Loading...
09/16/1997PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER September 16, 1997 Present: Edward Mazur Chair Brenda Harris Nixon Vice Chair Robert D. Bickerstaffe Board Member Frank Kunnen Board Member Douglas Hilkert (arrived 2:12 p.m.) Board Member Gerald Figurski Board Member Gene Crossley Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn Planning Manager Steve Doherty Zoning Section Supervisor Gwen Legters Board Reporter 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. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Minutes Approval – August 19, 1997 Member Figurski moved to approve the minutes as submitted to each member in writing by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items (cont. from 8/19/97) - 18350 US 19 North, (1) Sec 19-29-16, M&B 44.12 and part of M&B 44.11; and (2) Hampshire Acres, Blk A, Lots 12 & 13 (Gerry Staring, TRE/Rite-On Land Trust, Progressive Development Group, Inc.) A 97-08 ZONE: (1) CH (Highway Commercial) and (2) RS 4 (Single Family Residential) The applicants were not present and were not represented. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. The board considered whether to table the item indefinitely, continue to a date certain, or dismiss due to absence of representation. Staff indicated the City would like to see the annexation take place. One member requested continuing the item again, readvertising at the City’s expense, to enable the board to learn more about the proposed intergovernmental sewer service agreement. Staff concurred. One member would not endorse the item without applicant representation, due to the opposition expressed by neighbors at the previous hearing. Consensus, due to the request by the applicant for continuance, was to continue the item to October 21, dismissing it if the applicants are not represented. Staff was requested to contact the applicants and ensure they understand they must be present or represented. Member Kunnen moved to continue Item B1, A 9708 to October 21, 1997. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. (cont. from 8/19/97) - Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc./Betty Jones/Joyce Silver to permit noncommercial parking at 710 N. Myrtle Ave., R.H. Padgetts Sub, Blk 1, Lots 5 & 6 less St.; Blk 2, Lots 1 & 2; and part of proposed vacated Alden Ave., zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). CU 97-34 Members Mazur and Crossley declared conflicts of interest with regard to this case. The applicants were advised a positive vote of the four remaining members was required for approval. The applicants chose to proceed. Emil C. Marquardt, attorney representing the applicants, stated the proposal was modified to satisfactorily address concerns expressed by members of an adjacent church. The hospital has agreed to acquire the parcel to which the church has referred as its parsonage, demolish the existing structure and convert the lot to hospital parking the church will be allowed to use after hours. The church has agreed to the proposal, and understand the structure’s occupants may remain for six months. Mr. Marquardt requested removal of staff’s recommended condition #3 regarding unity of title. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item B2, CU 97-34 subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license for the proposed development within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) As required by the supplementary stands for this use, 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; 3) A unity of title declaration shall be filed unifying the subject property and the property for which this parking lot is intended to support; 4) The right-of-way for Alden Avenue shall be vacated prior to issuance of a building permit for this parking lot; and 5) Prior to issuance of a permit for the proposed development, the applicant shall obtain a variance to the 60 foot maximum requirement for right-of-way separating a required parking lot from the adjacent property which the parking lot is intended to support. The motion was duly seconded. Members Nixon, Bickerstaffe, Kunnen and Figurski voted “Aye”, Members Mazur and Crossley abstained. Motion carried. Member Hilkert arrived at 2:12 p.m. C. Conditional Uses Arturo S. & Norma V. Anover (Anover’s TLC Home) to permit Level I group care at 804 S. Belcher Rd., University Park, Unit 1, part of Lot 14, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). CU 97-48 Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is seeking conditional use approval to increase capacity from six to eight cared-for residents in an existing group care home. Conditions support the request and staff recommended approval with three conditions, including a condition to add one parking space. Discussion ensued regarding parking code requirements. Staff will research through the Traffic Engineering Department whether parking requirements differ for established group homes. Norma Anover, the owner/applicant, authorized Mrs. Lazaro as representative. Mrs. Lazaro related Mrs. Anover’s experience, licensure, and living conditions in the four bedroom, three bathroom home group home. Having two additional clients will help pay expenses. Four photographs submitted in support of the request showed interior and exterior views of the existing facility. No verbal or written support was expressed. Two nearby residents expressed concerns with the City’s