11/18/1997PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
November 18, 1997
Present: Edward Mazur Chair
Robert D. Bickerstaffe Board Member
Frank Kunnen Board Member
Douglas Hilkert Board Member
Gerald Figurski Board Member
Vacant Seat Board Member
Tony Shoemaker Interim Central Permitting Director
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn Planning Manager
Steve Doherty Zoning Section Supervisor
Gwen Legters Board Reporter
Absent: Brenda Harris Nixon Vice Chair
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 – October 21, 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
B1. (cont. from 10/21 & 11/4/97) Campbell Land Company to permit (1) vehicle sales, (2) vehicle service, and (3) outdoor retail sales, displays, and/or storage at 1600 Sunshine Dr, Sec
12-29-15, M&B 12.01, zoned IL (Limited Industrial). CU 97-61
This item was continued from two previous meetings for the applicant to submit a site plan adequate to address the issues. The Encore Vehicles, Inc. business refurbishes vehicles for
resale to automotive dealerships as a permitted use. The conditional use is needed to allow the applicant to sell the remanufactured vehicles on site and perform occasional car repairs
within the building. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with two conditions.
Max G. Battle, representing the property owner, related history of the property’s use and zoning. He expressed concern this request has been delayed twice due to confusion regarding
whether the use is grandfathered for the property. He stated the owner has no problem with staff’s recommended conditions, with clarifications. He felt a time limit for obtaining the
occupational license should not be imposed on the conditional use requested by the property owner because the occupational license is the tenant’s responsibility. He requested clarification
of the landscaping in condition #2. He stated the applicant will plant landscaping materials
outside the fence in conformance with City code with regard to species, size and spacing. The plants will be allowed to grow and become an integral part of the chain link fence to screen
and beautify Sunshine Drive.
In response to questions, Mr. Doherty and Ms. Glatthorn explained code requirements for landscaping along the fence line and around the storage area, stating it is hoped the shrubbery
will be allowed to grow to six feet in height to screen the stacked vehicles. In response to a question, Mr. Battle said the property owner can ensure, through lease provisions, that
the tenant complies with the maximum stacked vehicle height requirement. Discussion ensued regarding parking, ingress, supplementary regulations for landscaping design along the right-of-way,
and whether there is adequate space to plant a tree along the entrance drive. Mr. Battle understood the City Engineer must approve the landscaping plan.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Discussion ensued regarding the request with concerns being expressed that abundant landscaping should not be needed at this location within an industrial park.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item B1, deleting staff’s recommended condition #1 requiring occupational license acquisition within six months. There was no second.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item B1, amending condition #1 to indicate the tenant must obtain the occupational license; amending condition #2 regarding landscaping to delete the width
requirement and add a minimum six foot height requirement; and adding a third condition. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding shrubbery requirements, whether the Planning and Zoning
Board may impose conditions on tenants, and whether the tenant should be required to extend the hedge along the entire length of the property. As discussion progressed, Member Kunnen
explored several amendments to his motion.
One member questioned legal basis for conditioning approval to require a continuous landscaping buffer, expressing concern applicants should not be required to exceed code requirements
simply because they are willing to do so. Mr. Shoemaker explained a City Commission goal is to beautify the community as much as possible. When applicants are willing to exceed minimum
standards, it is encouraged and a recommendation is forwarded to the board. One member felt encouragement should not be put in the form of a condition which becomes a requirement.
Mr. Battle said the property owner supports leaving the landscaping provisions in the form of a condition to facilitate enforcement of his lease agreement. Ms. Glatthorn clarified providing
parking along the property line requires meeting the landscaping code. If the applicant chooses to move parking away from the property line, landscape buffering requirements will not
apply. In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides stated the conditional use runs with the property, not the tenant.
Member Kunnen amended to motion on the floor to retain condition #1 as recommended by staff, amending condition #2 with regard to the vehicles stored on the southeast side of the property.
The motion was duly seconded. Members Bickerstaffe, Kunnen, and Hilkert and voted “Aye;” Members Mazur and Figurski voted “Nay.” Motion failed as four affirmative votes are needed
for conditional use approval.
