The Issue Whether the Planning Commission deviated from essential requirements of law in denying Appellant's application for a special use permit to operate a car rental agency at 2576 Harn Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Manual Kastrenakes, d/b/a Pinellas Rent-A-Car, Appellant, purchased the property which is the subject of this appeal in 1989. Prior to this purchase, the property was the site of a Farm Store, which has been vacated. Appellant also owns a filling station in the vicinity of this property which is legally operated and is in compliance with all zoning requirements. The property is zoned CH (highway commercial). Within Highway Commercial Districts, outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage are permitted as conditional uses. Section 135.129(11), City of Clearwater Land Development Code. Objections to the granting of this conditional use permit come from residents of multifamily residential buildings adjacent to and west of the property in issue. Many of those residents are retired and/or infirm and contend they will be disturbed by the operation of a rental car business "in their back yard." To counter some of these objections, Appellant agreed to conditions being imposed on this permit limiting hours of operation, lighting, paving, buffer zones, and parking. Protestants also contend that operating the business would depreciate the value of their property, but no credible evidence was presented to support this position. Appellant has further agreed that disabled or wrecked vehicles will not be stored on this property, and only fully operable rental automobiles will be stored and/or displayed on this property.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1994, Jonathan O. and Merrill S. Hanke, by their representative John A. Skicewicz, P.A., a registered real estate broker, submitted, for consideration at the October 18, 1994 meeting of the City's Planning and Zoning Board, (Board), a conditional use request to operate a vehicle service facility at property located at 1139 Eldridge Street in Clearwater. Though Mr. Skicewicz indicated at hearing that he had the Hanke's authorization to file the original application, no indication of that appeared on the document, nor was any authorization ever found in the records kept by the City. Nonetheless, an authorization form accompanies the amended application, which was accepted by the City and which was the application considered and approved by the Board. As is normal practice, the application had been, before the Board action, submitted to the City's planning staff which, upon review, recommended approval subject to several conditions. The special conditions limited the work area to five service bays, prohibited any auto service work from being done outside the building, prohibited outside storage of materials, mandated provision of adequate dumpster service, limited hours of operation to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Mondays through Saturday and required compliance with Section 41.053(30) of the City Land Development Code with regard to vehicle service uses. At its meeting on October 18, 1994, the Board granted the conditional use permit upon conditions consistent with those recommended by the City staff, with the exception that no limitation on hours of operation was imposed. The Appellant did not object to the permit at the Board meeting because, it is represented, the owner of the company was travelling at the time the notification letter from the City came, and the matter was thereafter overlooked. The Board's approval was appealed on October 28, 1994 by Werner- Donaldson Moving Services, Inc., (WD), which operates a moving and storage facility on the property adjoining the subject property on either side. To the east is a warehouse storing household goods. The Permittee's building is approximately 1 - 2 feet in from the west property line and approximately 30 feet in from the east property line, except for a loading dock and small 30 by 30 foot structure which extends almost to that line approximately 48 feet in from Eldridge Street. The property in issue was formerly used as a millworking operation which manufactured wooden moldings and decorative pieces, employing 4 to 5 individuals. At that time, the parking area, encompassing 32 spaces, was greater than that which was needed for employee parking. Five of the spaces now would be in front of the office area; twelve in the shell area in front of the smaller building to the east; eight behind the small building to the east and in from Maple Street; and seven more in back of the building in from Maple Street. WD contends that this parking configuration would result in cars being required to back out into both Eldridge and Maple Streets, which would constitute a traffic hazard because of the significant number of large tractor trailer trucks which come to its facility each day. This would be compounded by the difficult configuration of the building and the support posts inside which would necessitate vehicles having to back out into the street to be moved around for work. The roof on the building in question is made of metal over wood beams. Mr. DeRoy, the WD comptroller, believes this type of construction would be inconsistent with the flame hazards of automobile repair work. Though the adjacent WD buildings are not constructed of wood, Mr. DeRoy nonetheless considers there to be a substantial fire risk due to those factors. Eldridge and Maple Streets are dead end streets. There