Loading...
01/07/1997PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 7, 1997 Present: Brenda Harris Nixon Edward Mazur Kemper Merriam Robert D. Bickerstaffe Bernie Baron Frank Kunnen Douglas Hilkert (arrived 1:37 p.m.) Acting Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member   Leslie Dougall-Sides Sandy Glatthorn Lou Hilton Gwen Legters Assistant City Attorney Planning Manager Senior Planner Board Reporter   The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in Harborview Center, Meeting Room #6, followed by the Invocation. The Acting Chair read an outline of meeting procedures and the appeal process. To provide continuity, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Minutes Approval -- December 17, 1996 Discussion ensued regarding whether the conditions in the motion to approve Item C3 (Kunnen CU 96-68) are accurately reflected in the minutes. Questions were raised whether the original conditions were totally replaced, amended, or supplemented by the new conditions of approval. In response to questions, Member Hilkert stated he understood the December 17 motion was to replace the original conditions, as stated in the staff report. He verified the 90-degree cutoff was eliminated from site lighting condition #1, and condition #7 regarding no outdoor storage or service was intended to apply only to inoperable vehicles. Ms. Glatthorn expressed concern the conditions listed in the staff report were new recommendations, and should not have been replaced. Staff requested continuance of this item to research and clarify whether some of the original conditions should still apply. Member Baron moved to continue minutes approval to February 4 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Conditional Uses C1. Michael G. Preston, TRE (Frenchy’s Seafood) to permit Marina facilities (Charter boats) at 419 East Shore Dr., Barbour Morrow Sub, Blk B, Lot 8, and Blk C, Lot 5 and part of Lot 6, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). CU 97-01 Mr. Hilton presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is seeking approval for four dive boats to operate a rental and charter business. The Planning and Zoning Board previously approved a four-boat operation at the site. He detailed parking requirements and existing conditions. The Harbormaster had indicated personal water craft will be prohibited from the proposed marina, due to the difficulty enforcing the existing minimum wake zone. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with three conditions. Questions were raised regarding the proposed number of boats and any previous conditions of approval. Scott Hume, representing the applicant, stated the business owner has operated at this location for a year and has never been cited for no wake zone violations. In response to questions, he said they will operate only one boat in the beginning. The request for four rental boat slips is to obtain the required number of parking spaces for the dive boat operation. Additional dive boats may be added to the operation later. The applicant owns the Plunger II, but will not dock it on the subject property at this time. Concerns were expressed with the unsafe appearance of a section the dock. Mr. Hume responded the dive boat will dock and load passengers from the floating platform at the east end of the pier. One member expressed concern with approving the applicant for four boats, when it is not known what the use will be. Clarification was requested regarding the number of boats the applicant will operate. Mr. Hilton explained the application had been for a four to seven dive boat operation. Zoning staff advised the applicant to apply for four boats, as permitted previously. The applicant currently desires a one boat dive operation. As the dive boat is larger than an average one-boat operation, more parking is needed. A parking variance is not required, because the applicant can provide sufficient parking for up to 24 passengers. Discussion ensued regarding boat occupancy and parking requirements. Mr. Hilton said the Harbormaster had spoken with the applicant and had expressed no problems with the application. Staff was not aware the applicant may desire to add more boats in the future. It was suggested to limit the dive operation to 24 passengers, rather than restricting the number of boats. One man spoke in opposition to the application, expressing strong concerns his adjacent motel is losing business because of the noise, exhaust fumes, and damage to the subject dock from six rental boats. He felt customers do not come to his business because the boat parking gives the appearance the parking lot is always full. He complained of problems with the previous boat operation and has tried to work out problems with Mr. Hume, but does not want to lose any more business. He responded to board questions regarding dock conditions and number of boats using the water in front of his business. Board members noted the area described is public waterway. One woman spoke in support, stating she has known Mr. Preston since he opened his first restaurant 15 years ago. He has done a lot of good for Clearwater beach and tourists enjoy his restaurants. She agreed beach business owners frequently experience problems with parking and tourist behavior, but deal with the problems as part of the tourist industry. She recommended approval, noting she deals with unauthorized parking by posting her lot and having cars towed. Mr. Hume said he understood he had worked out the boat exhaust problem to the satisfaction of the motel owner to the north. He believed the damage to which the opposition referred was caused by a rental boat running into the motel dock, not as a result of the dive operation. In response to a question, he will post his parking lot and identify each parking space belonging to the dive operation. He verified the dive boat will not use any of the four boat slips at the west end of the dock, as the water is too shallow for any boat to avoid going aground. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C1, CU 97-01, 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) All minimum wake zones shall be observed; and 4) The operating capacity of the facility shall not exceed 24 passengers. Members Nixon, Mazur, Bickerstaffe, Baron, Kunnen and Hilkert voted "Aye"; Member Merriam voted "Nay." Motion carried. C2. Dimmitt Car Leasing, Inc. (The Auto Exchange Club) to permit vehicle sales at 501 Pine St., Wallace’s Add, Blk 4, Lots 8, 9 and part of Lots 4-7, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 97-02 Mr. Hilton presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to operate a consignment type used car operation on a site historically used for auto sales and service. Staff has expressed several concerns regarding the appearance of the site, due to its high visibility. He highlighted site plan, landscaping, site lighting and parking requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with five conditions. Sergio Wechsler, representing the applicant, spoke on behalf of the Auto Exchange Club. He wishes to create a service designed to rent parking space to private vehicle owners wishing to display cars for sale. The deteriorated property was formerly used by Dimmitt as a used car lot. Mr. Wechsler highlighted details of the proposed business, and his plans to improve and bring the property up to code. He expressed concern with staff’s recommendations for extensive parking lot remodeling and landscaping. He felt a ten-foot wide landscaping buffer was excessive, and would adversely impact the amount of space remaining for parking clients’ cars. He said Environmental staff had suggested installing accent trees and planters to enhance the property. After a brief discussion with Mr. Dougall-Sides, Member Mazur declared a conflict of interest regarding this item. One member questioned, as applicants are required to follow Land Development Code standards, why the board must impose conditions requiring compliance. Discussion ensued with staff regarding adherence to the Land Development Code, and whether or not it is within the board’s authority to allow an applicant to reduce the amount of landscaping required by code. In response to questions, Mr. Wechsler said he could provide a two-foot wide buffering strip, supplementing landscaping with vertical planters to enhance the site’s appearance. He displayed photographs of other sites with creative landscaping uses, but did not submit the photos for the record. Mr. Hilton said, in view of existing site conditions, staff is not asking for a ten foot buffer, but recommends enhancement of the site to the best of the applicant’s ability. A site plan and site plan review will be required to ensure adequate provision. The City wishes to create a win-win situation in which the applicant can get his business underway. Discussion ensued regarding how to amend staff’s recommended conditions to ensure adequate enhancements are provided without forcing the applicant to meet the letter of the law and making it impossible for him to do business. One lady spoke in opposition, citing concerns with the lack of green space and the traffic congestion in this area. She requested and received clarification regarding the exact location of the request, stating 501 Pine Street is a non-existent address. Discussion ensued regarding the exact location of the request in relation to its surroundings. Mr. Wechsler indicated on a map the location of the building to be used for office space. He responded to the opposition, stating he did not feel traffic will increase as a result of his business. He felt the business will help bring organization to the City by reducing the incidence of people displaying cars for sale on street corners. In response to questions, he said he hoped to have space for 100 cars, but the site can only support 80 spaces, based on the current site plan. Board discussion continued regarding site layout site. Concern was expressed the proposal would have been easier to review with a site plan. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C2, CU 97-02, 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 directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way, to reduce highway glare, prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) A detailed site plan shall be submitted for site plan review prior to issuance of a building permit; and 4) the parking lot shall be repaired as necessary, resurfaced, and restriped in accordance with the approved site plan prior to issuance of an occupational license. Members Nixon, Merriam, Bickerstaffe, Baron, Kunnen and Hilkert voted "Aye"; Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. C3. Florida Department of Transportation to permit vehicle sales and vehicle servicing at 21466 US 19, Campus Walk, Lot 2B, and Sec 18-29-16, M&B 11.01, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). CU 97-03 Mr. Hilton presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the Planning and Zoning Board approved outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage of pottery items, but denied vehicle sales, at the meeting of October 15, 1996. The applicant is leasing the property from FDOT until future intersection improvements begin. The applicant wishes to have a used car sales business with minor vehicle service and detailing to be conducted inside an existing car wash building. It was indicated the request does not clearly meet the standards for approval, due to numerous code violations and failure to meet the conditions of approval of the October 15, 1996 conditional use permit within the required 60 days. Staff recommended denial. If the board decides to approve today’s request, staff recommended nine conditions of approval. Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended a tenth condition regarding revocation of the previous outdoor retail sales permit. City Inspections Specialist Geri Doherty responded to questions regarding the number and types of code violations the Community Response Team observed during the period of pottery sales. While most of the violations have been corrected, debris remains around the dumpster. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn read from the City code regarding commercial vehicles sales. Questions were raised whether the property owner or lessee may sell their personal vehicles from a commercial site without violating the code regarding vehicle sales. Ms. Glatthorn responded Scott Shuford, the development code administrator, has interpreted the code to mean no vehicle sales are allowed on the site. One member did not agree the applicant was in violation of the vehicle sales restriction. One member expressed concern with staff’s recommendation to limit the applicant’s conditional use to two years, as the FDOT project on US 19 could take much longer to commence. Discussion ensued regarding tying conditional use approval to the term of the lease. Gilbert Jannelli, applicant and property lessee, indicated how his site meets the applicable standards for approval. He felt some of the cited standards do not apply to his site. He distributed copies of a December 16 letter from Central Permitting Supervisor Stephen Doherty responding to questions regarding: 1) the code requiring conditional use approval for a vehicle detailing and repair use on the site; 2) definition of in-house versus public vehicle service; 3) and departmental policy regarding written responses from City staff. Dr. Jannelli submitted a detailed landscaping pack for the entire site, stating the existing landscaping is more than sufficient to meet code. He briefly explained his lease provisions. In response to a question, Dr. Jannelli detailed parking requirements for in-house vehicle services. In order to avoid a parking variance, he requested the board to delete a recommended condition to prohibit parking, display or storage on grass areas or in the rights-of-way, allowing the City Engineering Department final say regarding whether parking and access provisions are satisfactory. Concern was expressed the code for this district does not appear to allow even limited service to one’s own vehicles without conditional use approval. Ms. Dougall-Sides verified that was the Development Code Administrator’s interpretation. Dr. Jannelli complained regarding the manner in which the Community Response Team handled notices of code violations on the site. He noted the inspectors did not issue citations, and therefore should have referred to the incidents they observed as “alleged violations.” Two board members expressed concern the applicant took advantage of the fact he was not cited, and used the 60-day window to continue his business activities without regard to the conditions of approval. One member did not agree, relating typical details of leasing property for commercial uses. Ed Kibbe, property management agent for the DOT, spoke in support of Dr. Jannelli’s application. The DOT will not condone service to any outside vehicles on the site. He said, if the DOT does not fund the construction project within two years, they will have to address lease renewal. In the meantime, the DOT expects the lessee to comply with all codes and laws. In response to questions, Mr. Kibbe said he and his supervisors agree all vehicle sales should take place under the canopy, to present the appearance of an organized business. He had not seen the site plan showing a proposed 56 display area parking stalls. After reviewing the site plan, Mr. Kibbe requested a continuance to review the plan with the applicant. Member Baron moved to continue Item C3, CU 97-03, to the meeting of February 4, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4. Workbench, Inc./Gordon C. Williamson (GreenBenches & More) to permit nightclubs, taverns and bars at 703 Franklin St., Magnolia Park, Blk 11, part of Lots 2, 3, 8 & 9, zoned UC(C)2 (Urban Center(Core). CU 97-04 Mr. Hilton presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to conduct special events and open houses every weekend to promote his existing woodworking business. The applicant would like to have live music and sell beer and wine for on premise consumption during the promotional events. Parking will be provided through a parking lot agreement with the adjacent St. Petersburg Times. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. Gordon “Flash” Williamson, stated he wishes to provide entertainment opportunities downtown, inviting local bands to play music to promote the wood products the builds and sells. He listed the advantages of such a proposal, stating the Pinellas Trail and a restaurant are to be constructed near his building. He wishes to offset the expense of advertising his events with beer and wine sales. In response to questions, Mr. Williamson did not feel he would have a problem with parking, as the St. Pete Time parking lot is always vacant after 5:30 p.m. He verified they have a 15-day notice cancellation clause, but he has maintained a friendly relationship with the neighbors for 15 years and did not feel the parking agreement is at risk. He suggested alternatives if the parking agreement should terminate. Responding to additional questions, he said he can provide two parking spaces plus ten in the alley. He has never operated a beer and wine establishment, his insurance agent has expressed no problems and he is ready to meet the challenge of expanding his business. He has no liquor license, because he will sell only beer and wine. Discussion ensued regarding the parking provision. While concern was expressed failure of the parking agreement could leave the City and the applicant in a bind, it was indicated certain City staff had stated downtown parking for this type of application was not an issue. After researching the code, Mr. Glatthorn agreed, stating the new downtown redevelopment changes provide that any change in use does not require additional parking. Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C4, CU 97-04, 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 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. Sea Stone Ltd. (Sea Stone Resort/Enterprise Leasing Co.) to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage (rental car storage) at 445 Hamden Dr., Columbia Sub Not. 5, Lots 4-11, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). CU 97-05 Mr. Hilton presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is seeking conditional use approval for the existing Sea Stone Hotel to conduct automobile rentals on the hotel site. The applicant proposes to convert one existing hotel room for the auto rental business office. He related parking requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two standard conditions. One letter with three signatures was submitted in opposition, citing concerns the proposal will increase traffic and noise in the area. Discussion ensued regarding the number of parking spaces the applicant must retain for the car rental operation. One members questioned placing the proposal in the outdoor retail sales category. Ms. Dougall-Sides agreed such a use would be more appropriate in the outdoor display category. Mike Edwards and Greg Brosius, the applicant, stated they wish to convert one of the streetside rooms for a car rental office, requiring five parking spaces. He had no problem with staff’s recommended conditions. In response to a question regarding signage, Mr. Edwards said they will have one window sign and no neon. He said car rental offices with neon signs are usually roadside facilities. While the board did not feel it was necessary to add a condition prohibiting neon signs, certain members reiterated they did not want to see a neon sign at the facility. Mr. Brosius agreed they are sensitive to the signage concerns and will comply with City code. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C5, CU 97-05, 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 directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; and 3) The business shall be restricted to car rental. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Discussion 1. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair The floor was opened for nominations for Chairperson. Member Baron nominated Brenda Nixon. Member Merriam nominated Ed Mazur. No additional nominations ensued. Two members voted for Brenda Nixon; four members voted for Ed Mazur. Ed Mazur was declared elected for calendar year 1997. The floor was opened for nominations for Vice Chairperson. Member Baron nominated Brenda Nixon for reelection. No additional nominations ensued. Brenda Nixon was unanimously reelected for calendar year 1997. 2. Annual review of Planning and Zoning Board’s Rules and Regulations Member Mazur discussed his list of suggestions and raised questions regarding: 1) correcting discrepancy between City code and board rules regarding the number of votes required for conditional use approval, and continuance in case of tie votes; 2) review and major amendment to the standards for approval; and 3) the board’s authority regarding landscaping, parking, site lighting requirements, and traffic ingress/egress. Ms. Glatthorn and Mr. Hilton responded the majority of the code governing board procedures and authority is being amended as part of the comprehensive Land Development Code amendment. They suggested focusing discussion on the board’s rules of procedure. Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford will attend the March 4 meeting to discuss conditional use standards for approval. Mr. Mazur opened discussion regarding whether or not to require applicants to submit site plans with the board packets. While most agreed they do not want to critique site plans, it was felt some type of scaled or dimensioned conceptual plan should be required to show proposed layout, and how the proposal relates to its surroundings. Member Mazur asked staff to request and obtain such drawings prior to board consideration of any item. General discussion ensued regarding how to regulate and enforce site lighting until a code amendment is adopted. While some felt site lighting restrictions are vital for public safety, others viewed such restrictions as unnecessary nitpicking. Majority consensus was to remove the requirement for a 90-degree cutoff from the board’s standard site lighting condition, retaining the condition until the site lighting amendment is codified. Most agreed the board does not want to see site lighting as a standard condition of approval. Staff was requested to ensure the Land Development Code amendment is consistent with board rules. Board members continued to offer suggestions for Mr. Mazur to submit to the Land Development Code revision steering committee, as the board’s representative. Discussion resumed regarding rules of procedure regarding: 1) how to better control the amount of time spent of various phases of public discussion; 2) how to effectively close public discussion while allowing opportunity to question applicants when necessary; 3) the practice of allowing applicants to request a deferral when less than a full board is present; 4) filling an officer’s seat when that member’s term as a board member expires before the end of the calendar year; and 5) procedure when the Chair must declare a conflict of interest. Mr. Mazur stated, as Chair, he will run structured meetings in an organized manner. 3. Selection of date for special work session meeting for LDC Review Staff requested the board to tentatively set a special meeting on alternate date, in case the March 4 agenda is too full. Consensus was to tentatively set a special meeting for Wednesday, March 5, at a time and location to be determined. 4. Other Discussion Member Nixon noticed a discrepancy on the memo highlighting the lease agreement for use of Harborview Center meeting rooms for advisory board meetings. While no money is changing hands, she wished to ensure the City receives appropriate credit. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.