Loading...
06/03/1997PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER June 3, 1997 Present: Edward Mazur Brenda Harris Nixon Robert D. Bickerstaffe Frank Kunnen Douglas Hilkert Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member   Leslie Dougall-Sides Sandy Glatthorn Gwen Legters Assistant City Attorney Planning Manager Board Reporter   Absent: Kemper Merriam (resigned) Bernie Baron Board Member Board Member   The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, meeting procedures and the appeal process. Conditional use applicants were advised an affirmative vote of four of the five members present is required for approval. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Minutes Approval -- May 20, 1997 Member Hilkert requested correction of a typographical error in the last paragraph on page 5. He requested amendment of a word in the last paragraph on page 8, changing “drive” to “drivein”; and deletion of the word “something” in the motion on page 10. Member Hilkert moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items B1. Time Extension - The Salvation Army (Homeless Shelter) to permit residential shelter at 900 Pierce St., Coachman Heights Revised, Blk A, part of Lots 3 & 4 less street, zoned UC (E) (Urban Center (Eastern Corridor) District). CU 96-01 In a letter dated April 17, 1997, the applicants requested an 18-month extension of conditional use approval for the temporary residential shelter due to construction delays on the permanent CHIPS facility. Staff recommended approval. Member Kunnen moved to approve an 18 month time extension to January 9, 1999. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Conditional Uses C1. John N. Shropshire (Gulf to Bay Diagnostic) to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage at 1420 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Knollwood Replat, Blk 3, Lots 2, 19, and part of Lot 3, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 97-29 Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to place a mobile MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) facility behind a doctor’s office on the subject property. Concerns have been expressed with the safety of the electromagnetic field for the residents of the adjacent apartment units. The applicant recently submitted a packet of supplemental information regarding the MRI equipment. Staff recommends continuance of this item to provide adequate time for staff to review the new information and for the applicant to fully address the compatibility issues. Dr. Robert Jackson, the applicant, stated the unit is safe. While it will erase magnetic strips on credit cards and cassette tapes within five feet of the unit, he works around it every day. An engineer from Health Images, Inc. tested the readings around the perimeter and found them to be below the maximum readings recommended by General Electric. Dr. Jackson said he rented the adjacent residential unit to avoid having the magnet impair television pictures and computer monitor displays. Discussion ensued regarding maintenance of the equipment; frequency of use; other agency inspections and approvals; why the residential unit must be vacant; and power supply for the facility. Member Kunnen moved to continue Item C1 to the meeting of July 1, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2. DuChap Company/Keith A. Lawes (Twisted Grape Wine & Cigar Bar) to permit nightclubs, taverns and bars and to permit package sales of beer and wine (new license) at 2570 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 14.10, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). CU 97-30 Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to redevelop the site of a former used car sales business with a nightclub with package beer and wine sales. She detailed code requirements; surrounding uses; site considerations; and future plans for the site. Staff supported the proposal because it will improve the appearance of the property and should not negatively impact its surroundings. Staff recommended approval with four conditions. One member requested addition of the site lighting condition, stating two halogen lights are currently shining into the road instead of lighting the property. Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, detailed traffic access and circulation on the site and how the existing building will be remodeled for the new use. The applicants may return with a request for a deck after parking issues are addressed. He understood and agreed with the conditions recommended by staff. No verbal support or opposition was expressed. One letter was submitted citing concerns the proposal will negatively impact a church located within 500 feet of the subject property. Member Nixon moved to approve Item C2, CU 97-30, as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1)  The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within 6 months of the date of this public hearing; 2) The applicant shall provide Environmental Management with a copy of the Contamination Assessment Report prior to issuance of a building permit and all further related correspondence shall be forwarded to the Environmental Group; 3) All package sales of alcoholic beverages shall be sold and displayed in an area separate from the proposed lounge area; 4) No outdoor speakers or entertainment shall be permitted; and 5) All site lighting shall be directed away from street rights-of-way and adjoining residential properties. The motion was duly seconded. Two members expressed concerns with approving a nightclub on a property that had no history of nightclub use. While the proposed business is not likely to seriously impact the surroundings, strong concern was expressed with the potential negative impact of a more intensive nightclub use once a precedent is set at this location. Discussion ensued regarding an amendment to the motion, limiting approval to the proposal as submitted. Some board members did not agree, stating an expanded nightclub use not would pose a problem at this location. One member stressed the need for a clear definition of nightclubs/taverns and bars in the new code. Member Hilkert moved to amend the motion on the floor to add a sixth condition that approval is limited to the operation of a wine and cigar bar with package sales of beer and wine, as described in the applicant’s presentation. The motion was duly seconded. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the number of votes needed to amend a motion due to having only five members present. Upon the vote being taken, Members Kunnen and Hilkert voted “Aye”; Members Mazur, Nixon and Bickerstaffe voted “Nay.” Motion to amend failed. Upon the vote being taken on the motion on the floor, Members Mazur, Nixon, and Bickerstaffe voted "Aye"; Members Kunnen and Hilkert voted "Nay." Motion failed. It was felt to be a disservice to the applicant to base denial on speculation of a future use, when the board had favored the application as submitted. Lengthy discussion ensued before consensus was reached regarding appropriate language for a new motion. Mr. Fowler stated for the record it is not the applicant’s intent to expand to a full-blown nightclub, but to have live entertainment such as a small jazz band on weekends. He noted the proposed business suffers from a quirk in the code that places such a proposal in the nightclub category. Member Hilkert moved approval as above, adding a sixth condition restricting conversion to a more intensive use without board approval. The motion was seconded, but some members were not satisfied with the sixth condition and discussion resumed. Member Hilkert withdrew the motion. He requested a five minute recess to allow time to draft language for a new motion. Member Nixon moved approval of the proposal as submitted, subject to the original five conditions, and an explanation nothing further is needed to restrict the applicant from increasing the use without coming back before the board. After additional discussion, a motion to call the question failed. The meeting recessed from 3:09 to 3:14 p.m. