Loading...
02/02/1999PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER February 2, 1999 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 Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Lorenzo Aghemo Planning & Development Dept. Administrator Ralph Stone Planning Director Etim Udoh Senior Planner Antonia Gerli Planning Manager Mark Parry Planner Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:01 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 Meeting - January 22, 1999 The Chair asked if there were any changes to the minutes of the January 22, 1999, meeting. Since there was none, he said the minutes stand approved as submitted in written summation to each board member. ITEM B - Requests For Extension, Deferred And Continued Items - None. ITEM C - Conditional Uses 1. (Cont’d from 01/22/99) Arnold Brown Properties (Budget Mini-Storage) to permit construction of a 79,049 sq. ft. ministorage/ warehouse complex at 101 N. Myrtle Ave., W.F. Hughey’s Sub, Lots 1-6, 9-14, and part of Lots 7-8, Sarah McMullen’s Sub, part of Blk 4, zoned UC[C] 2 (Urban Center Core). CU 99-04 This conditional use request is for a one-story, self-storage facility on three acres at 101 North Myrtle Avenue. Surrounding properties are zoned similarly. While current code permits this conditional use in the zoning district, the pending code does not. Staff feels this use is not desirable for downtown where encouraged uses support pedestrian activity, and increased residents and employers. Staff feels the storage use may negatively impact the marketability and property value of pending development. Staff also has concerns regarding the design of ingress/egress off Myrtle Avenue and inadequate internal space to maneuver vehicles. A review of impacts of the conditional use will be necessary. The applicant has added architectural elements for a more interesting design, has planned significant landscape buffering Myrtle, and a retention facility surrounded by landscaping on Laurel Street. The applicant has agreed to vacate the Grove Street right-of-way as a condition of approval. Staff is concerned regarding the efficiency of a proposed on-site drainage system that flows into exterior retention areas. Staff recommends denial of the application. In response to a question, Planning Director Ralph Stone felt the use will not lower the value of neighboring property significantly though it is unusual to find the use contiguous to a residential use. He was unaware of any similar uses of this size in other cities. He said four downtown business cards were attached to a letter of opposition. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said the townhouse development east of this property has been approved. Staff has not determined the amount of downtown storage available. In response to a question, he said the staff report indicates the use could be a supportive use to downtown offices. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said the board needs to consider if the zoning ordinance allows storage as a conditional use, the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff’s review has considered these issues and determined the application will not create a mixed use environment that adds residents, people, and employment opportunities downtown. Some fairly heavy commercial uses to the west and south may change soon. The approved abutting residential project is an important example of desirable downtown development. The proposal must be measured against current circumstances and long term plans. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides suggested the board consider the plans as conceptual. The Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Plan have been adopted, although several changes have occurred and not all intended elements are in place. She said the board must evaluate if the use is compatible with the surrounding natural environment, its effect on traffic, if the use will be detrimental to surrounding property values or compatible with surrounding uses as measured by building setbacks, open space, hours of operation, building and site appearance, architectural design, and other factors. Mr. Stone said if the developer addresses issues of concern by changing the project or use significantly, the applicant would be required to obtain board approval again. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the board must review site ingress and egress, if landscaping and screening are sufficient, if parking is adequate, and if the type and volume of traffic is acceptable. Other issues would be reviewed during the site planning process. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said the applicant’s revised site plan attempts to protect live oaks. In response to a question, Planning and Development Department Administrator Lorenzo Aghemo said application to vacate Grove Street has not been submitted. Tim Johnson, representative, reviewed the property’s history, noting the lot has been available for development for 15 years. He said nearby storage and industrial uses are viable uses. He said the property does not front Cleveland Street and has insufficient traffic to qualify as a retail site. He said Cleveland Street traffic will decrease after the new bridge is built. He felt the proposal is the most realistic choice for this property. He noted the project started in 1997, before the new Land Development Code was initiated. He said proposed landscaping is more than sufficient to meet current code and reviewed site plan modifications for “cut-outs” where construction might have harmed oak trees. He said most users will be residential with only 20% of the units for business use. He said the developer is spending between almost $90,000 more than required on architectural, interior, and landscaping features. He