is a day care center at the end of one of them. WD asserts that most of the businesses in the area are warehouses, a National Guard armory, and an electric company substation. Its representative contends that the neighborhood is quiet, and there is a residential area to the south. There are no other automobile repair shops in the neighborhood, and Mr. DeRoy, for WD, contends the proposed use of the property in issue would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. DeRoy claims that adding an auto repair shop at the instant location would decrease WD's property values as it would be an eyesore to the community. No independent evidence of this was presented, however. Though there are no auto repair shops on either Maple or Eldridge Streets in the two blocks east of N. Greenwood Avenue, the immediate area in question, there are at least five such installations within one block west of Greenwood and north of Maple. In addition, there is a machine shop, a cabinet shop, a hardware concern, two lumber businesses and a fuel and oil distributor, among others. Clearly, the area is not residential. It is classified as limited industrial, which includes vehicle service. When the application was brought for evaluation, noise was a factor considered but only as it related to the residential area to the south. Because of that, one staff agency recommended the inclusion of limited hours of operation in the permit. No one from the area in question, (residents were notified in advance by mail) appeared at the Board meeting or wrote in to object, however, and, consequently, noise was not considered as a problem. While working hours were not limited, a requirement that all work be done indoors was included as a condition of the permit. Parking was addressed by the City's Traffic Engineer who interposed neither objection or comment. Since this was a changed use as opposed to a new use, and since the Code requires the parking lot to accommodate the total need of the facility, the staff felt that parking requirements would be less under the changed use as opposed to the old use and would be sufficient. However, it appears that none of the properties currently in use in the area meet the City's current parking standards. Fire was also not considered to be a problem by the staff. City rules require approval by the Fire Marshall before occupancy. Any deficiencies existing would be identified then and, perforce, corrected before the building could be used. WD contends that body and fender repair and painting is not included in the intended definition of vehicle service. The Code definition includes the service and repair of vehicles, boats, and the like; washing and waxing; and installing mufflers, among other things. The Code definition does not specifically list body and fender repair, top and upholstery installation and repair, or the dismantling of engines, which are specifically covered elsewhere. The Code provides that these latter activities shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by the Board. In the instant case, the Board approved the application which refers to vehicle service. A staff comment, included in the application package which went before the Board, and which would appear to satisfy that requirement, notes that: Vehicle service will be primarily auto repairs which will include auto body work, and all aspects of mechanical work including rebuilding.
The Issue Appellants raise five issues on appeal: (1) that the Commission erred in approving the Application despite there being no competent substantial evidence of LKCCC’s financial capacity to develop the property; (2) that the Commission erred in approving the Application despite there being no competent substantial evidence that the project will meet the “local needs” requirement of the MCC; (3) that the Commission’s Public Meeting denied Appellants due process, and was fundamentally unfair; (4) that the Commission erred in approving the Application despite the failure of the project to comply with the “phasing and aggregation” requirements of the MCC for reserved outparcels; and (5) that the Commission erred in approving the Application despite the failure of the project to comply with, and the project’s inconsistency with, the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (“CommuniKeys Plan”).
Findings Of Fact On or about November 24, 1986, Petitioner applied for conditional use approval for on-premises consumption and package sales of alcoholic beverages (4-COP) at 2160 U.S. Highway 19-North, Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned CH (highway commercial). The property in question is the site of a shopping center known as Hillcrest Center. Melon's Restaurant is located at Hillcrest Center, and Russell Latimer testified that this application would allow a package liquor store to be opened next to Melon's Restaurant to accommodate customers of the restaurant who have expressed a desire to be able to purchase alcoholic beverages to take home with them. However, the package liquor store would also be open to the general public, and would attract customers who had not necessarily eaten at the restaurant. Melon's Restaurant has been operating for approximately three years with a 4-COPSRX license serving alcoholic beverages on-premises and maintaining at least 60 percent food sales. The subject property is located immediately west of, and adjacent to, the Hillcrest Villas Apartments, which is in an area zoned RM-16 (multifamily residential). Four public witnesses