Loading...
06/16/1987 ,l' ;'!w./ "': >. ",; . ' "', :. ,. , . '~;iMr.~ HINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD JUNE 16, 1987 - 1:30 PM Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Mesdames Nash and Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hogan, and Schwob Also present: M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney (A) Motion was minutes of unanimous 1y made by Mr. the June (7 to 0). Schwob, 2, 1987 seconded by Mr. Hogan, meeting as written. to approve the Motion carried Chairman Johnson outlined the procedures for conditional uses and advised that anyone adversely affected by a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, with regard to conditional uses, has two weeks from this date in which to file an appeal through the City Clerk's Office. Florida Law requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. (B) Conditional Uses: 1. Lot 41, B1k. A Barbour-Morrow Sub. (432 Poinsettia Avenue) West Financial Corp. (JB's Family Rest.) CU 87-48 Request 2-COP (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) CB (Beach Commercial) Zoned Ms. Harvey advised this request for conditional use is for on premise consump- tion of alcoholic beverages in the Beach Commercial zoning district. She also advised the specific request is for a new 2-COP license for an existing restaurant and the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b) and (c)(l). She further advised the Police Department verbally stated it saw no reason to deny license to applicant and the Traffic Engineer noted that parking for the property is nonconforming. She stated that, in regard to the parking, variances have been granted to the parking on the property to accommodate the existing restaurant and there is no change of use in consideration of the application. She also stated a similar application was submitted to this Board on March 18, 1986 requesting on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages, specifically a 4-COP license, which was denied. She further stated consideration was given to expanding the restaurant in March, 1986 and the necessary parking variance was also denied. Ms. Harvey advised that staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the use permit being procured within six months of approval of the conditional use. Ms. Anna Bugar, applicant, appeared requesting approval of this conditional use. She stated a beer and wine license is requested to increase dinner sales. She also stated the restaurant is currently open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and sales are lost because of the inability of some customers to have a glass of wine or beer. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Bugar stated all three meals are served and the restaurant is currently open until 8:00 PM. She also stated, if the license is approved, the restaurant may be kept open until ,.. ", ' . . , ... ...~. .._:~.._.... :.... , .'. ~ I, "" , I' ~.. ":',.':,"'1,' . " ., ' . ',' ,'.\ . '. )" ;' "".'" " f " " !. ~ i '. 'to' '," .. , " . ;....\ , .':, , , , :i. " :. ';Y;J' '~~. ., ,e''':: 01' , '. , :,' . , . , , .'1' " " ", " '.' .'l, .,' Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board - June 16, 1987 Page -2- ~ W 10: 00 PM during peak season. She stated they cater to families and want to keep it so and felt staying open later may attract a different type clientele. Ms. Harvey advised that one letter was received from Pandelis A. Volts is, a nearby motel owner, in support of the above request. Mr. Pandelis A. Voltsis, Owner of Nicky's Kotel, 427 Poinsettia Avenue, also appeared in support of the above request and stated he has many meals in the restaurant and would like to have a glass of beer or wine with his meal. Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to approve the above request subject to the use permit being procured within six months of approval of the conditional use. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). 