Member Figurski moved to approve Item B1 subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall ensure the requisite occupational license for any uses on the property shall be
obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; and 2) The vehicles stored on the southeast side of the property may be stacked no higher than six feet high and shall
be screened from view by a minimum three foot wide landscaping strip, subject to approval by the City Engineer for areas within the rights-of-way, within six months from the date of
this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. Conditional Uses
C1. Raymond P. Cassano (Willow Garden U.B.O. dba Auto Services & Arc Rent-a-Car) to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and /or storage and vehicle service at 200 N Ft Harrison Ave,
Hayden’s Estate Revised, Lot 1 and part of Lot 4 and ½ vac alley, zoned UC[C] (Urban Center Core). CU 97-66
Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, listing staff’s recommendations for meeting code as part of the staff report. The applicant wishes
to conduct a car rental business, aesthetically improving the property with a new facade, new parking layout, and landscaping improvements. Staff felt conditions support the request
and recommended approval with one condition.
Michael Ratcliff, representing the applicant, stated the former gas station site has been an eyesore for a long time. The aesthetic improvements will mirror the 1950’s vintage design
of the Checkers restaurant across the street. He detailed traffic access, landscaping, and parking requirements.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C1, subject to the condition 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 90 days from the date of this public hearing.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. Tone 40 Ltd. (Dynamic Reproductions) to permit manufacturing and wholesaling/distributing at 639 Cleveland St, Magnolia Park, Blk 20, Lot 13 and part of Lot 2, zoned UC[C] (Urban
Center Core). CU 97-67
Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, listing staff’s recommendations for meeting code as part of the staff report. The applicant wishes
to conduct Dynamic Reproductions, a cassette tape reproduction business with wholesaling and distribution. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with one
condition. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn said code requires no additional parking for this downtown property.
Richard Tinkelenberg, representing the applicant, stated the proposal will have no impact on parking, as the site contains adequate parking for the only two people associated with the
business. The facility will produce copies of audiocassette tapes with no retail sales, noise, pollution, or any other adverse impact.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One citizen questioned whether manufacturing was appropriate in the downtown area, and how approval could impact someone
else asking for a similar use. Ms. Glatthorn responded other light manufacturing uses exist in downtown Clearwater.
Member Figurski moved to approve Item C2 as requested, subject to the condition 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 90 days from the date of this
public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C3. Jami Al Salam, Inc. to permit vehicle sales and vehicle service at 1331 Cleveland St, Revised Plat of Brookwood Terrace, Blk 6, Lots 3-8 and part of Lots 1, 2, 9-13 and ½ vac street,
zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 97-68
Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations, listing staff’s recommendations for meeting code as part of the staff report. The applicant wishes to
add vehicle service and outdoor retail sales to his existing indoor retail vehicle sales business. Parking lot restriping and landscaping requirements were discussed. Staff felt conditions
support the request and recommended approval with two conditions.
In response to questions, Mr. Doherty said the site lighting condition is part of the code’s general standards for outdoor vehicle sales, for any new lighting. He acknowledged the
site plan and application contain different versions of the site layout. Staff will work with the applicant on any small adjustments to ensure requirements are met and the applicant
is satisfied. Discussion ensued regarding the maximum number of vehicles allowed for display, parking requirements and site constraints. It was indicated handicapped parking is not
marked on the site. The large scale plan is only being used as an illustration of a potential parking layout, and the smaller of the two plans will prevail.
Don McFarland, representing Victor Nicci, stated a contract for sale of the property to his client is in progress. The property has always been an auto sales/service facility. He has
discussed with the City Engineer site conditions and landscaping the west side of the property. There is no intention of lighting the property above what already exists. He agreed
with staff’s recommended conditions.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C3 as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 90 days from the date
of this public hearing; and 2) All proposed site lighting shall be directed downward, away from street rights-of-way and other properties. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C4. Dominick A. & Karin S. Lentricchia (Pagano Auto Detail) to permit vehicle service (paint and auto body) at 1200 N Myrtle Ave, First Addition to Palm Bluff, part of Lot 17, together
with Enghurst Addition, Lots 33-36, zoned CI (Infill Commercial). CU 97-69
Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations, listing staff’s recommendations for meeting code as part of the staff report. The applicant wishes to
establish Pagano Auto Detail, a paint and body shop, in conjunction with an existing vehicle use. Paint and body work was prohibited by condition #4 of a previous conditional use approval
on December 13, 1994. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with the December 13 conditions less #4, plus a new condition requiring the paint and body shop
occupational license within six months. Discussion ensued regarding the need to obtain an additional occupational license for the paint and body work.
Sam Pagano, Jr., the business owner, stated he has been in the body shop business in Clearwater for more than 20 years. He must move due to losing the lease at his former location.
He will purchase the property instead of leasing so he can remain in the area. He agreed with staff’s recommended conditions, and understood the amount of work that will be needed
to bring the property up to code.
