with surrounding uses. The existing police force can and should take care of the existing
problem without a shelter.
One member said the applicant has met the burden of proof and called for a motion. The organizations involved have a lifelong commitment to dealing with the homeless issue and, with
proper oversight, will be able to make a positive impact.
One member said it is difficult to vote because of acquaintance with Chief Klein and many homeless people. Concern was expressed a banker was withholding financing pending a decision
on the shelter. Reference was made to a nightclub in Morningside the City had to purchase and close because it was a nuisance to the adjacent residential community. Concerns were expressed
with accepting a Federal grant and subjecting the neighborhood to a project that the City might have to purchase after three years. It was suggested to consider building a police substation
alone.
General discussion ensued regarding the issues. Mr. Shuford said staff’s research indicated crime goes down when a comprehensive approach is taken. Since crime and property devaluation
are linked, logic would indicate going forward with the plan would not substantially negatively impact surrounding property values. One member felt it likely the shelter and police
presence will alleviate crime enough to encourage an upward trend in property values. Another member did not agree and was not willing to risk someone else’s property values based on
the assumption fencing will solve the problem. It was felt the fears and concerns expressed by the majority of those speaking in opposition are valid and should be considered, unless
it is clear benefits exist of which surrounding property owners are unaware. One member pointed out the complaints were associated with the soup kitchen operation. The board has no
way to judge the proposed facility because it has no history in the community. One member said those who created the mess shown in the photograph are hard core homeless people who are
not seeking public help and are not likely to sign up for rehabilitation or detoxification programs. Those who want assistance traditionally seek help from existing supporting agencies,
like churches, for temporary lodgings or food. It was indicated many more than 48 people are in need of help and concern was expressed with attracting more people than can be accommodated.
It was felt the registration procedure and rules of behavior will be sufficiently strict to discourage any who do not wish to improve themselves.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C1, CU 96-46, subject to meeting all the standards for approval plus the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building
permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within nine 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, and additional lighting will be installed to better illuminate the perimeter
of the site adjacent to non-residential areas prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) A sidewalk interconnection to Cleveland Street shall be constructed to reduce
pedestrian traffic in surrounding residential areas; 4) The residential shelter is only allowed while the police substation and other referral services are provided at this location;
5) Approval shall be for a trial period of three years from the date of this public hearing, after which a new conditional use permit review will be required for the residential shelter
use; 6) Efforts shall be made on the part of the CHIP organization to contact specified neighborhood representatives to coordinate and communicate issues and information on a regular
basis; and 7) Fencing to the maximum height allowed by City code shall be installed on all sides of the property to control site access prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Some felt fencing is needed to restrict pedestrian access through residential areas. Others felt fencing provides hiding places for criminals. The majority of the board did not support
a condition to provide 24-hour on site security personnel at the shelter. Concern was expressed
the supporters are grasping at a solution and misapplying it. It was indicated conditions are intended to mitigate any adverse effects that might occur, which is not possible due to
the human element in this case.
The motion was duly seconded. Members Merriam, Baron, Kunnen, and Hilkert voted "Aye"; Members Nixon, Mazur, and Bickerstaffe, voted "Nay." Motion carried.
The meeting recessed from 5:17 to 5:30 p.m.
C2. (Cont. from 10/1/96) The Home Depot USA, Inc. to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage at 21870 US 19, The Clearwater Collection, 2nd Replat, part of lot 1, zoned
CPD (Commercial Planned Development). CU 96-48
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating this application was continued for the applicant to provide information about the ownership and shared vehicular access
of the area behind the store, dimensions, and parking information. The requested information is included in the board’s packets. The City Traffic Engineering Department will work with
the applicant to route vehicular traffic outside the loading area. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions.
