01/06/1998PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
January 6, 1998
Present: Edward Mazur Chair
Brenda Harris Nixon Vice Chair
Frank Kunnen Board Member
Douglas Hilkert Board Member
Gerald Figurski Board Member
Vacant Seat Board Member
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Sandy Glatthorn Planning Manager
Gwen Legters Board Reporter
Absent: Robert D. Bickerstaffe Board Member
To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
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, and were offered the opportunity to request a continuance. The applicants chose to proceed.
Minutes Approval – November 4, November 18, December 2, December 16, 1997
Due to the large number of citizens present to address public hearing items, consensus was to move minutes approval to the Board and Staff Comments section of the agenda, below.
Member Hilkert requested amendment on page 2 of the November 4 minutes, removing the last sentence from his motion to approve Item B1, as the statement was an editorial comment not intended
for inclusion in the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved as amended.
Member Nixon requested corrected of the November 18 minutes to indicate she was not present for the meeting. The minutes were unanimously approved as corrected.
December 2 and December 17 minutes were unanimously approved as submitted to each member in writing by the Board Reporter.
B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items
B1. (2nd request for extension) Lima Lake, Inc. (Yacht Basin Apartments) to permit marina (20 slips) at 501 Mandalay Ave., Yacht Basin Sub, Lots 1-9, zoned RM 24 (Multi-family Residential)
and P (Preservation). CU 97-09
Member Hilkert moved to continue Item B1, CU 97-09 to January 20, 1998, at the applicant’s request. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. Conditional Uses
C1. Carlisle Motors, Inc. (Carlisle Lincoln Mercury) to permit (1) vehicle sales, (2) vehicle service, and (3) non-commercial parking at 2085 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Bamboo Sub, Lots 2, 3,
4, 9, 10, 11, & 12, Bamboo Sub Replat, Lots 1 & 2, together with Sec 13-29-15, M&B 41.04 & 42.01, zoned CG (General Commercial), RM 8 (Multiple Family Residential), & RS 8 (Single Family
Residential). CU 98-01
Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the staff report has been revised to reflect the applicants’ proposal to redevelop the existing
vehicle sales and service business. Associated with this conditional use request is a rezoning request to allow noncommercial parking on adjacent residential lots with direct access
to Bamboo Lane, a residential street. (Board consideration of the rezoning request immediately followed this item, and is reported under Item D2, Z98-01, below.) The proposal includes
new landscaping and open space areas, retaining the existing 34-bay body shop on the southwest portion of the site, and a new two-story showroom with 40 service bays and inventory parking
on the second level. A solid wall with exterior landscaping is recommended along the south and east property lines to serve as a buffer between the new service structure and the adjacent
residential properties located 30 to 60 feet away. The outdoor sales areas are indicated on the site plan. Staff supported the proposal provided adequate buffers are installed and
restrictions are met as detailed in the supplementary standard for approval.
Clarification was requested and discussion ensued regarding details of the conditional use request, site development, the non-commercial parking proposal, and why a new conditional
use request is needed for an existing, continuous use. In response to board concerns, Ms. Glatthorn stated staff wishes to review and work with the applicant to ensure elevation drawings
are consistent with the design standards under development for the City’s Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard improvement project.
Dana Young, attorney representing the applicants, stated they are excited to embark on major redevelopment of a business that has existed at this location 40 years. The applicants
were surprised a new conditional use was needed for the existing dealership, but understand the need to meet existing codes. The said the owner’s representative, general manager, civil
engineer, transportation engineer, design builder and project manager were present to answer questions. As the dealership has not changed its look for 25 years, the applicants have
been working with the City’s Scott Shuford, who is involved with the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard beautification process. She detailed extensive interior and exterior landscaping improvements,
changes to curb cuts and traffic circulation, site amenities designed to be more compatible with the adjacent residential areas, and the rezoning request to allow non-commercial parking
on three adjacent lots owned by the applicant. Referring to site plans and elevation drawings of existing and proposed site features, she said showroom buildings are to be more compact,
functional and attractive; building coverage is reduced; rear yard setback is increased to 60 feet; structure heights will not exceed 30 feet where a 50 foot height is allowed; paved
areas are reduced; open space is increase; parking will be replaced with landscaping along the southern boundary; traffic circulation is improved; and interior landscaping is being increased
from 3,000 to 40,000 square feet, significantly in excess of code requirements.
