Loading...
11/17/1998PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER November 17, 1998 Present: Douglas Hilkert Chair Gerald Figurski Vice-Chair Frank Kunnen Board Member Edward Mazur Board Member (arrived 2:15 p.m.) David Gildersleeve Board Member Rick Anderson Board Member Steven Chandler Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn Planning Manager Etim S. 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. A. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - November 3, 1998 It was requested paragraph 2, page 3, sentence 4 read “...rights be transferable....” The Chair said if no other changes are requested, the minutes stand approved as amended. B. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION, DEFERRED AND CONTINUED ITEMS: None C. CONDITIONAL USES: 1. Joseph Lubeck, Trustee/BEF, Inc./Oaks Clearwater, Inc (Oak Cove Condo) to replace a non-conforming use with another non-conforming use (Congregate Care/Nursing Home) at 210 S. Osceola Ave., Oak Cove, a commercial condo, zoned UC(B) (Urban Center Bayfront). CU 98-45 The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to replace a congregate care facility, a nonconforming use, with a nursing home, also a nonconforming use at 210 S. Osceola Avenue. The current congregate care facility and nursing home has 240 assisted living apartments and 57 medical beds. The applicant intends to increase the number of medical beds to 117 and decrease the number of assisted living apartments to 193. The net number of units will not change. The applicant proposes to renovate and upgrade the building. According to Section 35.11 of the LDC (Land Development Code), 3 medical beds equal 1 dwelling unit. 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, Planner Teresa Mancini said onsite parking does not meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities) requirements. A revised plan will be submitted reflecting the upgrade. Thomas C. Nash, representative, distributed sketches of the proposed project. He said the nursing home use is less intensive than congregate care. In response to a question, he said 70 parking spaces are on site. The applicant will comply with ADA regulations. Member Figurski moved approval of CU 98-45, subject to conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain an occupational license within one year from the date of this public hearing; 2) the applicant shall obtain the requisite building permits prior to the start of construction but no later than six months from the date of this public hearing; 3) the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit and all required landscape material shall be installed prior to the applicant obtaining a certificate of occupancy; 4) the applicant shall maintain a maximum of 193 units and 117 medical beds within the facility; and 5) the applicant shall submit a revised parking lot plan for review and approval prior to obtaining an occupational license. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Mazur was not present for the vote. D. ANNEXATION, ZONING, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: 1. 148 Baywood Avenue, Eastwood Terrace 2nd Addition, Blk D, Lot 25 (Julian K & Pauline C Bridges) ZONE: RS-6 (Single Family Residential) A 98-28 Senior Planner Etim S. Udoh said the applicant is requesting annexation of a single family residential property at 148 Baywood Avenue to obtain sanitary sewer service. A sewer line in front of the property is available to provide the service. The applicant paid the $900 impact fee on October 13, 1998. Staff has reviewed the application and has determined the annexation appears to meet the standards of submission and review as set forth in Sections 37.05 and 37.21 of the LDC. Staff recommends approval to the City Commission of the proposed annexation and zoning atlas amendment to Single Family Residential “Six” (RS-6). Member Mazur moved endorsement of A98-28 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS: Further discussion of Community Development Code Charles Siemon, Siemon, Marsh, and Larsen, said the City Commission will hold first reading Thursday evening regarding the LDC draft. The Commission has discussed policy issues regarding: 1) granny flats (verbally opted not to adopt them); 2) front yard masonry walls (verbally opted to eliminate with exception of estate housing and limited circumstances); 3) allow noticing abutting property owners of Level 1 decisions with appeal process to the board within 5 days; 4) require 4 of the 7 Community Development Board members to have background or experience in specific professional fields; 5) limiting attached dwellings, etc. In response to a question, Mr. Siemon said in NCDs (Neighborhood Conservation Districts) flexibility is constrained. Special regulations will deal with special or unique district characteristics. Plans are to fold deed restrictions into public standards that can be publicly enforced. Criteria to define the scope of NCDs, identify qualifying areas, and develop a procedure to designate NCDs are being developed. Level 3 Commission approval in NCDs. The working draft allows anyone to propose an NCD. Residents will be notified of requests for NCD designation via map amendments or publication notice. Concern was expressed a few people may decide neighborhood issues for the majority. Discussion ensued regarding equal protection, enforcement of the code, and deed restrictions. Mr. Siemon felt the Commission chambers is only place a consensus can be reached. He said authorizing a neighborhood association board of directors to speak for all property owners invites conflict. It was remarked homeowner associations that represent all property owners in a neighborhood may become mandatory. The process for NCD designation will require staff evaluation. Member Figurski moved as to Neighborhood Conservation District special regulations enforcing items normally addressed through deed restrictions, the Planning & Zoning Board believes the proposal is fraught with potential problems, including neighborhood dissension, equal protection concerns, and enforcement. Therefore, this board recommends the City Commission adopt such a provision only if it is strongly constrained by high threshold criteria including a high public purpose and be permitted only when characteristics of a geophysical, historic, cultural, or other unique quality of a neighborhood needs to be preserved for the benefit of the City at large. In the absence of such uniqueness, private deed restrictions should continue to enforce neighborhood restrictions. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Transfer Development Rights Mr. Siemon said residential TDR (Transfer Development Rights) will be applicable City-wide. Parcels can be transferred within the same district or to a higher density district with one mile of the sender parcel. He recommended the densities be convertible to provide greater flexibility. A residential dwelling, based on average trip generation rates, could be converted so that an equivalent community impact results. Commercial parcels could be transferred in the same manner. He also suggested setbacks and other regulations at receiver sites not exceed 150% of what would be permitted. In response to a question, Mr. Siemon said the Greenwood neighborhood will be treated the same as other communities. Member Figurski moved to recommend adoption of the revised language presented by Mr. Siemon. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Landscaping In response to a question, Mr. Siemon estimated it costs a moderately sized business $4,000 to $10,000 to open or redevelop a business on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, depending on the frontage, existing character, and the level of compliance efforts. Businesses will be required to comply with new landscaping rules that redevelop, modify, or suspend use for a time. He said this aggressive stance is necessary to change the corridor. A provision allows businesses who demonstrate why compliance is not feasible financially, to possibly be relieved from compliance. In response to a question, Mr. Siemon said the City will adopt the same landscaping criteria for City-owned property. The City is working with property owners to link investment with the private sector. A remark was made that landscaping is one of the most measurable impacts related to urban planning and design,. Member Anderson moved to recommend compliance with the proposed code in regard to landscaping. Discussion ensued reducing water bills to maintain landscaping. It was remarked the Commission should understand that properties which fail to comply with landscaping requirements and subsequently remain vacant will reduce tax revenues. It was suggested the Commission consider how to improve properties so that owners have an income stream and are able to make improvements later. Mr. Siemon said a provision allows flexibility in certain circumstances. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. Parking In response to a question, Mr. Siemon said no significant changes have been made to the code regarding beach parking. Designs are being developed for short and long term parking strategies. He said adequate parking close to the sand may never be available during peak times but the issue can be corrected when the City is ready to address it. He said the City plans to attract public/private initiatives to increase parking and offer property owners additional flexibility. The revised code includes a shared parking provision that allows flexibility. In response to a question, he said the Commission will determine retail parking issues. He said a happy medium is necessary when considering factors related to a resort district parking: 1) public spaces to accommodate beach traffic and 2) the private sector’s ability to redevelop properties without constraint related to parking concerns. Member Mazur moved to recommend approval of sections in the proposed draft that pertain to parking. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Signs It was felt the new code burdens property owners interested in development. Mr. Siemon said signage restrictions are increased under the new code. As an alternative, the Comprehensive Sign Program focuses less on a sign’s size and height and more on its character and relationship to the structure, its consistency with the community theme, and its attractiveness. He said the most successful method to promote attractive signage is for standard conditions to require smaller and shorter signs. Larger signs will be judged under the Comprehensive Sign Program. The administration strongly supports improving the aesthetic quality of City corridors. This policy will require compliance early in the redevelopment process. In response to a question, Mr. Siemon felt the Commission is comfortable with the draft language related to signs. Concern was expressed that smaller signage does not add value to a property. Mr. Siemon said increased values result over time once the character and quality of the district improves. He said this aggressive initiative and accelerated enforcement period will improve corridors rapidly. He felt improved signage, landscaping, and public investment in the public realm is necessary to avoid increased blight. It was remarked the City still has compliance problems related to the last sign code passed by the Commission. It was felt burdening business owners with additional hardships is not business-friendly. Mr. Siemon said good signage preserves assets by stabilizing property over time. While costs are associated with compliance, it is not anti-business as a more attractive community does more business. He said businesses wishing to redevelop decide to invest money to establish themselves at that location. The comprehensive sign approach will address the “one size fits all” issue. He said a provision permits small tall signs and low large signs. Discussion ensued. It was suggested the current sign code be incorporated into the new code, with a provision to use the Comprehensive Sign Program rather than variances. If the community wants a more restrictive sign code, the merits of a more restrictive sign code should be debated. Member Figurski moved to recommend the Commission adopt the sign provision as proposed, with a caveat to ensure that the community is made aware of the section’s language. The motion was duly seconded. In response to a question, Mr. Siemon said this sign code is aggressive, but with the Comprehensive Sign Program, provides substantial flexibility. Upon the vote being taken, Members Figurski, Mazur, Gildersleeve, Anderson, and Chandler voted “Aye”; Chair Hilkert and Member Kunnen voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Mr. Siemon requested comments regarding accessory overnight accommodations at facilities such as country clubs, to be limited to country club guests as a way to strengthen clubs and other facilities. He felt as long as the use is accessory to the principal use, it will not violate Pinellas Planning Council’s rules regarding density allocations. In response to a question, he said the number of units would be based on a ratio of members, land area, or a combination of the two. He said it seems to work well for some older country clubs in the northeast that have limited overnight accommodations. Those facilities are not open to the public. He said his firm will pursue this proposal if the board has no objections. In response to a question, Mr. Siemon said second reading of the updated LDC will occur in December or January. The code will address issues related to the Community Development Board and consent agenda. Consensus was to recommend the Commission permit the Community Development Board to elect its own Chair. Mr. Siemon said the Commission had discussed this topic but had not reached consensus. 2. Christmas Luncheon Discussion ensued regarding the board’s last Christmas luncheon as the Planning and Zoning Board. Consensus was to schedule the luncheon at 12:00 p.m. on December 15, 1998, at the Beachcomber Restaurant. It was requested Ms. Glatthorn send invitations to Commissioners and appropriate personnel, and ensure it is properly advertised. F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None. G. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS - None. H. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.