who testified against this application reside in Hillcrest Villas Apartments. The front door of the residence of James F. Pannell, one of the public witnesses, is fifty feet from the back of Melon's Restaurant, and three hundred feet from the front of the restaurant. The five public witnesses, including the four residents at Hillcrest Villas Apartments and the District Manager of Florida Power Corporation which owns property to the east and north of the shopping center, oppose this application due to incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. They speculated that approval of this conditional use application would result in excessive glare from auto headlights due to increased traffic, trespass to the residential areas from customers entering and exiting the shopping center, property damage, and an increase in litter and debris. The property for which conditional use approval is requested in this case is within a five-hundred foot radius of a residential area, Hillcrest Villas Apartments. No adverse reports or comments were received from the City's traffic or police departments. Petitioner's application, if approved, would not change the parking or traffic patterns in the existing shopping center, Hillcrest Center, nor would it in any way change the set-backs, open spaces or hours of operation in the shopping center. It would, however, increase traffic to the shopping center and thereby could reasonably be expected to result in an increase in debris and litter, headlight glare, and noise associated with deliveries to the store as well as customers arriving at, and leaving, the premises. On December 16, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Board denied Petitioner's application, and a timely appeal was taken.
The Issue The issue in this appeal is whether to sustain the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Board (the Board) to deny Thomas Nott a conditional use permit to sell pre-owned motor vehicles at his business at 700 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Thomas A. Nott owns Lots 6 and 7, Gould & Ewing's Plat 2nd Addition. The street address is 700 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, Florida. This property is on the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and East Avenue. The property is in the Core-2 (C-2) subdistrict of the Urban Center (UC) zoning district. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan states in pertinent part: An extremely important aspect of the way Downtown Clearwater functions and is perceived involves transportation within and into the Downtown. If the traffic flow into Downtown is efficient and the entryways are attractive, Downtown Clearwater is more likely to be frequented by citizens and visitors. If traffic flow is congested and the roadsides are unappealing, the Downtown is less likely to be a place where people visit, live and shop and where entrepreneurs invest money. * * * Cleveland Street is the single most important roadway in Downtown Clearwater. Due to it[s] "Business S.R. 60" designation, it carries a substantial amount of the traffic heading to Clearwater Beach, as well as the bulk of the office and retail traffic headed for Downtown. . . . In the Downtown Core area, Cleveland Street has been attractively landscaped with paving block and planters. This treatment has greatly improved the appearance of the Downtown along Cleveland Street. However, these efforts are, to some extent, undermined by the poorly landscaped sections of Cleveland Street outside the Downtown Core area. Land uses outside of the Downtown Core along Cleveland Street are relatively unattractive and are poorly landscaped. A remedial landscaping program should be considered as a top priority for improving this important entryway. The City also has adopted Design Guidelines for new construction, building additions, facade alterations, and signage for the Urban Center zoning district. A section on "Landscape and Streetscape Guidelines" suggests the use of different kinds of planters and curb "neck-out" street corners to create larger pedestrian areas that incorporate benches, specialized pavers, and lighted bollards. Landscaping, including shade trees, are suggested to provide separation between people and vehicles. A subsection on "Open Spaces" states: "Designers of site improvement areas are encouraged to explore opportunities to incorporate usable open space with the project (development) area." Nott's property is in a transition area between the more attractively landscaped City core to the west and the less attractive portions of Cleveland Street to the east. Immediately to the west across East Avenue is the Pinellas Trail. Immediately to the west of the Trail, fronting on Cleveland Street, is the historic United States Post Office building, which is listed on the National Register of historic buildings. (Since it still functions as a working post office, a large number of mail delivery trucks park and operate out of the back of the post office to the north.) The Trickels Jewelers building to the immediate east of Nott's property also is attractively landscaped, especially along Myrtle Avenue. The other properties to the north, east, and south of Nott's property are less attractive. They include: an automobile and marine repair business; a restaurant with little or no open space; an import car repair service business with little or no open space; and a car rental business. Ideally, the City would like Nott's property to become the start of an