No verbal or written opposition was expressed. One adjacent commercial property owner encouraged the board to do everything possible to bring business into the area. He asked for
reconsideration regarding the recommended hours of operation, and welcomed any site lighting spilling onto his property to discourage crime in the area. It was indicated the hours of
operation are more generous than the applicant requested.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C4 as requested, subject to conditions #1#3 and #5#8 imposed December 13, 1994 as follows: 1) The requisite occupational license shall be
obtained within six months following the date of this public hearing; 2) The applicant shall meet all supplementary conditions of approval for vehicle service as provided in Section
41.053(30) of the City Land Development Code; 3) There shall be no outdoor service or storage; 5) The site shall meet all Sanitation Division requirements at all times; 6) All parts,
used tires and other materials used in the conduct of the business shall be stored indoors; 7) No vehicle service shall be conducted between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Mondays
through Saturdays and all day on Sundays; and 8) All site lighting shall be directed away from adjoining residential properties; PLUS the following new condition: #9) The applicant
shall secure the requisite building permit and occupational license within 6 months of the date of this public hearing for the proposed paint and body shop. 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. #1 North McMullen Booth Road, Sec. 16-29-16, M&B’s 21.16, 21.17, & 21.18. (Bricks Management & Real Estate Development) Z 97-09
ZONE: From RPD 5.8 to RPD 7.5 (Residential Planned Development)
Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations. The applicant is requesting a zoning change which will involve substantial revisions to a site plan
certified in 1987. The applicant proposes to rezone and replat vacant lots for fee simple townhouses located on the west corner of Bayshore Boulevard and John’s Parkway. The proposed
rezoning to RPD (Residential Planned Development) would enable construction of 68 townhouse units. Staff recommended endorsement to the City Commission of the proposed concept Plan
and zoning Atlas Amendment as requested. In response to questions, it was indicated and RPD requires submission of a concept plan to the City Commission, and a certified site plan to
the DRC (Development Review Committee.) The concept plan has undergone courtesy DRC review, and will guide what goes before the DRC in the future. A 24-foot private access easement
is under review by the Engineering Department.
Marcus Vernon, prospective purchaser representing the applicant, questioned why testimony is not sworn for rezoning cases. Ms. Dougall-Sides clarified this hearing is not quasi-judicial,
but is for the purpose of obtaining the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation to the City Commission. For the record, Mr. Vernon objected to the absence of sworn testimony, feeling
the item should be handled as a formal quasi-judicial hearing according to the Snyder case. He said the neighbors wish to raised a number of issues which he will address in rebuttal,
if necessary and relevant. In response to questions, Mr. Vernon addressed the nature of vested rights on the property, outlined the reasons for increasing density from 5.8 to 7.5 units
per acre, and submitted copies of the preliminary site plan. He detailed proposed cleaning of preservation and jurisdictional wetland areas, creation of upland wildlife habitats, conservation
easement and preservation zoning, incorporation of the proposed 68 townhouse units, and mitigation of drainage problems. Mr. Vernon responded to questions regarding the extent of the
preservation area in relation to the roadway. He stated the economic benefit of 68 units will offset the expense of making the necessary environmental improvements to allow the units.
He explained how he proposes to create an upland habitat, reestablishing the mangrove stand. The current plan was compared to the previous plan and discussion ensued regarding the
proposed encroachment into the wetlands. In response to a concern about addressing water quality, Mr. Vernon explained at length the problems involved in co-mingling treated and untreated
stormwater runoff. Percolation ponds were proposed as an alternative, but the location of such a pond is not known.
No verbal or written support was expressed. Attorney Patrick Maguire, representing several nearby land owners, and contractor David Fellows objected to the item. Concerns were expressed
the proposal represents serious overdevelopment of the property, the preliminary site plan is not accurate, and increased density is not a valid reason for requesting rezoning. Mr.
Maguire requested continuance of the item to ensure information submitted to the board is correct. Mr. Fellows displayed a US Geological Survey map, demonstrating at length inconsistencies
on the applicant’s preliminary site plan. He expressed concerns regarding drainage systems, erosion, soil condition, and retention. Concern was expressed staff recommended approval
and the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed the previous application without being shown the reality of site conditions. Mr. Maguire wished to demonstrate inaccuracies in the application
that need to be addressed before the request is acted upon. He related density calculations, stating increased density will not enhance the environmental aspect of the property, nor
be consistent with the overall Comprehensive Plan.