said the applicant meets or exceeds staff recommended conditions regarding noise, lighting, etc. He said the office will be staffed whenever the facility is opened. He said no storage unit will have electrical power or water and no work will be performed there. Mr. Johnson suggested 9-foot walls with landscaping will improve the views of townhouse residents over that of dumpsters and equipment stored behind businesses. He said Clearwater beach is 4 miles from the closest air-conditioned storage facility and felt the use is needed in this area. He said the facility is more attractive than some City parking structures. He said a Hillsborough County developer had proposed a self-storage facility as an amenity to a Class A apartment project. Lee Arnold, applicant, presented sketches of the property and surrounding uses. He felt this use is preferred to the parking lot proposed in the One City. One Future. Blueprint for the Myrtle Avenue and Cleveland Street intersection. It was commented the letter, submitted by Mr. Johnson, from W. Michael Maxwell & Associates, Inc. in Fort Myers, Florida does not state if the mini-storage facilities there were constructed prior to or after construction of surrounding developments. Concern was expressed no company representative is present to answer questions. Mr. Johnson said there is no evidence on record of any diminution of value. Concern was expressed regarding: 1) ingress, egress, vehicle maneuverability, and narrow parking spaces; 2) drainage retention; 3) noise from trucks; and 4) the size of the facility in an urban core. Mr. Johnson addressed each issue. The meeting recessed from 3:38 to 3:51 p.m. Six persons spoke in opposition of the application. Chris Aiello, representative for Pierre Cournoyer, Theta Homes, Inc., said the City had approved construction of luxury townhouses east of the subject site. He said that project will attract revenue downtown and increase the tax base. His client opposes the proposed mini-storage facility, noting its negative impact on the housing development which may be the first of a sequence of projects. If the mini-storage facility is approved, the developer will reconsider the townhouse project. Mr. Aiello said townhouse residents do not want to view a storage facility regardless of the extent of the landscaping. Pierre Cournoyer, Theta Homes, Inc., read a letter stating clients have requested cancellation of pre-sale agreements. He said the proposed storage facility will negatively impact the marketability of the townhome project scheduled for construction in March. He felt the storage facility will create stagnant conditions downtown and negatively affect the quality of life. In response to a question, Mr. Cournoyer said a storage facility will be objectionable to downtown’s revitalization. He said the developer had not expected Clearwater would permit a mini-storage facility near a residential area. Mr. Johnson said this will not be a warehouse, but a self-storage facility. He disagreed with concerns regarding the view of townhome residents. He said a bar backs up to the south of the townhome property and a vacant, unkempt property is to the west. He said dumpsters, parking, and security lights from another development would be of greater concern to townhome purchasers. He said the self-storage facility will raise tax revenues, and no objections from land owners to the north or west had been received. He said the project meets code requirements, provides a convenience to residents, and serves as an ancillary supportive downtown use. In response to a question, Mr. Aghemo said the Design Review Board will determine if the building design is acceptable. It was noted a mini-storage facility on Belcher Road backs up to townhouses and there have been no known complaints about that storage facility. Member Chandler moved approval of CU 99-04, subject to conditions: 1) hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the weekend and 2) storage areas shall not be used for business or hobby purposes. He requested staff encourage the Design Review Board to develop design solutions that create an urban storage use that mitigates impacts on adjacent properties. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion ensued. It was recommended a deadline be added regarding the project’s commencement and completion, that the applicant be required to complete vacation of the 20-foot right-of-way on Grove Street, and that a condition be added “this conditional use permit is based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by this Board in approval of this conditional use, will require the approval of this Board, or the successor to this Board.” It was felt the board should consider project opposition. It was stated for the area to thrive and survive, downtown development must be predictable. It was suggested while the proposed structure is massive, it is a good sub-urban project not generally seen in an urban core. Concern was expressed regarding the long term effect of the project on downtown. It was felt the applicant had attempted to shield adjacent properties and improve their value. It was said the request should be based on current code requirements. Staff’s statement that the project will unlikely enhance property values was noted. It was suggested the project will improve the site and that townhome purchasers previously had thought they would view a grocery store’s loading docks. It was stated the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment plan should take precedent. It was felt while this project is nice, it is in the wrong place. Member Chandler moved to amend his motion to include conditions: 3) this conditional use permit is based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by this Board in approval of this conditional use, will require the