Loading...
01/20/1998PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 20, 1998 Present: Douglas Hilkert Chair Gerald Figurski Vice Chair Edward Mazur Board Member Robert D. Bickerstaffe Board Member Brenda Harris Nixon Board Member Frank Kunnen Board Member Vacant Seat Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn Planning Manager 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 – January 6, 1998 This item was continued to allow members time to receive and review the minutes. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items B1. (Cont. from 1/6/98) (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 Andrew Nicholson, engineer representing the applicant, requested a time extension due to delays processing state and county permits. Staff recommended a one year extension. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Mazur moved to approve a one year time extension to February 4, 1999, subject to the original four conditions, with an amendment to #1, as follows: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within six months one year 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; 3) All boat slips shall be for the exclusive use of Yacht Basin Apartments tenants only; and 4) No boat slip rental or other commercial activity shall be permitted in the marina. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Conditional Uses C1. Wellford Corporation (Munchees, Inc.) to permit package sales of beer and wine (change of business ownership) at 1801 Sunset Point Road, Pinellas Groves (SW ¼), part of Lot 8, zoned CN (Neighborhood Commercial). CU 98-03 Ms. Glatthorn presented written background, staff recommendations, zoning, and proposed hours of operation. As the request appears compatible with surrounding uses, staff recommended approval with two conditions. Applicant Mah’d A. Msawel restated his request for beer and wine package sales. In response to questions, he said the business is located next door to Queen’s Pizza, and he does sell gasoline. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. One member expressed his standing objection to alcoholic beverage sales where gasoline is sold. Member Figurski moved to approve Item C1, CU 9803, subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite certificate of occupancy and occupational license shall be obtained within 1 year of the public hearing date, and 2) The hours of operation shall be limited to 5 a.m. until 11 p.m., Monday through Sunday. Members Hilkert, Figurski, Bickerstaffe, Nixon, and Kunnen voted “Aye;” Member Mazur voted “Nay.” Motion carried. C2. Woodlawn Church of God to permit child day care at 845 Woodlawn St., Belmont 2nd Addition, Blk C, Lots 1-10 & 45-52, zoned P/SP (Public/Semi Public). CU 98-04 Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating an existing church is requesting a conditional use to allow day care in an existing structure as an accessory church use. Adequate vehicle drop-off and playground areas exist on the property. As the request appears to be compatible with surrounding uses, staff recommended approval with two conditions. Pastor Randy Morris stated the church has the necessary facilities for the proposed preschool. Originally licensed for 15 children, he estimated the occupancy will grow to 63. In addition to providing an economic benefit to working families, the preschool is important to minister to their physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual needs. He related church expansion history since the mid-1950’s. He has been pastor for 13 years and will continue seeking to be a service, not a detriment to the neighborhood. Pastor Morris responded to questions regarding the hours and number of church services each week, how he plans to address the peace and quiet issue, landscaping, fencing, configuration of the property to shield the children, noise buffering, playground supervision ratios and traffic impact. It was indicated traffic flow will be evaluated to determine whether the proposal will have any net traffic impact. Discussion ensued regarding ownership, occupancy, and use of surrounding properties. Discussion continued regarding timing and duration of outdoor activities. Pastor Morris pointed out both lots on the south side of the playground area are owned and used by the church. He stressed he does not want to jeopardize his good relationship with the neighbors and did not feel the proposal will do that. No verbal or written support was expressed. Three nearby residents and one interested citizen spoke in opposition to the request, citing concerns regarding severe parking problems, exposing children to existing adverse neighborhood conditions, presence of other day care facilities in the vicinity, traffic speed and congestion on the busy neighborhood streets, insufficient notice of public hearing, lack of cooperation and communication with neighbors regarding church construction and dirt blowing from the church parking lot into a neighbor’s pool and home, the number of requests the City has approved for church rezoning and expansion, and a flyer advertising the church is accepting preschool registration applications before receiving conditional use approval. Church pursuit of an offsite parking lot was encouraged. One phone call and one letter with a total of four signatures were received in opposition to the request. Pastor Morris stated he has devoted his life to doing the right thing. He was surprised to opposition from two of today’s speakers who had indicated to him they did not oppose the request. He said the preschool registration was subject to county approval. He has always raised the banner of neighborhood cooperation. He has been trying to correct the dusty parking lot issue. He did not realize work on a recent minor renovation, done by one church member and a helper, needed to be discussed with neighbors. He agreed parking is a problem. Signs have been posted restricting parking to one side of the street and four parking ushers direct traffic. People do not seem to want to park in the remote spaces. He did not feel weekday child care traffic can be compared to Sunday morning. He responded to questions regarding day care traffic ingress and egress. As some families will have more than one child in preschool, and some will walk to the facility, he did not feel it was likely to have more than 50 cars per day, arriving over a two hour time span. A question was raised whether the pastor would agree to limiting the