Loading...
03/03/1998PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER March 3, 1998 Present: Douglas Hilkert Chairman Gerald Figurski Vice Chairman Edward Mazur Board Member 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 Teresa Mancini Associate Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter The meeting was called to order at 2:05 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 – February 17, 1998 The minutes were approved as corrected by the board. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items -- None C. Conditional Uses C1. Eben D. & Janet C. Henson to permit replacing a nonconforming use (business office) with another nonconforming use (adult day care) at 1298 Lakeview Road, Hanousek’s Sub, part of Lot 9, zoned RM 8 (Single Family Residential). CU 98-07 Mr. Doherty presented written background, staff recommendations, proposed hours of operation, existing circumstances, landscaping, and parking requirements related to the proposed use. As the request appears compatible with surrounding uses, staff recommended approval with six conditions. Concerns were expressed with language in three suggested conditions: #3 pertaining to payment of the Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee; #4 requiring restriped parking spaces; and #5 requiring installation of landscaping planters. The board wished to ensure it was understood the City would provide assistance on a consultation basis, but would not provide physical or monetary assistance to meet the recommended conditions. Stephanie Matson, Applicant, outlined her proposal to provide day care for the elderly and adults with special needs as an alternative to home care or nursing homes. Care-givers will have the opportunity to drop off their cared-for people, knowing they will receive licensed care and socialization with their peers. She detailed features of the facility, adding fully cooked meals will be provided along with many other amenities. The property is not currently attractive, but she will paint, improve, repair windows, stripe parking, and install permanent landscaping planters to create an asset and a much-needed opportunity for Clearwater. In response to questions, she will care for adults aged 18 and over, or anyone with special needs she can meet. She will name the facility, “Bridging the Gap,” to provide daily quality care. She will start with 12 cared-for individuals, quickly building to her maximum capacity of 24 to 30 people, according to state occupancy standards. She understood and accepted the recommended conditions of approval, including the amended language in conditions #3, #4, and #5. In response to questions, Mr. Doherty said the City defers to the State’s occupancy standards. No occupational license would be issued before the facility was licensed by the State of Florida Department of Children and Families. After lengthy discussion regarding parking requirements, it was indicated the five parking spaces the applicant can provide are not numerically sufficient, but no variance is needed because the requested use requires less parking than the previous use. Staff felt the proposed facility will function adequately to have no adverse affect on surrounding property owners. Discussion ensued regarding existing non-conforming use requirements, use of parking by the applicant’s four employees, stacking space in the driveway, and likelihood that customer traffic would be widely spaced throughout the day. Concerns were expressed by board members who debated the appropriateness of recommended conditions #3, #4, and #5. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C1 as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within one year from the date of this public hearing; 4) The parking area shall be restriped to provide five parking spaces, one of which shall be a handicap parking space in accordance with Section 42.34 of the Land Development Code and with the assistance of the City Traffic Engineer; 5) Landscaping planters shall be provided along Lakeview Road in accordance with Section 42.27 of the Land Development Code with the assistance of the City Environmental Engineer; and 6) The applicant will remove the existing wheel stops located within the Betty Lane right-of-way. Condition #3 was removed because payment of a traffic impact fee, if required by code, will be based on historical need. Discussion ensued regarding suggested amendments to the motion. Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C1 with staff’s six recommended conditions of approval. There was no second. Discussion continued regarding amendments to Mr. Kunnen’s motion. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C1 as requested, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within one year from the date of this public hearing; 3) As the proposal is less non-conforming than the previous use, the applicant shall work with staff to determine whether payment of Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee is needed; 4) The parking area shall be restriped to provide five parking spaces, one of which shall be a handicap parking space in accordance with Section 42.34 of the Land Development Code and after consultation with the City Traffic Engineer; 5) Landscaping planters shall be provided along Lakeview Road in accordance with Section 42.27 of the Land Development Code after consultation with the City Environmental Engineer; and 6) The applicant will remove the existing wheel stops located within the Betty Lane right-of- way. The motion was duly seconded. Members Hilkert, Mazur, Bickerstaffe, Nixon, Kunnen, and