John Shern, authorized representative, stated staff’s recommended conditions are acceptable. One board member expressed concern he had witnessed unacceptable conditions on the subject
property and wished to ensure adequate access to pedestrian walkways and two-way vehicular access is provided. Mr. Shern responded to lengthy questioning regarding parking calculations,
site configuration, facilities and access, fire lanes, reciprocal parking agreement with surrounding property owners, freight loading, delineating and enforcing outdoor storage and display
areas, tractor/trailer parking, and pedestrian and vehicular ingress/egress areas. Mr. Shern said parking will be reconfigured to eliminate spaces no longer needed to meet current standards,
making the remaining parking more functional. The outdoor storage is primarily seasonal, five foot walkways will be clearly marked, and merchandise will not exceed the marked boundaries.
He indicated it would serve no purpose to block pedestrian areas, as Home Depot is in business to satisfy customers.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Merriam moved to approve Item C2, CU 96-48, subject to four conditions as recommended by staff. The motion was duly seconded. Concerns were expressed the site plan does not
accurately address delineation of outdoor display areas, truck parking, and safe freight handling in fire lanes and common areas. Discussion ensued regarding outdoor storage and display
at other retail establishments, and how to condition the motion to clarify the site plan. The seconder rescinded the second.
.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to continue Item C2, CU 96-48, to the meeting of November 19, 1996, for site plan amendments. Members Nixon, Mazur, Bickerstaffe, Merriam, Baron, and Kunnen
voted "Aye"; Member Hilkert voted "Nay." Motion carried.
C3. (Cont. from 10/1/96) Dayton Andrews, Inc. To permit vehicle service (expansion of existing facilities) at 2388 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Gulf to Bay Estates, Lots 594-597 and Sec 18-29-16,
M&B 24.06, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 96-51
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating this application was continued for the applicant to submit a revised plan showing the proposed new building in a different
location on the northeast corner of the site, and to address staff concerns about the new location. The City Traffic Engineer reviewed the revised plan and made three recommendations.
Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions. In response to questions, it was indicated a condition prohibiting outdoor speakers is standard
when a commercial area abuts residential properties. Five additional handicapped parking spaces are needed for code compliance.
Bill Adams, representing the applicant, said the proposal has been expanded to 5,340 square feet. He said the recommended conditions are acceptable. Board members felt additional
exterior landscaping is desirable.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C3, CU 96-51, 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) Subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer, the plan
shall be revised to include five additional handicapped parking spaces; and the “motorcycle and compact parking” note shall be removed from the plan; 4) There shall be no outdoor speakers
(existing or proposed) for the entire site; and 5) Exterior landscaping shall be installed along Shelly Street, in accordance with City Code. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
C4. Robert D. Veurink/Stanley V. Urbanik/Julian S. Weiss (Old Clearwater Bay Community Policing Substation) to permit public safety facilities (police substation) at 1217 N. Ft. Harrison
Ave, Enghurst Add to Clearwater, Lots 6 & 7, zoned CI (Commercial Industrial). CU 96-56
Mr. Hilton presented written background information, stating staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions.
Robert Veurink, the owner/applicant was present the address the board. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Mazur moved to approve Item C4, CU 96-56, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit(s) and certificate of occupancy 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.
C5. J & Sophia Karas (Convenient Store) to permit package sales of beer and wine (change of business ownership) at 1881 Drew St., Skycrest Unit 5, Blk F, Lots 1 & 2, zoned CG (Commercial
General). CU 96-57
Mr. Hilton presented written background information, stating a similar request was approved in February, 1996. A new application was necessary due to a death in the family. Staff
did not feel the request will negatively impact the school within 500 feet of the subject property, as the business has operated for many years. Staff felt conditions support the request
and recommended approval with four conditions.
Raid H. Snan, authorized representative, said the grocery store has existed more than 30 years in the present location. He is the on site manager, and plans no changes.