operation to 15 or 20 children at first. Pastor Morris responded child care is a serious financial drain on church resources. Capping enrollment at 15 students would not allow the preschool to sustain itself and pay its bills. Allowing for natural growth to the maximum 63 students would enable the facility to pay for itself eventually. He expects the congregation to double in the future. One member observed the church will need to make arrangements for more land when that happens. Pastor Morris responded to questions regarding total church membership, normal Sunday attendance, number of vehicles involved, and total number of existing parking spaces. In response to questions, Ms. Glatthorn said additional parking is not required for the proposal. As the day care is conducted in existing buildings, it is considered an accessory use. The church has met all requirements, or obtained variances. Staff’s opinion regarding impact on surrounding streets was that City Traffic Engineering had no comment. Board members expressed the following concerns: 1) churches are normally quiet, but problems arise when they grow to the point they are no longer compatible with residential neighborhoods; 2) day care facilities are not compatible with residential neighborhoods because their noise can be heard from great distances; 3) fewer students would be preferable because adding 63 students would have significant impacts; and 4) traffic impacts are difficult to determine without a study. Some members praised churches as quiet, welcome additions to neighborhoods. Occasional traffic and noise are parts of community life. No evidence was submitted that 60 cars arriving at one time would have a major impact. Member Nixon moved to deny Item C2, CU 9804. There was no second. Discussion ensued regarding whether, in the absence of substantial competent evidence from neighbors opposing an application, board members should base their decisions on staff’s professional recommendation, or whether members should use common sense to decide if a proposal is good for the community based on board experience, observation, code familiarity, and neighbors’ testimony. Member Figurski moved to approve Item C2, CU 9804, subject to the following conditions: 1) A permit for the fence around the playground shall be obtained within 6 months of the date of this public hearing; and 2) Landscaping shall be maintained along the south side of the play area to buffer the nearby residential uses. Member Bickerstaffe moved to amend the motion, adding a condition requiring a six-month trial period review. There was no second. Member Kunnen moved to amend the motion, adding a condition restricting the applicant to 20 students initially. There was no second. Upon the vote being taken, Members Hilkert, Figurski, Mazur, and Kunnen voted “Aye;” Members Bickerstaffe and Nixon voted “Nay.” Motion carried. C3. Security Capital Industrial Ltd Partnership III to permit manufacturing at 704 Laura St., Gould & Ewing’s 2nd Addition, Blk 15, Lots 12 & 13, zoned UC[C] (Urban Center Core). CU 98-05 Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, staff recommendations, parking and signage requirements. The applicant proposes to establish a custom, “one of a kind” furniture manufacturing business, employing a maximum of four people. As the request appears to be compatible with surrounding uses, staff recommended approval with two conditions. Applicant Linda Vanderwende stated every piece of furniture is custom designed by computer and autocad, and fabricated on site. No toxic materials and no retail sales are involved. She did not understand the need for a building permit to dismantle partitions in an existing building. Brief discussion ensued regarding building and signage permit requirements. It was indicated signage may be subject to Design Review Board consideration if the property is within the applicable section of downtown. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C3, CU 98-05, subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite building permit 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. D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review D1. Ordinance 6231-98 – An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, amending the Zoning Atlas of the City by rezoning certain property located on the south corner of Druid Road and west of Missouri Avenue, approximately 640 feet north of Lakeview Road, and east of Greenwood Avenue, consisting of Section 15-29-15, M&B 34.01 and Section 22-29-15, M&B 21.01 and 21.02, whose post office address is 1200 South Missouri Avenue, from Commercial Center (CC and Multiple-Family Residential “Twenty Eight” (RM-28) To Master Planned Development (MPD); providing an effective date. Member Mazur declared a conflict of interest with regard to this item. Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and zoning requirements for the proposal to redevelop the Sunshine Mall property with apartment buildings, commercial, and residential uses. In response to questions, she said the City Clerk Department felt it was necessary to present the ordinance in this manner for advertising purposes. The proposed rezoning to Master Planned Development will involve no land use plan amendment. It will provide an alternative method of land development to accommodate a comprehensively planned and phased development project. She reviewed concept plan requirements, apartment building layout, perimeter landscaping, driveway access, and infrastructure improvements for the 35.4 acre site. She detailed site plan certification requirements, density, floor area ratios, traffic impact issues, drainage needs, and consistency with surroundings. As the request appears to support standards for approval, staff recommended endorsement. Assistant City Manager Rick Hedrick expressed the City’s support and excitement regarding the positive potential of this general concept plan for luxury apartments and elderly housing. City staff has met with developer’s representatives to ensure the buildings, construction materials, and site configuration present a high quality, aesthetic appearance to be a true community asset. This type of project is in line with City Manager Roberto’s goal of “raising the bar” with respect to development quality. Board members were happy to hear the City administration’s endorsement. Discussion ensued regarding the need for a dense perimeter landscaping buffer between residential and commercial