Anderson voted “Aye;” Member Figurski voted “Nay.” Motion carried. C2. Charles A. & Catherine K. Hines, Jr. (Flowerama of Florida, Inc.) to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage at 2001 Drew Street, Central Park Resub, part of Tract A, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 98-08 Mr. Doherty presented written background, staff recommendations, existing site configuration, landscaping, and parking requirements related to the proposed outdoor display. As the request appears compatible with surrounding uses, staff recommended approval with four conditions. Concerns were expressed with staff’s recommended condition requiring the applicant to pay the Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee. Discussion ensued regarding implementation the County ordinance, general fee schedule related to land use, and contesting the fee schedule. Cathy Hines, Applicant, said the proposed outdoor displays will include seasonal themes and displays to make the store look festive and inviting to make customers feel good. Outdoor hanging baskets with plants will need sunshine. In response to questions, she said she understood and approved staff’s recommended conditions. She has already ordered the recommended landscaping materials. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Figurski moved to approve Item C2 subject to the following conditions: 1)  The applicant shall provide landscaping materials within the existing unpaved strip of land located in front of the building at the east end of the parking lot in accordance with Section 42.27 of the Land Development Code; 2) The applicant shall maintain a paved pedestrian access area of 44 inches surrounding the display area; 3) All outdoor storage and displays shall be limited to the display areas depicted on the plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. Rabije, Raim, Imer & Enver Tzekas, Trustee (Duke’s Garage, Inc.) to permit nightclubs, taverns and bars (change of business ownership) at 115 Starcrest Drive, Sec 13-29-15, M&B 11.06, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 98-09 Mr. Doherty presented written background, staff recommendations, surrounding uses in the retail complex. The applicant proposes to change the name from “Emo’s Sports Bar” to “Duke’s Garage.” Staff anticipates no adverse impacts on surrounding property. The Community Response Team notes existing non-conforming signage must be brought into compliance. As the request appears compatible with surrounding uses, staff recommended approval with three conditions. In response to a question, Mr. Doherty said all non-conforming signs mentioned in the report belong to the subject business only. Barbara Elia, applicant, stated she will buy Emos Sports Bar and rename it after her late husband who always welcomed neighbors to stop by for a beer in the garage. She wishes to continue the theme in his memory. In response to questions, she will avoid confusion by advertising as “a different sports bar.” No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C3 subject to the following conditions: 1)  The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to consumption on premises with no package sales; and 3) All non-conforming signs must be brought into compliance with Section 44.51 of the Land Development Code within 90 days of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded. Concern was expressed it is not appropriate to achieve sign code compliance by conditioning conditional use approval as enforcement should be pursued through the Community Response Team and Municipal Code Enforcement Board. Concern was expressed imposing conditions unrelated to the conditional use process removes the element of true choice for applicants who may feel pressure to accept such conditions because they feel they must. Discussion ensued regarding the applicant’s responsibility to remove non-conforming signage from the property. Questions were raised regarding three types of non-conforming signs, whether the existing signs are grandfathered for the property, and enforcement of the City’s sign amortization program. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated prohibited or illegal signs cannot be grandfathered. Mr. Doherty stressed the City routinely reviews each property for code compliance as part of the conditional use and other processes. Sign amortization is being enforced on a street-by-street basis as part of other approvals. The board reiterated its request for staff to make recommendations for code compliance in notes to the applicant, not conditions of approval. Lengthy discussion ensued and consensus was to address the issue during board and staff discussion, below. Discussion ensued regarding proposed amendments to the motion on the floor. Member Nixon’s request to withdraw her second was protested by Member Bickerstaffe. Upon the vote being taken, members Mazur, Bickerstaffe, Nixon, and Anderson voted “Aye;” Members Hilkert, Figurski, and Kunnen voted “Nay.” Motion carried. D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review D1. 1404 Citrus St., Sunny Park Groves Sub, Blk D, Lot 19 and part of Lot 20. (Kurt & Sandra Shackelford) A 98-04 ZONE: RS 8 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is requesting annexation to obtain City sewer service. The applicant was not present and was not represented. One letter was submitted in opposition. No other support or opposition was expressed. Member Mazur moved to endorse Item D1 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D2. 