Loading...
02/17/1998PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER February 17, 1998 Present: Douglas Hilkert Chair Gerald Figurski Vice Chair Robert D. Bickerstaffe Board Member Brenda Harris Nixon Board Member Frank Kunnen Board Member Rick Anderson Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Steve Doherty Zoning Supervisor Gwen Legters Board Reporter Absent: Edward Mazur 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. Assistant City Clerk Sue Diana administered the oath of office to new member Rick Anderson. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Minutes Approval – January 6 and January 20, 1998 Chair Hilkert stated staff reviewed the tape of the January 6 meeting and verified the motion to approve Item C1 (CU 9801; Carlisle) is correct as reported on page 5 of the minutes. Staff corrected numbering of CU 9802 on page 5 from B2 to C2. The January 6 minutes were unanimously approved as corrected. Member Nixon raised concerns regarding Item C2 on the January 20 agenda (CU 9804; Woodlawn.) Discussion regarding the issue is reported under Board and Staff Comments, below. Member Figurski requested clarification in the January 20 minutes, page 3, fifth paragraph, as follows: “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…” The January 20 minutes were unanimously approved as amended. D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review D1. 1759 St. Croix Dr., Virginia Grove Terrace 5th Addition, Blk B, Lot 19. (Mary C. Holdren Tsacrios) A 98-03 ZONE: RS 8 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Doherty presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of annexation to obtain City sewer service. The applicant did not appear and was not represented. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Nixon moved to endorse Item D1 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D2. 800-810 Vine Avenue, Morton Plant Hospital Association/Emil C. Marquardt, Jr., Lots 1-6, Block 4, Pine Crest Subdivision, proposed Rezoning and Land Use Plan Amendment. Z 98-04 & LUP 98-01 Mr. Doherty presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of rezoning and Land Use Plan amendment for development of a family practice medical facility to serve area residents’ needs. Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides reported the Evaluation and Appraisal Report of the City’s Comprehensive Plan has been submitted to the State DCA (Department of Community Affairs.) Staff anticipates receiving the notice of sufficiency soon so this and other pending Land Use Plan amendments can proceed. Mark Marquardt, attorney representing the applicant, displayed a site plan showing proposed parking layout. He reviewed the building’s Myrtle Avenue frontage, locations of large trees to be preserved, and vehicular accesses along Myrtle Avenue, Nicholas and Seminole Streets. No Vine Avenue access will be provided. He provided clarification regarding the RM8 zoned portions of the site. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Greg Singleton, with Florida Design Consultants, responded to questions regarding vacation of alleys on and near the subject property. Staff verified vacation of the alleys in question. Member Figurski moved to endorse Item D2 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Presentation – “One City. One Future.” – City Manager Michael J. Roberto Mr. Roberto distributed copies of the "One City. One Future." document, highlighting the framework of the “blueprint for Clearwater’s future,” based on the premise that all areas of the City are interrelated and must be addressed comprehensively. Because governments do not change directions easily, the City must choose and continue pursuit of a particular course long enough to achieve results, typically in three to five years. Public input will be gathered regarding five major areas: 1) Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard enhancements to solve perceptual issues and make a statement at the City’s entryway that will clearly define Clearwater’s character; 2) Downtown improvements to define the community, give people a reason to visit, improve economic and quality of life opportunities, and focus on pedestrian orientation by promoting downtown as the “east beach”, energizing the bayfront by converting the bluff’s existing 80% asphalt to 80% green space, and doubling the size of Coachman Park; 3) Clearwater beach pedestrian area redesign to maximize the water view, provide a better transition between residential and commercial areas, and improve traffic flow across the causeway; 4) North Greenwood as the area most impacted by downtown changes, provides the best opportunities for positive changes; and 5) Land Development Code amendment, while having the biggest bearing on the community, is the most difficult area on which to focus public attention. The existing code was written while Clearwater was a development community. The code must be rewritten to facilitate redevelopment and add value to the process. Mr. Roberto stressed every area of the community stakes everything on what happens in all other areas of the community. All areas must be considered as a single entity. He reiterated the need to pursue “one future” by choosing where the City as a whole wants to go and staying the course, whatever it is. Short term results are needed to establish initial success and long term results dictate future direction. He pointed out no one has to stay in Clearwater; government is in the same level of competition as everyone else. People must be given