eastward expansion of the more attractive urban core along Cleveland Street. Nott's property is 0.26 acre in area; its dimensions are 105 feet in width and 109 feet in depth. Unlike most properties in the downtown urban core, the building on Nott's property is set back quite a distance from the streets. The building has one story and is just 1500 square feet. In the past, the property has been used as an automobile gas and service station and as a car rental business. Before Nott bought the property, the building was in disrepair and in decline. Approximately four years ago, Nott was considering relocating from South Beach in Miami, where he was in the business of selling pre-owned motor vehicles. Initially, he investigated relocating to Dunedin, but an official with Clearwater's redevelopment agency persuaded him to take advantage of Clearwater's commitment to redevelop the downtown urban core, as well as interest-free financing available through the agency to improve the property. Nott bought the property, borrowed approximately $50,000 interest-free, and invested that and an additional $50,000 of his own money to improve the property. His plan was to conduct two businesses at the property: a roller skate and bicycle rental business catering to users of the Pinellas Trail; and a pre-owned motor vehicle sales business. Due to family priorities, Nott had to delay his departure from Miami and only was able, with the help of a nephew, to open the skate and bicycle shop. The 121 square feet of storefront planned for the vehicle sales business was used as storage space for the skate and bicycle shop pending opening of the vehicle sales business. The skate and bicycle shop, called Fritz's Skate Shop, had been operating for approximately three years when Nott became ready to open his pre-owned vehicle sales business. When he went to get an occupational license towards the end of 1998, Nott learned that a conditional use permit would be required. In discussions with staff of the City's Planning and Zoning Board, Nott also was informed that a new zoning code was going into effect which would prohibit vehicles sales at Nott's property and that he would have to expedite his application for it to be considered under the existing zoning regulations. Nott filed an application for a conditional use approval on or about January 12, 1999. At the time, Nott was not familiar with Clearwater's zoning regulations and did not address some zoning requirements. Specifically, while the sketch Nott drew by hand to approximate scale to serve as the required site plan met the minimum requirements as to form, it only showed a three-foot grass buffer along Cleveland Street and a three-foot buffer of shrubs along East Avenue, while the City's development code required at least a ten-foot landscaped buffer along Cleveland Street and at least a five-foot landscaped buffer along East Avenue. The sketch also showed parking that would obstruct vehicle flow in the parking lot and failed to show a large oak tree on the site. Finally, the sketch showed parking for the display of vehicles for sale along Cleveland Street. Nott's application was set for hearing at the Board's last scheduled meeting on March 2, 1999, just six days before the new zoning and development code would take effect. Nott still did not know all of the applicable regulations under the existing code. For some reason, Nott did not obtain a complete set of the City's zoning and development regulations until approximately February 17, 1999. Nott blamed the delay on foot-dragging by the Board's staff, and he questioned whether the staff was being uncooperative to undermine his application. Nott testified that he did not get a complete set of the applicable zoning and development regulations until after he sent a letter of complaint to the staff director on February 13, 1999. The staff denied any intention to delay Nott's application or be uncooperative. The staff blamed some of the delay on the time it took for Nott to prepare and submit an acceptable site plan. It appears that Nott entered into the application process thinking that there would be no problem meeting the City's requirements and expecting the Board's staff to walk him through the process. When Nott's expectations were not met, he perceived that the staff was treating him unfairly. But it is found that Nott's evidence did not prove unfair treatment. In fact, due to Nott's inexperience, the staff was required to give Nott more assistance than usual. For his presentation to the Board, Nott had a consultant use a photograph of the site to create a computer- visualization of the proposed vehicle sales business. The photograph depicted one vehicle parked in front of the building, as well as four vehicles parked along Cleveland Street and one parked along the east property line in two of the areas identified on the site plan as parking for the display of vehicles for sale. The visualization did not add any landscaping. At the time, Nott thought the concern was adequate parking; he did not know at the time that landscaping also would be important to his application. When Nott got and reviewed the applicable zoning and development code provisions and the staff's report, he realized that he had not addressed the landscaping buffer requirements. He had his consultant further modify the computer-visualization to add a landscaping buffer. This visualization was presented at the Board hearing on March 2, 1999. However, the visualization still depicted vehicles parked along