2160 Burnice Dr., Glen Ellyn Estates, Lot 7. (Robert S. & Vicki Cyr) A 98-05 ZONE: RS 6 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is requesting annexation to obtain City sewer service. The applicant was not present and was not represented. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item D2 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D3. 1520 Stevensons Dr., Stevenson’s Heights, Blk A, Lot 22. (Dolores Jelks) A 98-06 ZONE: RS 8 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is requesting annexation to obtain City sewer service. The applicant was not present and was not represented. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Nixon moved to endorse Item D3 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D4. 1734 Manor Ave. W., Clearwater Manor, part of Lots 26 & 27. (John D. Fitzgerald) A 98-07 ZONE: RS 8 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Doherty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant is requesting annexation to obtain City sewer service. The applicant was not present and was not represented. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item D4 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D5. 2077-2093 Palmetto St., Pinellas Groves SE ¼, Sec 12-29-15, Lots 3, 4, 5, 13, and 14. (Joseph & Cyrus J. Lowrey/Estate of Hertha B. Lowrey) A 98-08 ZONE: RM 16 (Multiple Family Residential) This item was withdrawn by staff. Board and Staff Comments Concerns were expressed with staff having reverted to the practice of writing code requirements as conditions, instead of addressing code compliance issues as notes in the staff report. The board did not feel it was appropriate to recommend conditions to generate compliance with codes not related to the conditional use being requested. Concerns were also expressed with recommending conditions when there is no code authority to require what is being asked in the conditions, even when such conditions are agreed to by the applicant. It was felt conditioning a use to mitigate adverse neighborhood impacts would require proof that an adverse impact existed. It was suggested imposing such conditions was tantamount to holding conditional use applicants hostage. Lengthy discussion ensued and suggestions were made for resolving the controversy. Mr. Doherty responded it is not the City’s intent to hold hostages, but to streamline the development process by calling attention to the need for compliance with all codes from the outset, instead of hitting applicants with more requirements later in the development process. Deferring issues for enforcement by other entities is not time friendly to the applicant. He stated in the future, staff’s recommendations for conditions will be tied to the general and supplementary standards for approval with code section numbers referenced in the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding the difficulty for board members to maintain a professional appearance while struggling to find appropriate language, working out differences, and discussing applicants’ rights in the sunshine. A request was made to reschedule a board and staff planning workshop proposed by former Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford for the benefit of new members, and to hash out differences in an untelevised meeting. The request for a workshop was not supported as two board seats are up for appointment or reappointment soon. Mr. Anderson withheld his opinions on today’s issues, but assured the board he is capable of participating in the decision-making process. Unanimous consensus was for all future staff reports to contain, in addition to recommended conditions of approval, notes to the applicant as follows: “The applicant is advised an occupational license is required. The applicant is also advised the City of Clearwater does not issue an occupational license unless the property complies with all City ordinances. Issues on the subject property that do not appear to comply with City ordinances are itemized below.” Specific notes pertaining to landscaping, parking, lighting, signs, etc. should follow. Ms. Dougall-Sides noted requests to change procedural matters may need to be addressed through the interim department head. Discussion ensued regarding information submitted at the last meeting regarding substantial competent evidence. It was noted board members take an oath to support the City’s best interests. One member felt the best interests of the City were not served by approving a day care at Woodlawn church. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported she has found varying court opinions regarding lay and expert testimony. The indication is that lay evidence before a quasi-judicial body must be fact-based or supported by documentation, not just the speakers’ opinions. The courts have disapproved speculation, complaints, and “wanting to keep the status quo” as reasons. However, she noted courts have found opinions based on visual or auditory observations to be valid. She listed examples of types of testimony the board could accept. In response to a request, Ms. Dougall-Sides will look for a chart summarizing the categories for legal non-conforming signs. Staff was requested to investigate and report on enforcement of a City-supported County ordinance requiring three-inch-tall address numbers posted on all businesses. Staff was requested to provide an updated list of City department contacts, telephone and fax numbers. Brief discussion ensued regarding rules concerning change of ownership for properties with non-conformities. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:41 p.m.