Loading...
09/15/1998PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER September 15, 1998 Present: Douglas Hilkert Chair Gerald Figurski Vice-Chair Edward Mazur Board Member Frank Kunnen Board Member David Gildersleeve Board Member Rick Anderson Board Member Absent: Steven Chandler Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Cyndie Goudeau City Clerk Lorenzo Aghemo Director Planning and Development Services Sandy Glatthorn Planning Administrator Etim Udoh Senior Planner Teresa Mancini Planner Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, and a review of meeting procedures and the appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM A - Minutes of Previous Meetings - August 18, 1998 The Chair asked if there were any additions or changes to the minutes. Since there were none, the minutes stand approved as submitted. ITEM B - Requests for Extension, Deferred, and Continued Items - None. ITEM C - Conditional Uses 1. Dennis R. DeLoach, Jr. (Uptown Customers) to permit vehicle service at 1393 Missouri Avenue, Sall’s 2nd Addition, Blk A, Lots 10-12; and Missouri Heights, Lot 17, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 98-32 The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to allow operation of a vehicle service area in conjunction with vehicle accessories sales, to install car rims, tint windows, customize, and provide light mechanical work in a building at 1393 Missouri Avenue. The proposed used is consistent with the commercial character of Missouri Avenue and the surrounding properties. Staff has reviewed this project to determine its consistency, has determined the proposed use meets the standards of review, and recommends approval subject to conditions. Neil Balkissoon agreed to all the conditions indicated and requested approval to obtain a paint removal booth for future expansion. In response to a question, Planner Teresa Mancini said staff has no objection to removing Condition #4. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said staff based their findings on the applicant’s original application. Member Figurski moved approval of Item CU 98-32, subject to conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 6 months from the date of this public hearing; 2) the applicant shall provide landscaping in accordance with the submitted site plan and Section 42.27 after review and approval of a revised landscape plan prior to obtaining an occupational license; 3) all servicing shall be conducted indoors and all parts and equipment shall be stored within the building; 4) the applicant may perform any major repairs at this site including engine or transmission dismantling, painting, body, fender, or muffler work; 5) the applicant shall obtain a sign permit prior to locating, erecting or altering any signs placed on the subject property; and 6) the applicant shall remove any signs from the subject property that do not conform with Section 44.51(4)(e), specifically, sandwich board signs shall not be permitted on the property. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was felt Conditions #5 and #6 are not necessary and should be incorporated as part of staff’s notes. Member Figurski amended the motion to move Conditions #5 and #6 to staff notes. The seconder agreed. The amended motion carried unanimously. 2. Yen Ping Chou, Trustee (Shor Enterprises, Inc.) to permit vehicle sales at 1698 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard., Sec. 14-29-15, M&B 13.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU98-33 The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to permit vehicle sales at 1698 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The site, previously a restaurant, is vacant. The applicant proposes to utilize the building and reconfigure the parking area to meet the proposed use. The submitted site plan indicates the applicant intends to display vehicles on the northern portion of the site, and is working with Staff to ensure landscaping meets code requirements. The use is consistent with the commercial nature of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. Staff has determined the proposed use meets the standards of review, and recommends approval subject to conditions. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said, according to a letter from the applicant’s representative, the applicant intends to comply with anticipated LDC (Land Development Code) requirements for landscaping. In response to a question, Planning Administrator Sandy Glatthorn said Condition #5 which identifies site lighting requirements, is included because a certified site plan is not required. The condition will prevent lighting potentially being focused on adjacent properties and street rights-of-way. Gary Sehl, representative, complimented staff’s professionalism. He said the applicant has no problems with the conditions as listed. In response to a question, he said the business with utilize the existing building. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item CU 98-33, subject to conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within one year from the date of this public hearing; 2) the applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit within 6 months from the date of this public hearing; 3) the applicant shall submit a revised parking lot plan for review and approval by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to obtaining a building permit; and 4) the applicant shall provide landscaping at this site that meets or exceeds the requirements of Section 42.27 after submitting a revised landscape plan for review and approval by the City’s Landscape Architect prior to obtaining a building permit; and to move Condition #5 under staff notes, and delete Condition #6. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Thomas L. Jones to permit manufacturing at 1001 Garden Avenue, J. J. Eldridge Sub, Blk D, Lots 33-34 and part of Lot 35, zoned CI (Infill Commercial). CU 98-34 The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to establish a manufacturing use at 1001 Garden Avenue to produce metal supports for air-conditioning systems. The primary use for the property will involve the welding of those supports. The applicant intends to utilize the existing structure. All manufacturing uses will be conducted indoors. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the commercial infill zoning district and compatible with the surrounding properties. Staff has determined the proposed use meets the standards of review and recommends approval subject to conditions. James Jacobs, applicant, said the property is convenient to other operations he owns. The business which recently purchased a home on Ft. Harrison for offices, employs 24 people. Plans are to purchase the condemned property to the rear of the subject property. The business has had an occupational license since 1982. Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item CU 98-34, subject to conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license prior to the start of doing business but no later than 6 months from the date of this public hearing; 2) there shall be no exterior storage or exterior processing associated with the proposed use; and 3) the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval by the City’s landscape architect prior to obtaining an occupational license. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Robert G. & Hazel V. Daniel (Shore Lanes/Crown Acura) to permit 1) vehicle sales; and 2) vehicle service at 18911 US 19 N., Sec. 20-29-16, M&B 32.02, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). CU 98-37 Member Mazur expressed a conflict and removed himself from the meeting. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow vehicles and service at 18911 US 19N. The property is currently used as a bowling alley. The applicant plans to raze the building and replace it with a 19,500 square foot structure. The applicant has met with the Development Review Committee to review site plans. A certified site plan will be required prior to development. The proposed use is consistent with the commercial nature of US 19N and the applicant is working with staff regarding landscaping. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions. Brett Langford, Suncoast Auto Builders Contractors, referred to the site plan, indicating the site will have a service center, but no body shop on site. He said plans are to close the northern entrance from US 19N, leaving one entrance to comply with FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) requirements. The new building will be smaller than the existing structure. The pavement will be raised on both sides of the entrance road with “better than code” landscaping. Lighting and noise questions regarding the southeast perimeter of the site have been resolved with residents of the Bay Aristocrat Mobile Home Park. In response to a question, he said the outdoor speaker volumes will be adjusted in order to address residents’ concerns. In response to a question from representative Ed Armstrong, Ms. Glatthorn said washing and detailing vehicles outside is acceptable as an accessory use. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the language in Condition #2 is from the Vehicle Service code provision. Discussion ensued and it was felt washing and detailing vehicles is not the operation’s primary business, but is a secondary service. Mr. Armstrong requested deleting “engine or transmission dismantling” from the second sentence of Condition #. He said although the site will not be used as a body shop, all new car franchise agreements require the ability to perform repair work on site. This business will construct internal bays for repair work. It was suggested a fifth condition accommodate his request. In response to a question regarding a letter of opposition from an Imperial Cove condominium resident, Mr. Armstrong said the property is zoned highway commercial and the applicant is complying with code and the comprehensive plan. He stated a continuance will present an undue hardship. It was remarked lighting along parts of US 19N is inadequate, and lighting is necessary to identify the turnaround near this proposed business. It was commented this will be an improvement over the previous business as it will close at night. Member Figurski moved to approve Item CU 98-37, subject to conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain an occupational license within one year from the date of this public hearing; 2) all vehicle service bays shall be located within an enclosed building and all vehicle servicing shall be conducted indoors provided waxing, washing, and detailing may be performed outdoors; 3) all parts, tires, and related service equipment shall be stored within a building at all times; and 4) the applicant may perform major vehicle repair work at this site, including, but not limited to, body repair and painting, provided such work is performed in an enclosed building. The motion was duly seconded. Members Hilkert, Figurski, Kunnen, Gildersleeve, and Anderson voted “Aye.” Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. ITEM D - Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review 1. 1704 El Trinidad Drive East, Virginia Grove Terrace, Blk 2, Lot 2 (Scott W. Greer) A 98-25 LUP: Residential Low ZONE: RS-8 (Single Family Residential) The applicant wishes to annex a single family residential property at 1704 El Trinidad Drive East to obtain sewer service. A sewer line in front of the property in El Trinidad Drive East right-of-way to is available provide the service. Appropriate impact fees have been paid. Staff recommends approval. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item A 98-25 as requested. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. 1722 St. Croix Drive, Virginia Grove Terrace 5th Addition, Blk A, Lot 5 (Scott W. & Janice Gitchell) A 98-26 LUP: Residential Low ZONE: RS-8 (Single Family Residential) Chair Hilkert expressed a conflict of interest and excused himself from the meeting. The applicant wishes to annex a single family residential property at 1722 St. Croix Drive to obtain sewer service. A sewer line is available from the manhole at St. Croix Drive. The applicants will be responsible for the cost of the extension. Appropriate sewer impact fees have been paid. Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item A 98-26 as requested. The motion was duly seconded. Members Figurski, Mazur, Kunnen, Gildersleeve, and Anderson voted “Aye”. Member Hilkert abstained. Motion carried. 