Ms. Young said the initial application was changed as a result of open discussions with the neighboring residents. In response to concerns, a six foot masonry wall and ten foot landscaping
buffer was designed between the dealership’s southern boundary with the residential properties. A transportation analysis was performed, the applicants have worked
with the City’s Traffic Engineering Department, and employee parking has been configured to ensure traffic will not increase and no negative impacts will result on Bamboo Lane. A dedicated
left turn lane from Bamboo Lane into the parking lot will facilitate a free flow of traffic around turning vehicles. The engineer has designed a parapet wall around the second floor
parking deck to block the residents’ line of sight of the new vehicle inventory. The only lighting proposed for the second floor parking deck is low level box lights shining downward
inside the parapet walls. The applicant will ensure light will not migrate from the site. Concern was expressed with meeting staff’s proposed condition to obtain the Certificate of
Occupancy within one year, due to the phased nature of the project, scheduled for completion before the end of 1999.
In response to questions, Ms. Young said six existing vehicular accessways will be reduced to four during site redevelopment. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the code contains no strict rules
about the number of driveways allowed on a main thoroughfare. Concern was expressed the board does not have an up-to-date site plan showing the most recent driveway proposal. Ms. Young
said staff advised bringing forward the plans as-is, explaining the proposed changes.
Tom McGrew, with King Engineering, responded to concerns that the curb flares and turning radii seem insufficient for safe ingress/egress, considering the amount and speed of traffic
off Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Mr. McGrew detailed the number and locations of driveways connections, turning radii, and traffic flow to Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Bamboo Lane. He stated
the site was designed to accommodate through access for semi-tractor/trailers, automobile delivery trucks and fire emergency vehicles. He has met with staff and the DOT, and will continue
to work with them if adjustments are needed.
No verbal or written support was expressed.
Five residents of the adjacent Druid Park subdivision spoke in opposition to the application, citing the following concerns: 1) non-commercial parking violates neighborhood deed restrictions;
2) the dealership sent unsolicited contracts for sale of the residents’ homes so the properties could be razed for a parking lot; 3) no wall height variance application has been filed
for the eight foot high wall Mr. Carlisle promised before commencement of construction, a) to protect the residential properties from noise, dirt, debris, and vibratory equipment during
construction, and b) to screen the neighbors’ view of the second floor parking deck and buffer future noise; 4) the applicants’ claim that setbacks are increasing; 5) neighboring property
values will decrease; 6) inappropriate orientation of the entrance to the service bay building would expose the adjacent home to passage as many as 100 cars each day; 7) a setback variance
will be needed for the ten foot landscaping buffer; 8) security will be compromised by customers and employees walking through the open space between the service building and the homes;
9) vehicles parked on the second floor deck pose a potential danger to the neighborhood and people using the deck can look down into the private properties; 10) moving the fuel station
behind the residential section; 11) additional landscaping is needed to form an opaque barrier from the dealership and its uses, and noise; 12) while an eight foot wall is essential,
there are fears the residential properties’ structures and landscaping will be damaged during its construction. One resident submitted two copies of neighborhood deed restrictions and
three drawings showing layout of the existing residential subdivision and the anticipated adverse effects of the proposal. A petition containing nine signatures was submitted in opposition
to the request.
Board members pointed out a wall is not required by code. Some favored a wall to appease the Druid Park homeowners. If a wall is approved, it was hoped the residential property owners
would allow workers sufficient access to their properties to permit construction of the wall they requested.
Dana Young addressed the issues raised by those in opposition, reiterating a wall is not required, but a six foot wall was offered by the applicants. It is not known what Mr. Carlisle
told the residents about an eight foot wall because he no longer owns the dealership and has no interest in its operation. She said traffic requirements have been researched and will
be met. The residents were told no vibratory equipment will be used for compacting the ground. The applicant has agreed to put an automatic door closer on the outer service door facing
the residential area. The service bays are being enclosed to minimize impacts; no bays will open to the outside. In response to a question, Ms. Young displayed and explained the line
of sight drawings to the second floor parking deck and clarified the intentions regarding the automatic door closer. It was indicated the applicants are willing to realign the service/detail
bays to a north/south orientation, if necessary. She did not feel the effects of moving the two existing gas pumps was significant. She stressed the dealership is not getting bigger,
but the site is being reconfigured. She clarified the request to extend the time allowed to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, reiterating the final phase is due for completion by the
second quarter of 1999.