Cleveland Street and was not clear as to the width of the landscaping buffer. The site plan was not modified, so the extent of the proposed landscaping buffer could not be ascertained from the site plan. At the Board hearing, Nott stated that he would be willing to do whatever the City said was necessary in order for him to receive a conditional use permit. But Nott made no specific proposals. Essentially, Nott was asking the City to formulate an acceptable application for him. The staff report indicated that an on-site traffic circulation problem could be cured by eliminating two customer parking spaces in front of the building. But it was impossible to determine from the evidence in the record how a wider landscaping buffer would impact either traffic circulation in the parking lot, parking, or the large oak tree. The staff report pointed out that Nott's application proposed to maintain minimal (7%) open space on the site. The neighbor to the immediate east (Trickels Jewelers) has 30-35% open space, including attractive landscaping along Myrtle Avenue. At the Board hearing, Nott claimed "open space" credit for the shade canopy provided by the large oak tree on-site and contended that the credit would increase his "open space" to 30-35% as well. But even if open space credit can be given for shade canopy over a parking lot, Nott's testimony was insufficient to prove the extent of the tree's shade canopy. Besides, it could not be ascertained from the record whether the tree would have to be removed to meet landscaping buffer, traffic circulation, and parking requirements. Nott testified at the appeal hearing that, after he proposed and depicted parking of vehicles for sale along Cleveland Street, the "Division of Motor Vehicles" advised him that it would not allow him to display vehicles in that location. Nott testified that he would simply eliminate the display parking spaces along Cleveland Street and limit the display of vehicles for sale to 12 at any one time in parking spaces adjacent to the building and along the east property line. But it was not clear from the record whether all of the remaining spaces depicted on the site plan for display parking would remain available for that purpose after adding landscaping buffer, and also maintaining adequate traffic circulation and customer parking. In addition to agreeing to meet the perimeter landscape buffer requirements, Nott also agreed to condition approval on: (1) operating his vehicle sales business only 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday through Saturday; (2) not using windshield advertising, flags, or banners; (3) only selling vehicles with a retail value of $10,000 or more; and (4) not operating a "buy here-pay here" used car lot.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 10, 1986 Petitioners submitted a conditional use application to Respondent for the package sale of beer and wine at 601 Bayway Boulevard, Bayside Subdivision No. 5, Lot 1, Black B, in Clearwater Beach, Florida. The property in question is zoned SC (beach commercial), and the alcoholic beverage designation being sought is 2 APS. Respondent has identified this conditional use application as C.U. 86-49. The Planning and Zoning Board denied Petitioners' application on August 5, 1986 by a vote of 4 to 2, and Petitioners timely filed this appeal. The subject property is the site of a convenience store which is surrounded by motels and commercial establishments such as a bank, restaurant and lounge, car rental agency and a miniature golf course. Another convenience store which sells alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is located within three blocks of the property in question. Robert E. Davis operated the convenience store on the subject property from 1977 to July, 1986 at which time Petitioners acquired their interest in the property and the convenience store. While Davis was operating the convenience store the package sale of beer and wine was allowed under a previously approved conditional use. However in accordance with Section 136.024(b), City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Petitioners were required to reapply for conditional use approval upon the change of business ownership of the subject property. Under Davis' management, the convenience store regularly closed at 11:00 P.M., but beginning approximately one month prior to Petitioners acquiring their interest in the store and the property, Davis began to keep the convenience store open twenty four hours a day. Petitioners have operated the store twenty four hours a day since it has been under their management. Public testimony was offered in opposition to Petitioners' application due to concerns about increases in noise, lights, traffic, loitering, trash and debris, and consumption of alcohol on the premises since Petitioners have acquired their interest. Petitioners concede that there was a problem with rowdyism and trash when they initially took over the convenience store, but state that these problems have been corrected. By letter dated August 5, 1986, Chief of Police Sid Klein confirmed a problem with young people gathering on the premises and stated that he did not feel approval of this conditional use would be compatible with the need of the neighborhood. However, little weight can be given to this exhibit since it is clearly hearsay, and relates solely to conditions existing several months ago when Petitioners had just acquired their interest in the subject property and convenience store. Petitioners