reasons to come and stay, because without those reasons, they will go elsewhere. The City has great successes on which to build and has a great opportunity to do exciting things. The "One City. One Future." kick-off received good public feedback. More than 100 public input meetings are scheduled to receive public comments. Mr. Roberto will recommend to the City Commission the direction he feels the City should take, based on the public’s input. Some Penny for Pinellas funds will be put into the project, which can move forward once priorities are established. Board members praised Mr. Roberto’s concept and approach, stressing the need to take advantage of the momentum he has generated to achieve positive changes. Mr. Roberto responded to board comments, agreeing with the need to maximize public space on the bayfront to enable bringing the maximum number of users to the space. He encouraged keeping an open mind in considering what can be brought to the space. A question was raised what safeguards are in place to ensure library and recreational needs in other areas of the City, such as Countryside, are not ignored. Mr. Roberto responded all areas of the City will continue receiving City services, because the City’s primary responsibility is to “bounce basketballs, catch bad guys, and pump water.” The process looks at how to connect all areas so everyone realizes what is at stake. A meeting is scheduled in Countryside at the end of March to discuss residents’ concerns. Mr. Roberto acknowledged proponents of a “two bridge” plan, and agreed that beach traffic must have a physical connection to downtown. He did not know if the City can retain the existing bridge once the new bridge is built. He said the City’s job is to present alternatives to the people. In response to an observation that the Commission is doing a great job looking at the plan from all directions, Mr. Roberto agreed it is most impressive that an elected body would spend a year developing a vision and mission statement to establish the big picture. He was happy to see the community, administration, and elected officials all on the same page, instead of pushing individual agendas. While the tendency is to focus on big items, he agreed with the importance of demonstrating interest in the smaller incremental pieces, such as routine housekeeping, to make the City run smoothly, building on individual successes to create long term success. Board and Staff Comments Chairman Hilkert stated it was not appropriate for the board to reconsider Item C2 (CU 9804; Woodlawn; 1/20/98) as requested in a January 22 letter from neighbors in opposition. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the board’s current rules do not provide for reconsideration at subsequent meetings. In order for reconsideration to occur, the board would have to amend its rules and schedule the item for reconsideration at a future hearing. Mr. Hilkert said it would have been more appropriate for the objectors to have filed an appeal in the City Clerk Department. He asserted it is not appropriate for the board to amend its rules specifically to reconsider this item. Ms. Nixon contended the board did not adequately review the letter submitted by opposing neighbors during the January 20 meeting. She felt the letter raised issues that could have enabled the board to more thoroughly address the proposal’s incompatibility with the neighborhood. Such discussion could have resulted in denial of the conditional use request, as indicated by Mr. Mazur in the January 20 minutes. She stated the board had made a mistake and it was unfair not to consider the neighbors’ request. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said a rehearing could be scheduled if a clerical error had occurred, but it appears the January 22 letter asks for reconsideration of evidence presented, not correction of a clerical error. Chair Hilkert reiterated his stance, indicating, without a motion to the contrary, the matter was closed. No further discussion ensued. Mr. Doherty introduced Theresa Mancini, a new Associate Planner in the Central Permitting Department. Ms. Mancini helps write recommendations for the staff reports, helps prepare the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and other long range items. Ms. Dougall-Sides submitted a packet of information regarding burden of proof, and evidentiary matters in conditional use hearings. She included copies of two recent Circuit Court Appellate Division opinions, provided by Member Figurski, discussing these issues. Ms. Dougall-Sides questioned whether the board wished to amend its rules to allow reconsideration at subsequent hearings. If so, she suggested amending Article IV, Section 6(e) as follows: “Reconsideration of an item previously acted on by the Board may occur upon a successful motion by a Board member on the prevailing side. Such motion for reconsideration must occur be made at the same meeting in which the previous action took place or the meeting immediately subsequent to that meeting. If the motion for reconsideration passes, the Board may continue the reconsideration hearing until a subsequent meeting in order to allow for notice and an opportunity to be heard by interested parties. The Board may reconsider a request if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the community.” Member Nixon moved to amend the Planning and Zoning Board rules, Article IV, Section 6(e) as suggested by Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides, above. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:11 p.m.