3. ORDINANCE NO. 6337-98 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FORT HARRISON AVENUE AND HAMILTON CRESCENT ROAD, CONSISTING OF PART OF LOT 9, LOT 10, PROPERTY OF J. O. HAMILTON, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 706 SOUTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM TO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE GENERAL; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND ORDINANCE NO. 6338-98 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FORT HARRISON AVENUE AND HAMILTON CRESCENT ROAD, CONSISTING OF PART OF LOT 9, LOT 10, PROPERTY OF J. O. HAMILTON, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 706 SOUTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, FROM MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ‘TWELVE’ (RM-12) TO LIMITED OFFICE (OL); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The applicant is requesting a zoning change from Multiple Family Residential “Twelve” (RM-12) to Limited Office (OL), and a Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Medium to Residential/Office General for property at 706 South Fort Harrison Avenue. The applicant has used the property as an office for more than 20 years. The existing use is non-conforming. This rezoning is needed to resolve inconsistencies and to bring the existing use into compliance with the zoning district. A compatible land use in this district is Residential/Office General. The adjacent property to the south is zoned OL. The subject site is less than 1 acre and qualifies as a type sub-threshold amendment in accordance with Division 5.3 of the Countywide Rules and ordinarily would not be subject to substantive PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) review. Roger Larsen, representative, said the applicant was unaware of the existing conflicts with the zoning and land use laws. He requested the board approve the rezoning request. Member Mazur moved endorsement of Items Z 98-11 and LUP 98-09 as presented. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 6331-98 OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AMENDING SECTIONS 35.11, 40.284, 40.304, 40.324, 40.344, 40.384, 40.404, 40.424, 40.434, 40.444, 40.464, 40.474, 40.503, 40.524, 40.543, 40.564, AND 41,053, AND CREATING SECTION 41.281, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR THE SITING, DESIGN, MAINTENANCE, AND USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Dougall-Sides said staff based this ordinance on a model developed by Pinellas County and other municipalities. The proposed ordinance regulates the placement of telecommunication towers and antennas. It is recommended the City update the LDC to reflect federal design standards. The ordinance forbids telecommunications towers in residential zoning districts, Clearwater Beach, or in open space recreation zoning districts. It allows towers as a conditional use in other zoning districts. Most antennas will be treated as an accessory use on buildings and required to be integrated into the design of those buildings. The ordinance includes a joint use requirement to verify an applicant’s intent to achieve co-location of the antennas when building towers. Height, setback, landscaping, painting, and other aesthetic provisions for towers are included. A tower will be considered abandoned if it has not been used for at least 12 months or more. Each business will file an annual report indicating if towers had been in use. The City can remove towers after notice and opportunity to cure. A “stealth” technology feature encourages businesses to blend the towers into the surrounding environment. The ordinance provides each application be reviewed only by the Planning and Zoning Board or the board in existence after incorporation of the new LDC. That board will determine the appropriateness of height and setback features in the context of conditional use. Ms. Dougall-Sides referred to changes made after the City Commission commented at a worksession. She will distribute a copy of the changes. First reading of this ordinance is scheduled for Thursday. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. In response to questions, Ms. Dougall-Sides said churches are zoned PSP (public/semi-public) and this ordinance will allow towers in that zoning district except on Clearwater beach. Provisions for setbacks equal to the height of each tower will protect small PSP districts. It was felt the requirement for annual reports on the towers’ status is not business-friendly. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated that provision is standard in the industry. In response to a question, she said staff will interpret the stealth language and economic feasibility based on submitted industry information. The City will make decisions in good faith. It was suggested the P&Z (Planning and Zoning) Board reach the final determination regarding the economic feasibility of the stealth language. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides noted urgency in passing this ordinance to comply with the Telecommunications Act and address pending litigation. If this ordinance passes, the pending appeal may be muted and that applicant may be required to re-apply and comply with the new LDC. The ordinance addresses radio and transmission towers, but not ham radios, satellite dishes, or types of towers exempted from regulation by local zoning codes. In response to a question, she said industry representatives attended 2 City-held meetings regarding this issue. She did not know of any applications or requests for a tower within the City during the past 5 years. Existing towers would be grandfathered in. No adverse comments were expressed regarding the 1:1 fall ratio. A remark was made that staff has done a good job regarding this ordinance. This issue should be handled administratively when the new LDC is in place, involving only the P&Z board’s consideration of conditional use requests. The levels of review after the new LDC is implemented were reviewed: 1) staff approval; 2) an appeal process; and 3) final approval by the Commission. It was suggested the landscaping provision be expanded to include other methods of acceptable landscaping and a requirement for periodic inspections of towers by licensed engineers. It was remarked if an engineer designs and certifies that a tower meets all safety and wind requirements, re-inspections are not necessary. Frank Stanonis, representative for Aerial Communications, said “stealth” is not an industry term. He questioned when an alternative structure would be considered a tower, and when it would be