are seeking to continue the package sale of beer and wine on the subject premises during authorized hours, as had been allowed for previous owners. This activity will clearly be compatible with other commercial businesses in the neighborhood, and with prior business conducted at this specific location. Although there were problems with trash and rowdyism on the premises in July and August, 1986, Petitioners have taken corrective action, and have committed to continued management improvements. The use in question is compatible with surrounding uses and complies with Respondent's land use plan. Acceptable ingress and egress is provided, and noise from the site will not diminish the use, enjoyment or value of the surrounding property. Petitioners are taking steps to reduce the glare to surrounding properties from motor vehicle lights. Sufficient parking area is provided on site, and the evidence does not establish that the sale of beer and wine at this location increases traffic in the area. This is an existing use which was allowed when Petitioners acquired their interest in the subject property. There was no evidence that Petitioners have sold, or will sell, beer and wine at the store beyond the legal hours for such sale, or that they have or will sell to minors.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 13, 1986, Petitioner applied to Respondent for a conditional use permit to allow the package sale of alcoholic beverages in a convenience store at 410 through 422 North Belcher Road, Clearwater, Florida. The property is located in a general commercial district. On or about April 15, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Clearwater denied Petitioner's application and on April 28, 1986, Petitioner timely appealed that decision. Petitioner's property is immediately adjacent to Faith Bible Church which operates Suncoast Christian School with approximately 120 students through the sixth grade, and the property is across the street from Trinity Baptist Church which operates a school with approximately 200 preschool through first grade students. The subject property is within 500 feet of the property of both of these churches, and there are two additional churches in the neighborhood. Richard Tobias, property appraiser, testified that convenience stores such as the one Petitioner proposes do not enhance the properties in their immediate vicinity, although they are generally an asset to the neighborhood as a whole due to the convenience of local shopping. Public witnesses expressed concern about the proximity of the proposed convenience store to churches and schools because of litter problems which they feel could develops as well as public drinking in the store parking lot. The use and enjoyment of such church and school properties will be adversely affected if the conditional use is approved, accordingly to the testimony and evidence presented by public witnesses. Petitioner, as property owner, plans to lease the subject property to Carlos Yepes, President of Clay Oil Enterprises, for the operation of the convenience store. Yepes operates seven other stores which sell beer and wine, and according to Denise Williams, leasing agent, there have been no neighborhood or police complaints concerning Yepes' operations.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 23, 1986 Garth DuQuesnay, lessee, filed an application for conditional use approval with Respondent for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (4-COP) at 735 South Bayway Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, Florida. (Bayside Shores, Block C, Lots 1-10). The property in question is zoned beach commercial, "CB", and this application was numbered CU-86-83. Donna and William Kebort are owners of the real property in question, and at the time of this application DuQuesnay was their lessee, as well as the owner and operator of a business known as Dock of the Bay located on the subject real property. DuQesnay sought the conditional use approval which is the subject of this appeal because he had not been able to maintain at least 51 percent food sales at Dock of the Bay. He was operating at the time with a 4-COP-SRX approval which requires at least 51 percent food sales. The 4-COP approval sought herein does not require at least 51 percent food sales. The property in question is separated from residential property on two sides by streets. This residential area includes condominiums and residential motels. On the two remaining sides, the subject property is separated by streets from hotels, a Pick-Kwick Store, and a small shopping area. Some of the hotels have lounges and bars. The subject property lies generally between these hotels and the residential area such that the subject property is closer to the residential area than the hotels which have lounges and bars. The subject property is within two hundred feet of the residential area. The Planning and Zoning Board denied Petitioners' application for conditional use approval on October 14, 1986 on the grounds of incompatibility with residential areas. The evidence establishes that at the time this application was considered by the Board, noise, unruly customer behavior, hours of operation and the proximity of Dock of the Bay to the residential area made this business incompatible with these residential uses. Shortly after the October 14, 1986 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board when Petitioner's application for 4-COP approval was denied, DuQuesnay sold his interest in Dock of the Bay Restaurant to Adriano Battaglini, and DuQuesnay has no present interest in the subject property, fixtures, equipment or inventory thereon, except as a secured creditor. On October 26, 1986 Battaglini applied for conditional use approval to maintain a family restaurant on the subject property, with at least 51 percent food sales (4-COP-SRX), and the application was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on November 18, 1986. Battaglini's application and conditional use approval was numbered CU-86-94. Donna Kebort was shown as property owner on Battaglini's application.
