Loading...
11/03/1998PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER November 3, 1998 Present: Douglas Hilkert Chair Gerald Figurski Vice-Chair Frank Kunnen Board Member Edward Mazur Board Member David Gildersleeve Board Member Rick Anderson Board Member Steven Chandler Board Member (arrived 2:05 p.m.) Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn Planning Administrator 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 - October 20, 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. Morris Prosser, TRE c/o Aaron L. Holmstrom (G & J, Inc.) to permit package sales of beer and wine (new license) at 1333 N. Highland Avenue, Section 11-29-15, M&B 21.10, zoned CG (General Commercial), CU 98-42 The applicant is requesting conditional use approve to establish a convenience store with package alcoholic beverage sales (2APS license.) Staff has reviewed this request to determine its consistency, has determined the proposed use meets the standards of review, and recommends approval subject to conditions. In response to a question, Planning Administrator Sandra Glatthorn said if this request were a new use, it would still be acceptable under conditional use approval standards. A comment was made the 500 foot buffer from a church is not being met and there is no right-of-way separating the two. Ms. Glatthorn said according to Section 41.05323 (c), staff has determined the applicant has demonstrated conditions that are unique to the property that warrant the separation of the 500 foot separation requirement. This section of the code indicates the applicant is required to meet requirement 1, 2 or 3, not all of them. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides agreed with staff’s interpretation of the code. Property owner Aaron Holmstrom and representative Karim Aslan agreed with the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Holmstrom said the site had previously been a convenient store in the early 1980’s and at one time an auto parts store. Member Figurski moved approval of CU 98-42, subject to conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain an occupational license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) the applicant shall obtain the requisite State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 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; 4) the applicant shall submit a revised parking lot plan for review and approval by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to obtaining an occupational license; and 5) the hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. until 10 :00 p.m., seven days a week. The motion was duly seconded. Members Hilkert and Gildersleeve voted “nay.” Motion carried. ITEM D - Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review 1. The Clearwater Group, Ltd, a Florida Limited Partnership (Ed Armstrong Representative): Amendment to the Concept Plan to consider a request for amendment to the concept plan and associated preliminary subdivision plat for the Sunshine Mall Master Planned Development. Revisions include: (1) Addition of Parcel 8, adding 204 apartment units; (2) Reduction in size of Parcel 7 to 10 acres and reduction of the number of units on this parcel to 240 from 408; (3) Modifications at the outparcels along Missouri Avenue reducing the number of the outparcels by two; and (4) Revision to the detention pond/entrance from Druid Road. The property is located on the south corner of Druid Road, west of Missouri Avenue, approximately 640’ north of Lakeview Road, and east of Greenwood Avenue, Sec. 15-29-15, M&B 34.01 and Sec. 22-29-15, M&Bs 21.01 & 21.02, and is zoned Master Planned Development (Clearwater Group Ltd.) Ms. Glatthorn stated this is for information only. It is not necessary to obtain board approval. ORDINANCE NO. 6348-98: REPEALING THE 1985 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AND REPEALING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 2, CODE ENFORCEMENT, CHAPTER 20 NUISANCES, OF SUBPART A OF PART 11 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; CHAPTER 35 GENERAL PROVISIONS, CHAPTER 36 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, CHAPTER 37 ANNEXATION, CHAPTER 38 RESERVED, CHAPTER 39 CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 40 ZONING, CHAPTER 41 SPECIAL LAND USES, CHAPTER 42 UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 43 SITE PLANS, CHAPTER 44 SIGNS, CHAPTER 45 VARIANCES, CHAPTER 46 SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM PLATTING, OF SUBPART B OF PART II OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 50 LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES, SECTIONS 52.01, 52.02, 52.03, 52.04, 52.05, 52.06, 52.07, 52.31, 52.32, 52.33, 52.34, 52.35, 52.36, 52.37, 52.38 OF CHAPTER 52 TREE PROTECTION; CHAPTER 53 MARINE IMPROVEMENTS; CHAPTER 55 DOWNTOWN PROPERTY STANDARDS; AND ADOPTING A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE KNOWN AS THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER WHICH PERTAINS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS APPLICABLE TO ALL LAND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY, AUTHORIZED USES WITHIN EACH ZONING DISTRICT, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL USES, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES, REGULATIONS CONCERNING NONCONFORMITIES, TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, CODE AMENDMENTS, ZONING ATLAS AND LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS; ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD; RESPONSIBILITIES OF CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD; NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS; THE PROVISION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE PROPER NOTICE OF PROPOSED ENACTMENT AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Charles Siemon, Attorney for Siemon, Larsen & Marsh, presented the official draft of the City’s new Community Development Code, the replacement for the existing LDC (Land Development Code). The new code has been reviewed by many citizen groups and professional organizations. Comments and suggestions have been incorporated into the proposed draft. The new code was received and referred by the City Commission on October 15, 1998, and is being offered today for public hearing review by the P&Z (Planning & Zoning Board), and the DCAB (Development Code Adjustment Board) on November 12, 1998. Board recommendations will be forwarded to the Commission for the November 19, 1998, Commission meeting. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the Commission. Mr. Siemon said his focus is to streamline the process, making it positive and proactive. At each stage of the process, he will continue to bring comments, ideas, and corrections to the attention of the appropriate body. He reviewed subjects that remain to be resolved. His staff has not been able to get a consensus in the community regarding: 1) a nonconforming status for residential structures that are demolished greater than 50%; 2) TDR’s (transfer development rights) beyond the beach, in what districts should the rights be transferable to, and if they should only be transferable within a specific district or across district boundaries; and 3) accessory dwellings in residential districts. In response to a question, he stated he felt the downtown, commercial, and tourist districts are appropriate areas to which density could be transferred. Accessory dwellings would require Level 1 (staff) approval. This is a professional staff approval that would be reviewed by the next level only in the event the applicant chooses to appeal staff’s decision. He said some residents have expressed concern too much flexibility for multi-family dwellings is being proposed. He suggested an accessory dwelling policy be established in accordance with code design standards, not by neighborhood perspectives. He said as the code is drafted, an aggrieved applicant has the right to appeal to the Community Development Board, but a neighboring property owner would not have the right of appeal. A preliminary design guideline for the downtown and beach is being developed. He requested the board’s input regarding whether or not to incorporate those guidelines into the code now and modify them in the future, or leave them out until completed. In response to a question, Mr. Siemon said no consideration was given to allowing transfers to happen subject to approval of the board or Commission outside of the downtown, tourist, and beach areas. TDR’s would require Level 2 (Community Development Board) approval. Development rights consider both floor area ratio and density. There will be numerical caps on total height, which can be no more than 1 1/2 times the otherwise permitted amount of development. He gave examples of how TDR’s will function. A comment was made it would be appropriate to transfer from a residential area to a commercial area, not vice versa, recognizing that single family/residential is less intensive. Mr. Siemon suggested 2 ways to handle TDR’s: 1) permit them within a mapped district or 2) indicate a specific distance such as within 1 mile. In response to a question, he said concurrency requirements will still apply in each district. In response to a question, he said a parcel could be transferred or deeded to another party, with a deed restriction as to its future use. The objective of TDR’s is to avoid a situation where units are either transferred or clustered to a particular parcel of land and subsequently, through a change of ownership, the parcel owner from which those rights were transferred claims an entitlement to the units that were transferred. Once transferred, the property from which the rights have been transferred would not include future allocations of density. The future use of the transferred property is intended to be used for purposes other than the development that was transferred away. The sender parcel typically becomes open space, used a special purposes such as a drainage facility, or is developed differently than the original use. Member Figurski moved to recommend to the Commission the TDR provision be modified from the draft to allow transfers freely from any district in the City to the commercial, downtown, and tourist districts. Those transfers would be subject to approval according to the LDC, and if the otherwise permitted use would be a Level 1 or 2 approval, that the transfers would be allowed within residential districts within a mapped district, or a distance of 1 mile, and that those transfers could only go from the same district to the same district, or from a less intensive district to a more intensive district with a cap that the resulting intensity of use would not increase above 50% over the amount previously authorized. The conveyance will be by special warranty deed, and the deed will either be recorded or a notice of intent to transfer be recorded, prior to development approval. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. A resident expressed concern regarding improving one district at the detriment of another. She felt more consideration should be given to TDR’s and their impact on the community. She said many residents do not understand the language being drafted, the importance of these issues, and how they affect individual neighborhoods. She requested the new LDC reflect language that gives citizens the right to continue to receive notification of issues regarding setbacks, TDR’s, and other issues that will affect their quality of life, and maintain the opportunity to express their concerns. Discussion ensued regarding Level 1 and 2 approvals and how the appeal process will work. Mr. Siemon said the draft will offer some flexibility regarding setbacks. Concern was expressed about staff’s authority to make decisions on issues that are less than clear cut. Mr. Siemon said there are a number of ways to deal with those concerns: 1) notice abutting property owners at the time the application is file and 2) for those for which a notice is given, the burden would shift to them to act within 5 days thereafter. The notice would not trigger jurisdiction but would bring it to the appropriate body requiring a majority vote to review the request; or 3) if an objection were filed within 5 days, place it on the consent agenda unless voted to remove it. These techniques are not intended to deprive a resident with a legitimate concern from participating in the process. They are intended to discourage it becoming an automatic process that defeats the expedition of the process and reliance on professional judgment. Consensus was to notice abutting property owners at the time the application is filed. The notice must provide those owners with specific information that provides a clear representation of issues being considered. Should a request by one of those owners be filed within 5 days of notice, it will be placed on the consent agenda for review and not removed until the Community Development Board makes a determination, or removes it for lack of substance. Mr. Siemon said the best way to avoid setback issues and other neighborhood concerns is for neighbors to consult each other prior to such requests. In response to a question, he said historically, a number of front yard variances have been granted in a number of neighborhoods where a back lot line has been affected by the Coastal Construction setback line or other circumstances. He said the draft is providing the community much more flexibility, particularly where the existing condition is an irregular series of front yard setbacks as a result of various circumstances. A remark was made that eventually, all properties will conform to code, as homes are destroyed by flooding and other causes. In response to a question, Mr. Siemon said Veteran’s organizations that serve alcoholic beverages will be considered a bar or tavern. The alcoholic beverage sales section is only for packaged goods or consumption off premises as defined in the draft. There is an exemption for the equivalence a convenience store, with a limit on the percentage of the facility that can be devoted to off-premise sales. It was remarked that educational facilities were left out of the IRT (Industrial, Research and Technology District) section. Outdoor recreation entertainment is covered, but indoor is not. Outdoor retail display and storage is not a permitted use in the proposed draft and has always been a conditional use in the IRT. It was suggested outdoor storage be subject to a screening requirement or a front buffer from adjoining residential properties and rights-of-way, with a Level 1 approval. Outdoor retail display and storage must be an accessory use to the business, not the principal use. It is not necessary for adjoining properties in industrial areas. Discussion ensued regarding changes that had been discussed in a previous workshop, but that were not reflected in the draft provided. It was also suggested changes in language be made to the section regarding warranty deeds to reflect interest in property be conveyed by special warranty deed where appropriate. Mr. Siemon stated he will make the changes indicated. Discussion ensued regarding the design guidelines for the downtown and beach. Mr. Siemon said the City had previously developed a set of design standards for downtown, some of which may be part of this draft. He requested the board’s input regarding incorporating the design guidelines in the draft at this time. Consensus was not to incorporate them at this point. Concern was expressed regarding a more restrictive sign code in the draft. Mr. Siemon said the new sign code is more restrictive. He said feedback has indicated the need for greater flexibility of attractive and special signage. The community favors improving the aesthetic quality of signage. Member Figurski recommended the amendments to the Land Development Code be approved as drafted, with the exception of parking, landscaping and TDR’s (transfer development rights), which will be reviewed at the board’s November 17, 1998 meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. In response to a question, the Chair said Member Figurski’s motion rescinds the previous motion regarding approval of TDR’s. ITEM E - Chairman’s Items - None. ITEM F - Director’s Items Ms. Glatthorn introduced the new Director of Planning, Ralph Stone, and new Senior Planner, Antonia Gerlie. ITEM G - Board and Staff Comments It was requested the board approve future meeting dates as suggested by staff. Member Gildersleeve moved approval of suggested meeting dates supplied by staff at the last meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM H - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m.