considered stealth. He felt stealth refers to a compromise position and further definition is required to diminish the possibility of economic hardship. He requested the board consider implementing the word waiver rather than variance because he felt variances involve stricter criteria than waivers. Ms. Dougall-Sides said “variance” is used in the ordinance and its intent is to address an additional condition. The current code does not include the word hardship, rather than strict requirements for standards. She was agreeable to using “waiver” instead of “variance” if staff agreed. In response to a question, she said landscaping and buffering are required for towers not visible from the street. Discussion ensued regarding tower heights. Mr. Stanonis said tower heights are based on the number of users. He felt between 160 and 200 feet is a reasonable height for a tower, and waivers should be considered case-by-case. For multiusers in rural areas, 200 feet is more common. Elevations tend to increase when businesses have to reach longer distances to meet capacity. In response to a question, he said a 120-foot tower would not be placed on an 80-foot high building. With the exception of a downtown building, a telecommunications structure on a building that is less than 20 feet, is considered an “antenna”; higher than 20 feet is considered a “tower.” In response to a question, he did not anticipate towers or antennas will become obsolete as technology improves. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said page 6 addresses tower and antenna heights. Laura Belleflower, Primeco representative, expressed concern regarding the “stealth” language in the ordinance. She felt the inclusion of language referring to “economic feasibility” does not clarify the issue. She requested the language be deleted or amended to indicate towers should blend with surrounding environment. She also requested a sentence be added to Section 41.281(2) to read, “The installation of an antenna on an existing tower which is nonconforming in terms of the provision of this division shall not be deemed to constitute the expansion of the nonconforming use.” She said this will encourage existing towers to be used to their maximum capacity, limiting the need to build new towers. Existing language refers to antennas on buildings that are nonconforming due to height, not towers. She requested language be added to address the modification or replacement of towers and utility structures to accommodate co-location by administrative review. Other jurisdictions use the language, “A tower which would modify but not conform with requirements of the code may be increased in height up to 40 feet above the original approved height and/or relocated on the same zoning lot one time within 75 feet of the existing location without regard to the setback or height-related limitations.” She said this language allows a 120-foot tall tower to be replaced with a tower up to 40 feet higher to accommodate co-location. She said this language will comply with the administrative process and eliminate the need for a waiver. She requested utility structures be considered for modification, such as light standards with limitation in residential areas. She suggested towers close to residential areas be limited to 50% of the height of the existing structure, or a total of 140 feet, whichever is less. If the modified structure is more than 140 feet from a single family residential structure, the tower could be 25% of the height of the structure, or a total of 140 feet, whichever is less. She said the closer a tower is to a residential area, the less impact it would have. She suggested landscaping language address the area between the tower and off-site roadways. She requested not requiring buffering between adjacent industrial structures, and waiving the screening provision. She had other concerns regarding other provisions, but felt staff has worked proactively to resolve issues. She said only minor changes are needed. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the separation of towers is addressed with setback requirements, the 1:1 fall ratio, and restricted zoning districts. Ms. Belleflower said businesses are required to justify the need for a tower. The co-location requirement is important to control the number of towers. In response to question, she said a tower speculator must have at least one carrier to justify each tower constructed. The number of carriers a tower can carry depends on the structural design. Member Figurski moved endorsement of Ordinance 6331-98, with consideration by the Commission regarding the concerns expressed regarding: 1) public/semi-public districts; 2) incorporation of “waivers” rather than “variances”; 3) better definition of “stealth” requirements; 4) better definition of economic feasibility; 4) extension of conforming use; 5) consideration of increasing tower heights to 200 feet; and 6) amend the types of landscaping materials permitted. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City would have no liability if a tower fell. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM E - Chairman’s Items - None. ITEM F - Director’s Items Planning and Development Services Director Lorenzo Aghemo said the LDC draft is ready to be presented. The presentation to the P&Z Board is scheduled for November. A copy of the draft will be provided. ITEM G - Board and Staff Comments In response to a question, City Clerk Cyndie Goudeau said within 3 days of receiving the meeting dates from the Planning and Development Services Department, staff mails notices of public hearings to residents and businesses within 500 feet of the affected property. The notices are sent 10 - 12 days prior to the hearing. An occasional holiday may affect mail delivery. In response to a question, Mr. Aghemo said the public hearing process takes approximately 6 weeks, assuming the applicant has provided all pertinent information. Ms. Goudeau will provide the affidavit of mailing to board members prior to each meeting. Staff was commended for their competence. Today’s regular meeting agenda went smoothly and was more concise. It was suggested the board hold 1 meeting per month instead of 2. It was remarked since some City boards are being combined, permanent scheduling changes are not advisable at this time. ITEM H - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.