The Issue This is an appeal from a resolution of the Monroe County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") approving the Minor Conditional Use application of Ann and Gary Violet and Violet Communications for a radio tower and a transmitter equipment building to be constructed on Ramrod Key. The instant appeal was transferred from the Planning Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article XIV, Monroe County Code, the Hearing Officer Appellate Article. The issue presented in this appeal is whether Resolution No. P13-99 of the Planning Commission should be affirmed, reversed, or modified.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harold S. Wilson, is Trustee of the property which is situated at 18514 U.S. Highway 19 North in Clearwater, Florida. The property is in a zoning district designated as CH and the land use classification is CTF. The immediate surrounding land usage to the north is a furniture store, to the south is a car lot, to the east is a shopping center and to the west is a complex of office buildings. The subject building where the conditional use application was filed was erected during 1986. The first tenant of the building was Styles Auto (Styles). Styles engaged in the business of wholesaling luxury automobiles from August 1986 to September 1989. During June of 1990, Petitioner moved to the subject location and has remained there to the present time. The previous tenant at this site was the "Decorators Guild." 1/ As stated, the zoning for the property is highway commercial (CH). Respondent's staff conducted a survey of the property and the requested use and found that the standards were satisfied and recommended approval of the conditional use with certain specific conditions set forth hereinafter. A review of the permitted uses and conditional uses include among them wholesale distributions. (Petitioner's Exhibit A.) James T. Ray is the owner of Exoticar. Exoticar is in the business of wholesaling luxury cars throughout the United States and abroad and, on occasion, retails vehicles. Typically, Exoticar sells vehicles such as Ferrari, Porsche, Mercedes Benz and Jaguar. The cars are usually pre-sold when purchased and often times the vehicles are never brought to the site in Clearwater, Florida. On occasion, it is necessary for Exoticar to have on display from 5 to 10 vehicles at its offices in Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner's operation is compatible with the business operations of the adjoining tenants/owners. The only display sign that Exoticar uses on its vehicles is one designating the model year and the size of its signs are less than one square foot. The former tenant, Styles, did substantially more retail sales than Exoticar. Also, Styles sold more retail vehicles in the medium price range whereas Exoticar typically sells all up-line priced vehicles. Sandra Glatthorn, a senior planner with the Planning and Development Department of the City of Clearwater, presented several proposed conditions in the event that the Board's decision was reversed and the application for the conditional use approved. Those conditions are as follows: The number of vehicles which may be displayed or otherwise parked or stored on the property while pending their sale, lease, or delivery shall not exceed five (5) at any time. All vehicles shall be parked on the paved parking area. No vehicle shall be parked on the grassed or landscaped area of the property. The handicapped parking space presently being used for vehicle display shall be relocated to the satisfaction of the city's traffic engineer, and shall be properly marked. The applicant's signs shall be brought into compliance with the city's sign regulations not later than October 13, 1992. All required permits and licensees shall be obtained within six (6) months following approval of the application. No sign on or in a vehicle shall exceed one (1) square foot in size. Signs on or in vehicles shall be limited to one per vehicle. No vehicle shall be unloaded from, or loaded onto, a vehicle transportation truck or trailer while on the property. No vehicle shall be waxed, "detailed," or serviced while on the property. This condition shall not be construed to prohibit emergency service necessary to start a vehicle or to tow an inoperative vehicle from the property. The above proposed conditions were considered by Respondent's staff and are acceptable to Petitioner. Petitioner does not prepare, wax, or detail vehicles at the proposed location. Likewise, Petitioner does not order transporters to pickup vehicles from the subject location, although on occasion a transporter will show up at that location. In those rare instances, Exoticar's owner, Ray, directs transporters to another alternate location whereby the unloading or loading of vehicles can be accomplished offsite. The Petitioner has the requisite parking spaces to comply with the City's parking code.