No one spoke in support or opposition to the request. One letter in opposition cited concerns with beer and wine sales in proximity to a private school.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C5, CU 96-57, 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) The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and Sundays 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; and 4) The business owner shall keep the property free of trash and debris on a daily
basis. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C6. Ida Carelli, TRE to permit outdoor retail sales, displays, and/or storage at 14 N Lincoln Ave, Padgett’s Estates Sub, Lot 1, and part of Lot 2, zoned UC(E)(Eastern Corridor). CU
96-58
Mr. Hilton presented written background information, stating the subject property has been used for outdoor storage of recreational vehicles for many years. Conditional use approval
is needed to store boats 28 feet or less. Staff indicated the proposed use may be compatible with surrounding properties if recommended conditions are met regarding screening, fencing
and stormwater retention. Discussion ensued regarding imposing a six month time limit for conditions #1 through #5.
Art Glatt, representing the property owner, indicated he did not know opaque fencing was required when he recently obtained his fence permit. He spent several thousand dollars one
month ago, enclosing the subject property with six foot chain link fencing. He expressed concern with staff’s recommendation to remove the chain link fencing and asked if opaque material
can be added. He submitted nine photographs showing conditions on and around the subject property.
Board members expressed concern with the unaesthetic appearance of the fencing and view presented by outdoor storage on the subject property. Discussion ensued regarding the need for
a dense landscaping buffer to screen the perimeter. Questions were raised regarding stormwater retention requirements. One member argued with code requirements for payment of a fee
in lieu of stormwater retention. In response to a question, Mr. Glatt said his request is for outdoor storage only. Retail sales are part of the category he does not intend to pursue.
One person spoke in support of the application, stating he parks his big trucks on the subject property. The fence is needed for security, but making it opaque gives criminals more
places to hide. One letter in opposition cited a concern the requested conditional use would contribute to the “downward” quality of the property
Discussion ensued regarding pros and cons of opaque fencing. Some members disagreed with the logic of requiring payment of cash in place of stormwater retention and asked staff to
investigate the code. Mr. Hilton explained, when it is geographically impossible to build necessary retention on a site, the applicant pays the City to build necessary retention farther
downstream. Ms. Dougall-Sides said, if retention is required by code, the applicant must comply regardless of any conditions imposed by the board.
Board members stressed the need for a dense landscaping hedge outside the fence, if the chain link remains. Certain members debated types of landscaping materials to require. One
supported oleanders, one did not. Some felt the recommendation should be left to City Environmental staff.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C6, CU 96-58, subject to the following conditions, with #1 through #5 to be met within six months from the date of this public hearing: 1)
The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license; 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) All chain-link fencing
shall be screened with oleanders planted every 2.5 feet, with the exception of the existing 18 foot roll gate entrance; 4) Stormwater retention must be constructed to meet City Code;
or cash in lieu of stormwater requirements pursuant to City Code, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 5) All parking spaces shall be striped according to City Code; 6) All boats
shall be stored at the existing grade level; no vertical “stacking” of boats shall be permitted; and 7) Fire truck access shall be maintained. Members Nixon, Mazur, Bickerstaffe, Merriam,
Kunnen, and Hilkert voted "Aye"; Member Baron voted "Nay." Motion carried.
C7. Anna & Terry Tsafatinos/Club Vibrations, Inc to permit nightclubs, taverns, and bars at 22 N Ft Harrison Ave, Earle & Tate’s Sub, part of Lots 12 & 13, zoned UC(C)(Urban Center (Core).
CU 96-59
Mr. Hilton presented written background information. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions. It was indicated hours of operation are
not generally specified for a location not adjacent to a residential area.
Steven Watts, attorney representing the applicant, stated the applicant is satisfied with the recommended conditions. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C7, CU 96-59 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.
C8. James R. Harper (Mel & Ed’s Glass/Showcase Interiors) to permit vehicle service (auto glass & upholstery) at 1724 Drew St, Drew Manor, Lots 1 & 46, zoned CG (Commercial General)
& RM 12 (Multiple Family Residential). CU 96-60
Mr. Hilton presented written background information. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with five conditions.