public hearing notification process, and questioned: 1) previous parking code violations, 2) clarification of residency, 3) whether structural modifications have been or will be done to accommodate the two new clients, 4) why neighbors were not informed when the facility was approved for six clients, and 5) commercial signage in a residential neighborhood. Concern was expressed physically and mentally disabled people have been found sleeping and loitering on neighboring properties. One letter from a nearby property owner cited similar concerns. In response to concerns, it was indicated the existing use was established in accordance with State law, without requirement for a public hearing. The Planning and Zoning Board had no jurisdiction. Signs meeting size requirements are allowed on residential properties, but the City may not regulate the message of such signage. Mrs. Lazaro stated no mental health patients will reside in the facility because the applicant does not have the required license. Proposed staffing and residency were clarified. The facility will meet HRS guidelines. Two residents will occupy each bedroom. A concern was expressed requiring additional parking would be detrimental to neighborhood aesthetics by giving the home’s facade a commercial appearance. It was indicated staff should enforce code requirements without the Planning and Zoning Board imposing conditions regarding issues over which the board has no jurisdiction. In response to a question, it was indicated the two car garage has been converted to two bedrooms and one bath. It was felt the location on a major thoroughfare is suitable and appropriate for the use. No evidence was submitted to indicate addition of two residents would be detrimental or that the applicant could not handle such an increase. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C1, CU 9748 subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration license within six months of the date of this public hearing; and 2) The applicant’s city occupational license shall be upgraded to reflect a maximum capacity of eight residents within six months of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Drew Master Center, Inc./Dan Gallagher (Nuthouse Sports Pub) to permit nightclubs, taverns and bars (change of business ownership) at 2140 Drew St., Mosell Acres, part of Lots 2 & 3, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 97-49 Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations for the change of use application. Conditions support the request and staff recommended approval with three conditions. Separation distance from a storefront church in the retail complex does not apply as the church is a non-conforming use established without City approval. Dan Gallagher, the owner/applicant, stated he purchased the existing sports pub to supplement his income after his 16-year position with a medical device manufacturer was downsized. His research revealed the business has been well run and has no record of disturbances originating from the establishment. He spoke with the church and found they are using the storefront as a temporary location for about a year while they build a larger facility. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Figurski moved to approve Item C2, CU 97-49, subject to the following conditions:  1) The applicant shall transfer the ownership of the State of Florida alcoholic beverage license within 90 days of this public hearing; 2) The requisite occupational license shall be obtained within 6 months of the date of this public hearing; and 3) The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to consumption on premises only with no package sales. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. University High Equity Real Estate Fund-11/Jean F. Shelling, TRE/TM Clearwater Realty, Ltd. (Lowe’s) to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage at 26990 US 19, Sec 30-28-16, M&B’s 31.03, 31.04, and part of 31.02, zoned CC (Commercial Center). CU 97-50 Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to redevelop an existing shopping center with a new building materials and appliance sales company and garden center. He detailed the proposal to acquire and demolish 114,300 square feet of an existing shopping center, bringing parking, landscaping, and retention to code. Variance requirements, site configuration, orientation, access, outdoor storage requirements, aesthetics, zoning, and established character of the surroundings were discussed. Since the building fronts on Enterprise Road and US 19, staff strongly encouraged aesthetic architectural treatments and signage on both sides for a significant positive contribution to one of Clearwater’s most attractive thoroughfares. Staff recommended approval with seven conditions. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) granted three variances to fence height and setbacks. Concerns were expressed with the recommended conditions of approval. It was felt the Planning and Zoning Board should not be asked to condition approval upon aesthetic treatments or retention fencing not required by code. Discussion ensued regarding the Development Review Committee’s (DRC) role in the redevelopment process. Staff responded to questions regarding parking lot dimensional and landscaping requirements, size of the proposed outdoor retail sales, display and storage areas, required sidewalk width, size of pedestrian loading zones, and motor freight receiving areas. Several board members felt it was vital to specify the exact size, configuration, and location of the outdoor use areas, to avoid having the applicants return for clarification. Steven J. Henry, with the engineering firm representing the applicant, and Attorney Ed Armstrong appeared to present the request. Mr. Armstrong detailed the proposal to completely redevelop the area south of the existing K-Mart store on the 14-acre site located southwest of the State Road 580 and US 19 intersection. Elevation views and colored site plans were displayed. Discussion ensued regarding existing configuration, proposed demolition, and reconfiguration. Mr. Armstrong noted conditions in the surrounding area are not particularly scenic. He reviewed the recommended conditions of approval, asking that any condition regarding aesthetic exterior treatments use verbiage similar to DCAB’s condition, to “…carefully evaluate the architecture and landscaping to ensure a pleasant view of this property from Enterprise Road.” He requested clarification of a condition specifying the width of outdoor storage area between the sidewalk and building front. He commented editorially that sometimes conditions are recommended that have nothing to do with the request. He indicated such requirements should be made a part of the code and enforced City-wide rather than piecemeal. Mr. Henry is working with staff regarding site access, internal circulation, increased landscaping, and retention to meet City redevelopment criteria. He asked that the condition to avoid retention fencing remain flexible in case insurance liability concerns surface. Discussion ensued regarding layout of Lowe’s in relation to the overall shopping center, location of the loading dock and pedestrian areas, and importance of landscaping that will thrive and be attractive 20 to 30 years in the future. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding size, configuration, and exact locations of pedestrian sidewalks, outdoor display, storage, fire lanes, and loading areas. Board members felt it was important to establish consistency with other large home and garden center uses. Concerns were expressed that outdoor pedestrian areas should be wide enough to avoid having pedestrians forced off sidewalks by customers transporting unwieldy loads of building materials on large utility carts. Discussion ensued regarding the need for clear pavement markings delineating outdoor storage and loading areas to maintain vehicle maneuverability, pedestrian safety, required parking, to avoid outdoor storage abuse and clutter, while encouraging aesthetics. Discussion ensued regarding the board’s authority to address outdoor retail sales, display and storage areas as established by City code general and supplementary standards of approval. Concerns were expressed with inadequacy of the plans submitted, and the board not having been given specific dimensions upon which to base their decision. Board discussion ensued regarding language for conditions of approval. Member Hilkert moved to approve Item C3, CU 9750, subject to the following conditions: 1) A site plan shall be certified within six months of the date of this public hearing; 2) Either a Unity of Title Declaration or a certification of preliminary plat shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit; 3) The requisite building permit shall be obtained within one year of the date of this public hearing; and 4) The outdoor retail sales, displays, and/or storage shall be limited to: a) the fenced-in garden center, b) the fenced-in northwest storage area, c) The applicant shall reserve a six foot wide continuous pedestrian thoroughfare on the east side of the building. The area from the sidewalk west to the building facade may be used for outdoor display/storage. All such display/storage areas shall be clearly depicted on the requisite certified site plan for this development; d) The applicant shall be allowed to have outdoor display/storage in the parking spaces immediately south of the garden center as shaded on the site plan. Discussion ensued regarding the motion. Concerns were reiterated 1) failure to limit width of front outdoor storage area would not be attractive and would not promote pedestrian safety, and 2) failure to designate a freight unloading area would allow unrestricted storage in required parking spaces at the rear. Upon the vote being taken, Members Bickerstaffe, Kunnen, Hilkert, Figurski, and Crossley voted, “Aye”; Members Mazur and Nixon voted “Nay” Motion carried. Glen T. Warren/Dale R. Warren/William C. Klingensmith (The Macs Group) to permit manufacturing at 807 Park St., Tack & Warren, Lot 7, zoned UC[C] (Urban Center Core). CU 97-51 Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations. Charles Macone, proprietorship owner, proposed expanding the existing art studio to allow on-site custom furniture manufacture and finishing. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Figurski moved to approve Item C4, CU 95-51, subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite building permit shall be obtained within six months of the date of this public hearing; and 2) The requisite certificate of occupancy and occupational license shall be obtained within one year of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Comments Member Mazur expressed concern that staff, in the interest of being helpful to developers and development, sometimes accepts inadequate documentation for presentation to the board. Discussion ensued regarding preliminary versus conceptual site plans, and DRC submittal requirements. Several members stressed the need for consistency in required sidewalk widths for similar developments. Member Figurski agreed such requirements should be fixed in the code. He expressed concern debating aesthetics gets into the area of “whim and caprice.” He stated a condition of approval should never state, “if feasible.” Member Nixon concurred with establishment of standard sidewalk and outdoor storage widths in front of home improvement centers. Member Bickerstaffe stated he wants to see standard 10 to 12 foot sidewalk width. Member Hilkert explained his reasoning for stating the motion to approve Item C3, above, with regard to sidewalk width and storage area. Member Crossley agreed the plans in Item C3 were not as up to date as they should have been if concessions had been made at previous meetings. He noted the shading and key were confusing and the revised plan displayed was different from what was submitted for board review. Member Figurski reported he will not be able to attend the first meeting in October. Member Kunnen cited a need to recognize the growing market for mixed and multiple uses when deciding conditional use requests and writing codes to promote economic development. Member Nixon raised a question and discussion ensued regarding disposition of agenda packs after hearings. Member Nixon suggested changing the public hearing notice mailing schedule to notify surrounding homeowners within 7 to 10 working days of a hearing. Members Crossley and Mazur supported extending the mailing lead time to give people in the surrounding neighborhood enough notice to investigate and research proposals in their area. Ms. Glatthorn listed the intensive staff research and background work necessary to bring each item to the board. She said application submission deadlines could be moved back, but expressed concern it would not be business friendly to impose more time constraints on applicants. Member Kunnen felt receipt of notice seven days prior was sufficient, if it was done consistently. Staff will investigate whether the mailing process can be changed administratively, or if a code amendment is needed. Referring to Item C1, above, Member Nixon expressed concern with conversion of a garages into bedrooms to accommodate extra persons in a group home. She felt the resulting loss of parking spaces and subsequent parking in front of properties deteriorates neighborhood character and devalues property. She requested staff to investigate whether the new code can address not allowing garage conversions to accommodate group home uses. Member Figurski was not concerned with parking conditions at group homes, but expressed concern with the apparently small amount of square footage allowed for the number of residents. He asked staff to determine whether area requirements are set by the City or HRS. Member Nixon reported she received positive input from C-View TV viewers regarding the manner in which the public was advised of what was happening in the room during the meetings she chaired. She thanked those responsible for correcting the noisy air conditioning system in City Commission chambers. Concerns were expressed with the amount of time it takes for staff to read verbatim from staff reports. Staff was asked to summarize the main points of their presentations, allowing the board to ask questions if clarification is needed. Concern was expressed a brief summary would not adequately inform the viewing public of the issues being addressed. Mr. Hilkert looks forward to the new Land Development Code, stating it is unconscionable to require applicants to attend three or more different board meetings to get their development proposals approved. Examples were cited. He did not favor automatic, or “standard” conditions of approval when not needed. Member Nixon expressed concern she is still blinded by lights shining into the street, creating a safety hazard at certain locations. Member Mazur requested a legal opinion at the next meeting regarding whether the board should allow outdoor storage in required parking spaces. He expressed concern with the board allowing an activity that Code Enforcement could cite as a violation. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted code requirements would take precedence over the board’s conditions of approval. Concern was expressed with the manner in which Item C3 was handled, compared to the hours of discussion taken to ensure Home Depot’s outdoor storage did not encroach into required parking spaces. It was indicated a cross parking arrangement was involved in the Home Depot case. Ms. Glatthorn will get clarification. Member Kunnen referred to the variety of mixed uses on his industrial property, and requested information regarding the allowed number and duration of temporary use permits that can be obtained in one year. Ms. Glatthorn responded 14 days per year, per property, is the maximum cumulative number. Special sales shall not be approved on properties principally used for retail sales during Thanksgiving and Christmas. Member Kunnen requested staff to look into making the code more business friendly on this subject. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m.