In response to questions, discussion ensued regarding the applicants’ intentions regarding the proposed buffer wall. Ms. Young said the cost of a six foot wall masonry was estimated
at about $80,000. Increasing the height to eight feet would almost double its cost. She stated if height is truly the issue, they would be willing to construct an eight foot tall fence
with beefed up landscaping. She has not researched the neighborhood deed restrictions, but was not aware of any such restrictions relating to the three residential properties the dealership
purchased. She welcomed the opportunity to work with staff to construct a wall as soon as feasible in view of current construction on site. She did not wish to hold up construction
in progress to wait for permits to build the wall first. A noise specialist was not consulted, but the architect who designed the project had stated trees and landscape buffering would
more effectively screen noise than would a wall.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the conditional use portion of the Code allows the board to require, without a variance, a fence or wall higher than required where the non-commercial parking
portion of the project adjoins residential property.
Discussion ensued regarding language in staff’s recommended conditions regarding time limits. Discussion ensued regarding turning radii and traffic circulation. One member requested
DOT calculations regarding to ensure a WD50 vehicle can move through the site.
Member Hilkert moved to approve Item C1, CU 98 01 with conditions. The motion was seconded for discussion. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding proposed conditions of approval and several
amendments were suggested. Concerns were expressed with requiring a ten foot landscaping strip outside the buffer wall and with requiring staff approval of the elevation drawings, as
such approval is not required by code. A time frame was wanted for the buffer wall. Discussion ensued regarding height and density requirements for landscaping. Raising the parapet
height instead of the buffer wall was suggested.
Member Figurski moved to amend Mr. Hilkert’s motion to require construction of the buffer wall prior to commencement of building construction. The motion was duly seconded. Due to
difficulties with restating the motion and associated conditions, Members Figurski and Hilkert withdrew the motions on the floor. The seconders concurred.
Member Hilkert moved to approve Item C1, CU 98 01 subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite building permit shall be obtained within one year of this public hearing date;
2) There shall be no deliveries between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on any day of the week; 3) Elevation drawings of the buildings shall be submitted to staff for review prior to issuance
of a building permit; 4) Sales and service hours shall be limited as given in the application: Sales Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday,
Closed Sunday. Service Hours: 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Tuesday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday, Closed Sunday; 5) A six foot high solid
masonry buffer wall shall be installed along the property lines adjacent to single family residential properties prior to commencement of construction. Location of the wall within the
landscaped areas shall be worked out with staff prior to issuance of a permit. Both sides of the wall shall be finished with stucco and painted; 6) Access to the parking lot on Bamboo
Lane shall be permitted provided rezoning request Z 98 01 is approved by the City Commission; 7) All major and minor vehicle service may be performed on the areas of the subject property
zoned CG (General Commercial); 8) The southern service bay door shall be equipped with an automatic closure device with the default status of the door to be in the closed position; and
9) Minimum landscaping shall be installed as shown on plans displayed during today’s public hearing in the areas adjacent to the building, with more dense landscaping along certain areas
of the new structures as determined acceptable by staff. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Discussion ensued regarding Item D2, Z 98 01, below.
C2. Golda Meir Center, Inc. (Helen’s Wholesale Bakery) to permit wholesaling/distributing at 306 S Jupiter Ave, Skycrest, Unit A, Blk A, part of Lots 7 & 8, zoned CG (General Commercial).
CU 98-02
Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes a wholesale bakery in the smaller of two existing buildings on the subject
property. A parking variance has been requested to allow zero on-site spaces where five are required. Two parking spaces are available in City right-of-way along Jupiter Avenue in
front of the store. Staff recommended approval as the proposal appears to be compatible and should not negatively impact nearby properties.
Jelka Vrbos, the business owner/applicant, wishes to purchase the smaller building for use as a small Mom & Pop bake shop similar to one she operated in Chicago for 16 years. She misses
her previous business and hopes she can be successful in Clearwater. She does not propose a full bakery line, just cookies and sweet types of breads, for delivery to wholesale customers.
No verbal or written support was expressed. An attorney representing the adjacent property owner to the south, stated his client owns two rental properties behind her single family
residence immediately adjacent to the subject property. She vigorously opposes locating a business with no parking provision two feet from her property, as bakery customers are certain
to park in her driveway.
Ms. Vrbos stated she will bake and deliver wholesale products to order, as specified in her application. She will not have a big retail crowd arriving at the shop. In response to
questions, it was indicated retail sale appears on the application only because it is a permitted use in this district. While the proposal is more intensive than the former use of the
building for arts and crafts
at the Golda Meir center, it is less intensive than a typical retail use. Discussion ensued regarding current zoning and location of the two existing parking spaces in City right-of-way.