Michael Betts, the business owner, stated his family has owned and operated this business since 1968. He did not object to the recommended conditions, but requested clarification regarding
the location of the fence required in condition #5. It was indicated an opaque fence shall be provided along the north side to visually screen the operation from the residential area
to the north. One member requested adding a condition to resurface and restripe the rear parking lot as indicated on the plan. Mr. Hilton agreed this should be done within six months.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C8, CU 96-60, 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) There shall be no outdoor storage of automotive parts or automotive
related appurtenances; 4) There shall be no major vehicle service activities such as auto body repair, transmission repair, compressor noise, odors, or vibrations; 5) The applicant shall
install and maintain a 6 foot high opaque fence to screen the proposed vehicle service from the abutting residential uses to the north, within six months from the date of this public
hearing; and 6) The parking lot shall be resurfaced and restriped as indicated on the plan within six months from the date of this public hearing. 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. Request for Annexation and Zoning Atlas amendment of the City of Clearwater for 3081 Cleveland St., Sec 16-29-16, M&B’s 22.32 & 22.37 (City of Clearwater). A 96-27 Zone: RS 8 (Single
Family Residential)
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of annexation to enable the City to utilize these vacant lots for a detention pond project
along Cleveland Street. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn said the proposed use can be conducted in the proposed RS-8 zoning district without seeking State and Pinellas Planning
Council approvals.
Member Mazur moved to endorse Item D1, A 96-27, to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D2. (Cont. from 10/1 & 10/15/96) Request for Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas amendments of the City of Clearwater for property located at 1331 Cleveland Street, Brookwood Terrace Revised,
Blk 6, Lots 3 thru 8, part of Lots 1 & 2, 9 thru 13 and N ½ vacated street. (Jami Al Salam Inc.) Z 96-10; LUP 96-05
This item was continued from two successive scheduled public hearings because the applicant failed to attend. This item was taken out of agenda order and heard at the beginning of
today’s
meeting. Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant is requesting rezoning to renovate an existing building for use as an Islamic Center, Mosque and
School. She reviewed the previous use, zoning, future land use plan and lot size requirements. Staff recommended endorsement as standards for approval appear to support the proposal.
Rafman Balla, authorized representative, responded to questions regarding days and hours of worship, number of members, landscaping, structural and aesthetic improvements proposed.
He said conversion of the building, formerly used as a garage for classic cars, will be done according to appropriate guidelines and codes. He is a member of the corporation that owns
the property. Four wrecked autos will be removed from the property and 40 existing parking spaces are more than adequate for the small number of people who will use the facility. The
property is large enough to accommodate any future expansion. About $100,000 has already been donated to complete the project.
Two persons spoke in support of the application, as a clean, appropriate use that will improve the neighborhood and bring a positive element into the community. One supporter wishes
to worship at the center and responded to questions regarding conduct of Islamic worship.
One person spoke in opposition to the application, expressing concern the proposal in this location would limit the ability of surrounding properties to obtain a liquor license.
Member Kunnen moved to endorse Item D2, Z 96-10 & LUP 96-05 to the City Commission. Members Nixon, Mazur, Merriam, Baron, Kunnen, and Hilkert voted "Aye"; Member Bickerstaffe voted
"Nay." Motion carried.
D3. Ordinance 6106-96 of the City Of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Sections 35.11, 40.033, 40.042, 40.063, 40.083, 40.103, 40.123, 40.133, 40.143,
40.163, 40.183, 40.203, 40.223, 40.243, 40.283, 40.303, 40.543, Code of Ordinances, to define Public Education Facilities and to allow Public Education Facilities as a permitted use
in the Single-Family Residential “One” District, Single-Family Residential “Two” District, Single-Family Residential “Four” District, Single-Family Residential “Six” District, Single-Family
Residential “Eight” District, Multiple-Family Residential “Eight” District, “Multiple-Family Residential “Ten” District, Multiple-Family Residential “Twelve” District, Multiple-Family
Residential “Sixteen” District, Multiple-Family Residential “Twenty” District, Multiple-Family Residential “Twenty-Four” District, Multiple-Family Residential “Twenty-Eight” District,
Mobile Home Park District, Limited Office District, General Office District, and Public/Semipublic District; providing and effective date.