2. M&B 31.04, Sec. 30-28S-16E (2670 u.S. Hwy. 19 North) University High Equity Real Estate Fund-II (Countryside Shell Oil) CU 87-49 Request 2-APS (Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages) CC (Commercial Center) Zoned Ms. Harvey advised that proper authorization property owner authorizing the applicant to request the above use. She requested the Board to the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting. has not been received from the be present at the hearing to continue the above application Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to continue, the above application to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting scheduled for June 30, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). (C) Ann.exati.on and Zon1.ng 1. M&B 33.03, Sec. 19-29S-16E (Located on the South side of Nursery Road, East of Belcher Road) (Magacos/Tagaras) A 87-20 (CONTINUED FRON JUNE 2, 1987 MEETING) Request - Annexation and Zoning, CG (General Commercial) The above property is located on the south side of Nursery Road, east of Belcher Road. Mr. Robert Gregg, representative of applicant, requested annexation into the City for sewer needs. He advised applicant desires to develop a storefront type fruitstand/market with some rental space. He further stated approximately 2,500 square feet of space are proposed to be developed. . , '.',:, " . ',.#"4' ',:., '. ,'. "-~, ","~." ,~': .:";', .. . ,~, -. H .I" . ....., ,'.';' l. .-: ,;' ,.." " ' II,',.', ",' ", .... "'. . ',' ,I. ".: ' . I" '" :.. . ! I, . 'I"> ',', . I.. . .1.' ---1 ,J" : , " :. ' '!, :" " !'. :1 .' " '" f l,I, t., 'I,: ,\ . " , , ., . . ;. " ,~.;: . .! :.. " ~ . I'. . '.) . " .c ' .. ..' Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board - June 16, 1987 Page -3- . Ms. Harvey advised this request is for annexation and CG (General Commercial) zoning, is classified on the Clearwater Land Use Plan as Commercial/Tourist Facilities, and the property is contiguous to the City limits on both the north and east property lines. She also advised the CG zoning is consistent with the surrounding property. She further advised staff has no objection to the proposed retail use of the property. She stated City water, sewer, and natural gas are available to the property. She also stated that staff recommended approval of the annexation and CG (General Commercial) zoning. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, ,Ms. Harvey advised no open space fees are due on the subject property as it 1s less than 1 acre, and no recreation land fees are due on commercial properties. She also advised the only impact fees, other than sewer and water, are transportation impact fees that must be paid whether the property is developed in the City or the County and are paid at the time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. , I Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the request for annexation and CG (General Commercial) zoning. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). 2. M&B 43.01, 43.03, Sec. 01-29S-15E AND M&B 12.03, Sec. 12-29S-1SE (Located on the east side of Hercules Avenue, north of and adjacent to Southern Coast Line Railroad) (City) A 87-21 Request Annexation and Zoning, IL (Limited Industrial) The above property is located on the east side of Hercules Avenue, north of and adjacent to Southern Coast Line Railroad. Ms. Harvey advised this request is for annexation and IL (Limited Industrial) zoning for property owned by the City. She advised the property is contiguous on the north and west sides of the property and is classified on the Land Use Plan as Industrial. She further advised the proposed use of the property is the new motor pool facility which is currently in the process of site plan review and approval. Ms. Harvey stated City water, sewer, and natural gas are available to the site and suggested the annexation include all the abutting rights-of-way. Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded and IL (Limited Industrial) zoning, abutting rights-of-way. Motion carried by Mr. Green, to approve the annexation with said annexation to include all unanimously (7 to 0). . '1<. "< . , .': ,,";. :~ ':;:: ; )~:~ :-:?,:~:~::: ,I"':~t',("";,~,>: ;...", ' , '... '., ~.' ;,.;- '"j' 0" ',,,, . . "',:':.". ", ,t " "..: J., .-" , '.. .. I.' . ..... . J', ',':/ ., " "". .,', "'1. '.' ; . .",' .1,: , .. " .. , t' Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board - June 16, 1987 Page -4- 3. M&B 33.04, Sec. 17-28S-16E (Located south of Curlew Road, west of Countryside Boulevard, east of 66th Street North, and south of 297th Avenue) (Sempecos) A 87-22 , Request Annexation and Zoning, RS-4 (Single-Family Residential "Four") The above property is located south of Curlew Road, west of Countryside Boulevard, east of 66th Street North, and south of 297th Avenue. Mr. Chris Andros, representative of applicant, advised the property is bounded on the east and north by the Ci ty and stated the applicant is reques ting annexation to acquire necessary utilities. He felt, without the necessary utilities, the property could not be properly developed. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Andros advised the ingress/egress lies on property owned by a Mr. Maxwell and will connect with a "neck" left in the property presumably for the purpose of connecting 66th Street. He further advised it was never achieved because 66th Street runs through a vacation and at the very south end of the neck a garage has been built. lie also advised 66th Street is not a private road up to the point of the easement and the access is a legal access. After further questioning by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Andros stated he is sure the easement will be recorded on each deed for the property. Ms. Harvey advised this is a request for annexation and RS-4 (Single-Family Residential "Four") zoning. She also advised the property is classified as Low Density Residential on the Land Use Plan and is contiguous to City limits on the north, south, and east property lines. She further advised the property is currently vacant but is proposed as a single-family subdivision. Ms. Harvey stated the property will be served by County water and the property will be served with City sewer after it is determined how it will best be accomplished. She also stated access to the site is currently by a 25 foot ingress/egress easement extending from 66th Street. She further stated it is required that the site go through preliminary plat review, at which time questions regarding access service will be resolved. Ms. Harvey advised that staff recommended approval of the annexation and RS-4 (Single-Family Residential "Four") zoning. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey advised fees will not be required until such time as the property is developed. Hr. James Maxwell>> 3311 66th Street Kortb, C1ea~ater, appeared in support of the above request and stated his property is contiguous to the subject property. He stated. for clarification, 66th Street is a private road, half being dedicated to him and half dedicated to property adjacent to his to the west. He advised he has a vacated dedication from the County. He also advised the ingress/egress is recorded on his deed and a certified survey. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Maxwell stated the twenty-five foot easement runs from the center of the existing road straight east into his property and there is a similar easement running west twenty-five feet. , ~. ! "., ~~~!~!;::~...t~~j~~j)Z~~1f;.{t~t(.;~~E:~~':!:~::;.:~~:~::., '?,~, ~ .~'''~:,~:'.~;..... ,",:;; . ~ ~q'!":"'!!'\";'1"}.'J.;j."'4Vf,J{1~.t(,1--~R;Jil"''::'q.~{\w.:''':1r.~., .:'.- .:.... ", :~~i::"':' ~"'7L.:,;,"':,":\I;::;~';~r"~;';.J'~,:"/7'::;~~' "'"',:;;-':> ' '.'1 .,.......-... '. ". '" 71 " "' .' ,,' ' '1 I ,', ; i t', ',\\. './. j." ".' '. ( :-..\", ~':, :! ", '.,1. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board - June 16, 1987 Page -6- () (8) Application for Land Development Code Amendment: 1. Section 136.022. Article II, Chapter 136 To pro~ide that whenever a city-owned parking lot or other parking structure is used to meet the minimum off-street parking requirements of the City for any use ha~ing insufficient on-site parking, then the on-site parking available to ser~e that use may not be reduced, sold or otherwise rendered unavailable to that use. ')~li1 I~:f~~: f"'f.;. Ms. Harvey stated the subject to be discussed will hopefully end in a recom- mendation to the City Commission regarding an ordinance already passed at: first reading. She also stated Ordinance No. 4375-87, which was passed by the City Commission on March 19, 1987. is a proposed revision to Section 136.022 of the Land De~elopment Code regarding parking standards. She stated the ordinance is related to the use of City-owned parking lots or other parking structures and listed limitations by stating: "Whene~er a City-owned parking lot or other parking structure is used to meet the minimum off-street parking requirements set forth in this section for any use having insufficient on-site parking, then the on-site parking a~ailable to ser~e that use may not be reduced, sold or otherwise rendered unavailable to that use. No ~ariance may be granted from the pro~isions of this subsection.11 She advised the ordinance was proposed basically in an effort to give some consideration to ~hat had been a proposed project for construction of an office building behind the existing Maas Brothers store in downtown Clearwater and there was concern that the parking lot, coexisting behind Maas Brothers, would no longer be available as an open type area but would be used for development. She also advised that, at the time the ordinance was presented to the City Commission, Planning staff recommended