Seven nearby residents spoke in opposition to the proposal, expressing concerns with increased traffic impacts, increased stormwater runoff, flooding, increased density in an already
crowded area, compromising neighborhood integrity, aesthetics and scale of the new buildings, and negative impacts on view and wildlife. One resident moving into the area in 1992 was
led to believe the subject property was not buildable due to preservation zoning. Existing City and County zoning in the vicinity was discussed. It was indicated 78 signatures had
been collected from opposing residents, but a petition was not submitted for the record.
Marcus Vernon responded to the opposition, stating for the record he unequivocally opposed a continuance. He noted no expert testimony was presented. Addressing traffic impact, he
said signal timing, not traffic volume, is to blame because the road is rated in the C to D range. He discussed his ideas regarding diverting stormwater runoff through the wetland.
He indicated if the proposal complies with land use standards, the burden is on staff or the opposition to prove the project is not
compatible with its surroundings. He noted the USGS map referenced by Mr. Fellows is not current, and is an estimation of what was likely to exist. He said misrepresentation was an
extremist characterization, as documentation has been available to the public.
In response to questions, Mr. Vernon stated he is not vested, nor does he intend to imply he is vested with any State agencies. Discussion ensued regarding accuracy of the site plans
used with regard to water tables and elevations, and rationale for increasing density in calculating the number of units allowed on the property. Ms. Dougall-Sides did not agree that
fitting the maximum number of units on a site meets land use plan requirements, nor that the burden of proof is on the opponents or staff. She stated the burden of proof the use is
compatible is on the applicants.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to deny endorsement of Item D1 to the City Commission. There was no second. Board discussion ensued regarding the item.
Member Kunnen moved to endorse Item D1 to the City Commission for 7.5 units per acre. The motion was duly seconded.
Board discussion resumed and consideration was given to each of the points presented. It was indicated if water quality, traffic volume, density requirements, and standards for approval
have been met, there is no reason to defer the item. While sympathizing the new neighbors who stand to lose a beautiful view, it was felt “not in my back yard” is not a good reason
for denying endorsement. One member felt the City Commission should know substantial opposition exists to the intensity of the project, and the public should be protected from this
type of development. One member stated an RPD is the best plan to preserve this particular area.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Mazur, Kunnen, Hilkert and Figurski voted “Aye;” Member Bickerstaffe voted “Nay.” Motion carried.
D2. 1345 - 1357 Pierce Street, Tagarelli Sub, Blk 3, Lots 1-4, inclusive the West 34 ft of Lot 5 (Tampa Bay Community Development Corporation) Z 97-10
ZONE: From RM 12 to RPD 11 (Residential Planned Development)
Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicants are requesting rezoning and replatting of vacant lots to construct eight affordable
single family homes for private ownership by low income families. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended endorsement to the City Commission. In response to questions,
Ms. Glatthorn said the site plan has received courtesy DRC review. The applicants will address concerns about drainage. Concerns were expressed a 14-foot wide asphalt driveway with
no sidewalks is inadequate, and cutting corners to save money should not include sacrificing public safety.
Greg Swartz, TBRPC (Tampa Bay Community Development Corporation) Executive Director, presented the proposal as outlined by staff. In response to questions, it was indicated a representative
from General Home Development help develop the design. Board concerns were expressed with lack of stormwater retention and sidewalks. Ms. Glatthorn stated this development is unusual
because it is a new approach to a small affordable housing development. The applicant has met extensively with Engineering Department representatives,
who support the request. Sidewalks are provided in front of all but three homes. Drainage requirements will have to be met. Staff respectfully requested endorsement.
Member Kunnen moved to endorse Item D2 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded. Members Kunnen, Hilkert and Figurski voted “Aye;” Members Mazur and Bickerstaffe voted
“Nay.” Motion carried.
Board and Staff Comments
Member Mazur expressed concern with being asked to make a recommendation to the City Commission regarding RPD projects based on nothing more than a concept plan. He felt it is difficult
to determine when the applicant has satisfied requirements. He suggested use of a SWFWMD map would be helpful.
Member Hilkert praised the new staff report format, where issues regarding code compliance are written as notes, rather than conditions.
Member Hilkert announced the Planning and Zoning Board’s annual holiday luncheon will be held at noon on December 16, at the Peppermill restaurant. Staff was requested to post notice.
Member Bickerstaffe expressed disappointment at having houses squeezed into parcels to gain the maximum housing for low income families. He supports upgrading existing lots, but will
vote against overcrowding.
Member Figurski requested an opinion from the City Attorney’s office regarding the quasi-judicial hearing issue raised at the beginning of Item D1. Ms. Dougall-Sides will process the
request.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:14 p.m.