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the proposed ordinance defines public education facilities and authorizes them as permitted uses in certain zoning districts,
subject to compatibility and consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan in coordination with the Pinellas County School District. Staff recommended endorsement.
Concern was expressed the ordinance permits schools in every district. Discussion ensued and concerns were expressed with ramifications of recent State legislation enabling the School
Board to build schools wherever they desire without meeting local land use regulations. Concern was expressed schools must meet minimum building codes to be used as emergency shelters.
Staff requested the board to take action on the item today to enable placing it on the
November 21 City Commission public hearing agenda. Board consensus was for the acting Chair to draft a letter to the State Legislature expressing objection to the law. The letter will
be submitted for board approval at the next meeting.
Member Mazur moved to endorse Item D3, Ordinance 6106-96, to the City Commission. Members Mazur, Merriam, Baron, Kunnen, and Hilkert voted "Aye"; Members Nixon and Bickerstaffe voted
"Nay." Motion carried.
D4. Park Place - Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC); Park Place Land, LTD. (Owner); Tim Johnson (representative)
Mr. Hilton presented written background information regarding proposed modification of the Park Place Development Order to allow a mixed use of hotel and office uses in one parcel.
He read from an October 22 memo from Central Permitting Director Shuford detailing conversion factors, traffic analysis, land use and zoning considerations. It was indicated the hotel
use will require a zoning amendment, but the applicant does not wish to request rezoning at this time. Staff supported the proposed change recommended endorsement.
Tim Johnson, attorney representing the applicant, was present to answer questions. He said this amendment to the Park Place DRI (Development of Regional Impact) will provide more flexibility
of land use. Mr. Hilton noted Park Place right-of-way has been deeded to the City and will be built through to Drew Street. One member observed this will reduce trip generation.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item D4, Park Place Notice of Proposed Change, to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
Member Nixon reported she will bring her written observations regarding site lighting to the next meeting.
After brief discussion, December 3 was set as the date for the board’s Christmas Luncheon. The location will be determined.
Discussion ensued regarding election of Chair to replace Mr. Keyes for the remainder of the year. Consensus was for Vice Chair Nixon to continue as acting Chair through the end of
1996. Election of a Vice Chair was not felt to be necessary at this time, as board rules allow for selection of a member to chair a meeting when necessary. Election of officers will
be agendaed for the first meeting in January.
Ms. Glatthorn reviewed a November 4 memo from Assistant City Manager Bob Keller regarding the need for comprehensive review, revision and streamlining of the City’s Land Development
Code. Staff will work with a steering committee and keep the board apprised of the process, scheduled for completion in April, 1997.
Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides submitted a written order and briefed the board regarding formal adoption and ratification of the board’s October 15, 1996 order in the case of
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) She noted
the permanent record copy of the order will contain the written transcript and all the necessary exhibits and attachments. She and asked for a motion to adopt the order.
Discussion ensued regarding who may vote on the motion to adopt the order, as Members Mazur and Hilkert were not present to hear the applicant’s request. Ms. Dougall Sides said all
current members may vote on behalf of the board.
Member Merriam moved to adopt the Order of the Planning and Zoning Board denying conditional use approval of a utility facility (transmission tower) in case CU 96-50 ( Kenyon Dodge,
Inc.), as submitted in writing by the legal staff, subject to addition of the written transcript and pages missing from two exhibits. Members Nixon, Bickerstaffe, Merriam, Baron, and
Kunnen voted "Aye"; Members Mazur and Hilkert abstained. Motion carried.
Member Merriam expressed concern the noise from an audience member’s cellular telephone had disrupted today’s meeting several times. Discussion ensued regarding the need to post notices
on the agenda and outside the Commission Chamber doors, instructing members of the public to silence their cell phones and pagers during public meetings.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
Chair
Planning and Zoning Board
Attest:
Board Reporter