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said staff would have more enforcement power if the motion stated approval is limited to the type of use specified in the application and shall not expand without further board approval. Unanimous consensus was to add such language as condition #6. The motion was restated as follows: Member Nixon moved to approve Item C2, CU 97-30, as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1)  The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within 6 months of the date of this public hearing; 2) The applicant shall provide Environmental Management with a copy of the Contamination Assessment Report prior to issuance of a building permit and all further related correspondence shall be forwarded to the Environmental Group; 3) All package sales of alcoholic beverages shall be sold and displayed in an area separate from the proposed lounge area; 4) No outdoor speakers or entertainment shall be permitted; 5) All site lighting shall be directed away from street rights-of-way and adjoining residential properties; and 6) Approval is limited to the type of use specified in the application and shall not expand without further approval before the board. 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. 3127 John’s Parkway, John’s parkway Sub, Lot 5 (Louis P. & Marian C. Ange) A 97-05 ZONE: RS 8 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Udoh presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of annexation to obtain City sewer service. Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item D1 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D2. 1309-1315 Springdale St., Pine Ridge Sub, Blk D, Lots 6 & 7 (Nicholas, Christopher, Steven, & Bill Koulouvaris) A 97-06 ZONE: CI (Infill Commercial) Mr. Udoh presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of annexation to bring all the applicants’ properties in the area into the City. Member Hilkert moved to endorse Item D2 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D3. 1005 Howard Ave., Belmont Sub 2nd Add., Blk F, Lots 5-8, less the South 10 ft thereof. (Young’s Funeral Home/Robert C. Young) Z 97-04; LUP 97-03 LUP: From Residential Urban to Residential/Office General ZONE; From RM 8 (Multi-Family Residential) to OL (Limited Office) Mr. Udoh presented written background information, stating the applicant has acquired four adjacent lots to facilitate expansion of an existing business. Staff recommended endorsement as the business serves an important service function and is consistent with adjacent land uses. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said a discrepancy in the paperwork regarding the street name will not require readvertisement if the legal description is correct. Alex Plisko, architect representing the applicant, stated it is necessary for the owner to expand the chapel; update the business office and restrooms and meet ADA requirements. Construction will not extend onto the four lots to the south. The land is needed for additional parking and stormwater detention as a result of the increased floor area ratio. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item D3 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D4. 2600-2636 West Grand Reserve Cir. & 2701-2718 East Grand Reserve Cir., Storz Ophthalmics, Inc. Park Place, Lots 2 & 3. (The Grand Reserve at Park Place Limited Partnership) LUP 97-04 LUP: From Residential/Office/Retail & Residential/Office General to Residential Medium & Preservation. It was indicated site plan approval was conditioned upon obtaining this land use plan amendment prior to final certificate of occupancy. This item was withheld by staff until the applicant completes the final building project. No action was taken. D5. 1112-1114 Engman St. (1)Greenwood Park #2, Blk D, the east 20 ft of Lot 39 and Lot 40; and (2) Greenwood Park #2, Blk D, the west 20 ft of Lot 39. (Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. & Charles Rutledge, TRE) Z 97-05; LUP 97-05 LUP: From Institutional to Residential Medium ZONE: From P/SP (Public/SemiPublic) to RM 12 (Multi Family Residential) Mr. Udoh presented written background information, stating the applicant is requesting the rezoning to construct new infill single-family houses. He detailed code requirements, surrounding land uses, and site considerations. Approval will allow the applicants flexibility and space to create a development project with a positive impact on the City. Staff recommended endorsement as the proposal would be consistent with the use and character of the area. E.J. Robinson, spokesperson for Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, said the lots have remained vacant because of their size. He explained the proposal to combine three small lots to create two more spacious lots. He said one home has sold and it is hoped the other will sell soon. Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item #5 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments Planet Bubba Conditions Discussion ensued regarding the City Commission’s decision to overturn the Planning and Zoning board denial of Planet Bubba’s conditional use. Ms. Nixon noted it is not usually scheduled activities that cause problems at nightclubs, but the associated activities that result in violations. She asked that the City Commission be apprised of the need for retaining this phrase in the conditions of approval. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded to questions regarding a trial period, negotiations regarding the parking easement, and compliance with the remaining conditions of approval. Member Bickerstaffe requested concentrating on the issues before the board. He felt adding so many details to each discussion causes the board to lose track of the primary issue. Discussion ensued regarding the applicant having withdrawn CU 97-22 for the Quaker State application, above. Mr. Mazur said he had contacted the client and was told withdrawal of the item had nothing to do with delays resulting from City or board procedure. Ms. Nixon concurred she had received similar information. Mr. Bickerstaffe expressed concern with the billboard having figured into the applicants’ signage when it had nothing to do with the business. Mr. Kunnen expressed concern with board members having contact with applicants without notifying the other members. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.