approval of this Board, or the successor to this Board; 4) the applicant shall obtain a vacation of the 20-foot right-of-way on Grove Street to be replaced with a 20-foot utility easement, as depicted on the conditional use plan; and 5) the applicant will supply staff with a date certain to commence and complete the project. Discussion ensued regarding the utility easement requirement. Mr. Stone said if the project is approved, the City wants to eliminate the right-of-way. He was unsure if a utility easement will be required. He recommended eliminating language related to the utility easement. Member Figurski moved to amend the motion to add to Condition #4: “the 20-foot right-of-way on Grove Street be vacated as a conditon to the zoning being effective”, deleting the requirement for a utility easement. The motion to amend was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Upon the vote being taken, Members Figurski, Kunnen, Anderson, and Chandler and Chair Hilkert voted “Aye”; Members Gildersleeve and Mazur voted “Nay.” Motion carried. For clarification purposes, the motion in its entirity reads as follows: Member Chandler moved approval of CU 99-04, subject to conditions: 1) hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the weekend; 2) storage areas shall not be used for business or hobby purposes; 3) this conditional use permit is based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by this Board in approval of this conditional use, will require the approval of this Board, or the successor to this Board; 4) the 20-foot right-of-way on Grove Street be vacated as a conditon to the zoning being effective; and 5) the applicant will supply staff with a date certain to commence and complete the project. He requested staff encourage the Design Review Board to develop design solutions that create an urban storage use that mitigates impacts on adjacent properties. Upon the vote being taken, Members Figurski, Kunnen, Anderson, and Chandler, and Chair Hilkert voted “Aye”; Members Gildersleeve and Mazur voted “Nay.” Motion carried. Members Figurski and Gildersleeve stated they had received telephone calls from Herb Brown and Lee Arnold. Chair Hilkert said he had received a telephone message from Mr. Brown, but had not returned the call. The meeting recessed from 5:00 to 5:10 p.m. 2. Shoppes Associates Limited Partnership (The Shoppes on Sand Key - Martin Deniz European Restaurant) to permit cumulative alcoholic beverage sales in restaurants, nightclubs, taverns and bars and package sales of greater than 10% of the gross floor area in a retail complex at 1261 Gulf Blvd., Radisson Bayside Hotel, Lot 1, zoned B (Business). CU 99-06 The applicant requests a conditional use permit to permit cumulative alcoholic beverage sales at 1261 Gulf Boulevard. The site is not near a church or school. The applicant plans to operate a restaurant with no music or bar dancing activities. The site in a shopping center is surrounded by residential and resort uses. Staff recommends approval. In response to a question, Planning Manager Antonia Gerli indicated staff did not realize the application requests outdoor seating. She said the unit is within 50 feet of a residential use. Discussion ensued. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the last shopping center request for a restaurant and alcohol sales approval in 1994 was reviewed as a conditional use. Staff typically has advertised requests for outdoor seating. Ms. Gerli said two letters of opposition were received. Staff recommends approval of the application without outdoor seating. Julie Fine, applicant, said her perspective tenant has been in the business for 14 years and plans an upscale European restaurant to compliment the shopping center. Outdoor seating is requested for ambiance. She said the restaurant has approximately 500 square feet outside in the front and rear. In response to a question, she requested a decision be made today, asking the board to consider the application without the request for outdoor seating. Member Chandler moved to approve CU 99-06, subject to conditions: 1) conditional use permit is based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request; 2) applicant shall obtain an occupational license and certificate of occupancy within six months from the date of the public hearing; 3) sale of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to consumption on premises with no package sales; 4) no outdoor speakers will be permitted; and 5) no outdoor seating to the south of the building will be permitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM D - Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment, And Local Planning Agency Review 1. Detrano Pine Ridge Land Trust/Charlie Harris, TRE, 1329 Fairmont St., Pine Ridge, Blk A, Lot 2 ZONE: RS 8 (Residential Single Family) A 99-01 This request for annexation of a single family residential property at 1329 Fairmont Street is to obtain sanitary sewer service. A sewer line in the street right-of-way can provide the service. Appropriate impact fees have been paid. Staff recommends approval. Member Mazur moved approval of A 99-01 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Frederic B. & Michelle K. Moreau, 3006 Grand View Ave., Kapok Terrace, Blk G, Lot 13 and part of Lot 12, ZONE: RS 6 (Residential Single Family) A 99-02 This request for annexation of a single family residential property at 3006 Grand View Avenue is to obtain sewer service. A sewer line in the street right-of-way can provide the service. Appropriate impact fees have been paid. Staff recommends approval. Member Mazur moved approval of A 99-02 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM E - Chairman's Items - None. ITEM F - Director's Items - None. ITEM G - Board And Staff Comments - None. ITEM H - Adjournment - 5:44 p.m.