Member Figurski moved to approve Item C2, CU 98 02, subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite certificate of occupancy and occupational license shall be obtained within
1 year of this public hearing date; and 2) There shall be no deliveries between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on any day of the week. 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. Annexation and Zoning Atlas amendment of the City of Clearwater for the following property: 181 Pinewood Avenue, Eastwood Terrace 1st Addition, Blk D, Lot 2 (Alfonso Tundidor) A
98-01
ZONE: RS 6 (Single Family Residential)
Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is requesting annexation to obtain sewer service for their single family home.
Staff recommended endorsement. In response to a question, it was indicated existing homes requesting sewer service usually have septic systems. No verbal or written support or opposition
was expressed.
Member Figurski moved to endorse Item D1, A 98 01 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D2. Zoning Atlas amendment of the City of Clearwater for property located at 524 Bamboo Lane, Bamboo Sub, Lot 4, 11 & 12. (Carlisle Motors, Inc.) Z 98-01
ZONE: From RS 8 (Single Family Residential) to RM 8 (Multiple Family Residential)
Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is requesting rezoning for the non-commercial parking lot approved in Item C1,
CU 98 01, above. Staff recommended endorsement.
Dana Young, attorney representing the applicants, requested incorporation into this item the relevant portions of her testimony regarding Item C1, CU 98 01, above. She stated the request
is simple and requested endorsement.
No verbal or written support was expressed. Two adjacent residents expressed opposition, citing concerns: 1) traffic on Bamboo Lane will increase significantly, and 2) rezoning for
the intended use violates neighborhood deed restrictions. It was explained neither the City nor Planning and Zoning Board is bound by deed restrictions. A suggestion was made for the
residents to consider contacting an attorney.
Member Hilkert moved to endorse Item D1, Z 98 01 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Consideration of Item C2 ensued.
D3. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted November 16, 1989. This public hearing is pursuant to Chapter 163.3181, Florida Statutes.
The board received a background and status report from Senior Planner Lou Hilton regarding the item. He said the current version includes revisions requested by the State after the
board’s 1996 endorsement. Need for the revisions was caused by changes in Florida law and Florida administrative code. He was pleased the plan was successful and that many stated goals
and objectives were accomplished. He requested endorsement, stating he did not copy the document to the board due to its massive size.
Questions were raised regarding whether the changes involve routine housekeeping or major concepts. Several board members hesitated to endorse an amendment they have not seen. Staff
explained, with certain exceptions, applications for City land use plans amendments are being help up pending adoption of the document and receipt of the City’s sufficiency notice.
In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides noted the statutory requirement for the board, acting as the local planning agency, to review the plan and forward it to the City Commission.
Consensus was to forward the item to the City Commission without endorsement.
Member Hilkert moved to forward Item D3, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan to the City Commission for readoption. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
The board commended Mr. Hilton and Ms Dougall-Sides for their hard work on preparing the item and getting it through required State approvals. At the board’s request, Mr. Hilton will
provide a matrix summarizing the changes discussed above.
Board and Staff Comments
1. Election of 1998 Board Officers
Chair Mazur opened the floor for nominations.
Member Figurski nominated Douglas Hilkert as Chair for 1998. Mr. Hilkert accepted the nomination. No additional nominations ensued. Upon the vote being taken, Douglas Hilkert was
unanimously elected as Chairperson for 1998. Consensus was to pass the gavel at the end of the meeting.
Member Hilkert nominated Gerald Figurski as Vice Chair for 1998. Mr. Figurski accepted the nomination. No additional nominations ensued. Upon the vote being taken, Gerald Figurski
was unanimously elected as Vice Chairperson for 1998.
2. Meeting Schedule for 1998
Member Kunnen advocated one meeting per month during the summer months for the convenience of those wishing to plan vacations during school holidays. Discussion ensued regarding the
issue and consensus was achieved.
Member Hilkert moved to adopt the 1998 meeting schedule as amended, deleting the meetings of June 16, July 21, and September 1, 1998. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Annual Review and Readoption of Board Rules of Procedure
Consensus was to consider adoption of any amendments, or readoption of the rules without amendments at the next meeting. Board members were requested to review the rules and be prepared
to discuss at the next meeting whether changes are needed.
Ms. Glatthorn thanked board members for their supportive comments regarding the staff reports and staff’s efforts to work with the board.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m.