areas, architectural appearance, and good construction methods. It was emphasized both projects will be retained, owned and managed by the developers. Ed Armstrong, attorney representing the applicants, listed existing commercial businesses that will remain along Missouri Avenue. He said the proposed density is about half the maximum allowed by code. Developers will adhere to the more stringent landscaping requirements proposed in the new Land Development Code, and will go beyond code to ensure board and staff are comfortable with the project’s quality. Scott Culp, representing CED Construction, Orlando, proposed developer of the elderly housing component, highlighted the company’s experience, reputation, and history of remaining to manage the properties they build. He displayed two color renderings of the site and front elevation, stating he will follow up on staff’s comments to ensure perimeter landscaping is more than adequate to buffer the adjacent residential properties to the west. The developer creates gated communities with restricted access and TV monitoring to give elderly residents a sense of privacy. Referring to aesthetics depicted in the elevation study, he said 408 residential units are proposed to be developed over five years. Each residence will be a full-sized dwelling unit containing from one to three bedrooms, a full kitchen, access from common interior corridors, and luxury amenities in the common areas. In response to questions, Mr. Culp said the elderly component is for residents 62 years and older. All units are for rental; none will be sold. A price range study has not been done, but the rate will be less than for assisted living facilities. Neither meals nor a common dining room are provided as the community is strictly for independent apartment living. Discussion ensued regarding site plan details, proposed building heights, detention, and interior site landscaping to be shown on the final plan. Richard Harris, engineer with Florida Design Consultants, representing International Realty, Inc., San Antonio, stated he is designing the luxury apartment project on the 8.33 acre parcel #6. Typically two or three stories, the buildings are Mediterranean architectural style. In response to questions, he said the units will have hydronic water heating, a monitoring system to measure how much water each unit uses and what it costs. He said the City Manager shared the board’s concern that it is not clear on the plan where green space and parking are planned. The applicants must come back with a detailed landscaping plan, showing in great detail what is proposed to separate commercial from residential properties. Discussion ensued regarding the remaining commercial uses on the outparcels, floor area ratio, landscaping, density, parcel ownership, maximum building heights, traffic circulation and stacking distance at gated entrances to avoid traffic backing up into the street. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Kunnen moved to endorse Item D1, Ordinance 623198 to the City Commission. Members Hilkert, Figurski, Bickerstaffe, Nixon, and Kunnen, voted “Aye;” Member Mazur abstained. Board and Staff Comments Chair Hilkert stated Rick Anderson has been appointed to the Planning and Zoning Board vacancy and will attend the February 17 meeting as the February 3 meeting was canceled. Mr. Hilkert requested staff to contact Mr. Anderson regarding the need to take the oath of office prior to the meeting. He requested City Clerk Department staff to administer the oath in Chambers before the meeting is called to order. Mr. Hilkert recognized Boy Scout Pack 455 in the audience, accompanied by Mayor Garvey. He invited each scout to introduce himself to the viewing audience. Mr. Hilkert raised a question for discussion during review of the board’s rules. He felt the time frame for reconsiderations should be extended to the next regular meeting. He realized upon viewing a replay of the recent Carlisle case that he had not included the agreed-upon time frame for construction of the fence when restating the motion. Under the current rules, reconsideration of that condition cannot occur without readvertising and rehearing the case. Discussion ensued comparing Planning and Zoning Board rules to Robert’s Rules of Order. It was indicated the board may change the minutes by majority vote. Staff was asked to research the tape to determine whether how the final motion was stated. In response to a question from Member Nixon, Ms. Glatthorn said interim Director Tony Shoemaker had decided a Central Permitting/ Planning and Zoning Board workshop was not needed. Another workshop can be scheduled, if needed. Member Mazur expressed concern regarding conduct of meetings when cross examination occurs. Secondly, he questioned whether the board must rule solely on testimony presented during the hearing, in order to be appeal-proof, or whether board members may form their decisions based upon personal knowledge, common sense, and personal judgment in interpreting whether or not an application is appropriate for a neighborhood. He did not cast his vote based on incompatibility of today’s preschool request because witnesses did not bring it up during the public portion of the meeting. If the situation had been reversed, he might have voted against the day care and the request would have been denied. Ms. Dougall-Sides responded board members are not required to leave their common sense outside the room during public hearings. Member Nixon commented compatibility issues are within the board’s purview, according to code. She stressed the board exists to protect citizens from impacts of which the public may not be aware. Member Kunnen questioned whether staff’s professional recommendation should prevail when an issue does not appear to have been addressed. He observed a “no comment” from the Traffic Engineer does not mean the issue was studied. Member Hilkert stated members are not obligated to explain their positions. In the above referenced day care case, he understood Member Figurski was explaining why he was making the motion. Mr. Hilkert usually favors development, but public opinion is a valid consideration that sometimes pushes the pendulum toward the negative. Member Bickerstaffe stated it is important to understand that for applicants can address neighbors concerns without having their applications denied. That was his reason for recommending a trial period. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m.