not to adopt the ordinance with the feeling that passage of ~he ordinance would serve to negate existing ordinances in regard to promoting centrali~ed parking in the downtown area. Ms. Harvey explained the ordinance actually means that a building in the downtown area that has nonconforming parking on site and relies on nearby public parking to meet requirements would not be able to rid itself of on-site parking e~en if redevelopment occurs. She also explained the parking must be maintained in its existing form or in another form such as a parking structure but the same number of parking spaces must remain on site. Ms. Harvey felt the City Commission's intent was to preclude development on that area west of the bluff and keep the area open; however, the proposed ordinance would not preclude a parking garage in the open area. Ms. Harvey suggested the Board may possibly want to consider a setback requirement in the bayfront district of the downtown area. She advised that the City Commission is asking for this 130ard to gi,ve a recommendation regarding Ordinance No. 4375-87. . After questioning by Ms. Nixon. Ms. Harvey stated the ordinance was suggested by one of the City Commissioners. 1~~JJi~~~t~i~~~~(~~~i~;'~~~ft1f:i~~ii~i+.~::::'.'; ;1.", ",,'~ . . . .~ ., ~. ~ . " ' '~ 1;0;0."" "::'......,:.,~...,"<".:. ": :.-';::.t. ,I H}:..'., 'I. r'~, ':,") "\1" :'(. : ,j~~!. . ).'., , . (; i' { ~ ;: , : " '...... ' "..' ;:. ""l. '" " ", l .:- Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board - J~ne 16, 1987 Page -7- . After questioning by Mr. Johnson~ Mr. Galbraith clarified the intent of the ordinance was that the first line should read "Whenever a City-owned parking lot or other City-owned parking structure. . ." Ms. ffarvey stated the current ordinance for downtown regarding parking calculations includes available public parking. She also stated that, in addition to available public parking~ a developer has the right to make known to the City that it has lease arrangements with other property owners for parking. She felt this was not addressed with the proposed ordinance. A.fter q~estioning by Mr. Johnson~ Ms. Harvey advised that the "on-site" parking refers to property owner's parking. She also advised that~ if the property owner develops his property and meets all parking requirements on site, he would not be prohibited from removing all parking and developing the property. She also advised the ordinance addresses only insuf~icient on-site parking and does not address instances when all parking requirements are met. After questioning by Mr. Green, Ms. Harvey advised that nonconfor~ng parking is counted as on-site parking and the amount of nonconforming parking could not be deleted if a building was expanded. After questioning by Mr. Hogan and Ms. Nixon~ Ms. Harvey advised that a building could be expanded upward to include parking or a parking garage but would be limited in height to 60 feet in the Urban Center Bayfront zoning district. ~ ~ Af tel' questioning by Ms. Nixon~ Ms. Harvey advised the eKlsting setback generally falls about 300 feet from Drew Street and Pierce and follows the line identified as the "bluff line." She also advised it is her understanding that the land west of the bluff line is the area of most concern. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Ms. Harvey advised, according to her understanding of the intent of the ordinance~ the ordinance does not accomplish what the Commission intended and staff recommended to the Board that it recommend to City Commission that the ordinance not be approved. Ms. Nixon felt a one-story building would be more pleasant to look at than a large, empty parking lot unless landscaping is required. Ms. Harvey stated the bayfront has been controversial for years and~ because of so many questions and arguments regarding almost every issue~ it has stayed basically the same. Ms. narvey advised that timing was a problem because the City Commission lolante,d very much to go on record that there was a proposed ordinance that lolould preclude any development on the bayfront. Ms. Nixon questioned if a recent Supreme Court decision regarding a "taking" of property rights would affect a 300 foot setback. Ms. Harvey advised that research of or.dinances regarding views~ vistas, etc. was done and the "Denver Mountain View Ordinance" was written with the intent of preserving a mountain view. She also advised Cl~arwater is considered comparable as it provides a waterfront view and she stated that, to her knowledge~ the ordinance has not been challenged. Ms. Nixon felt this situation would be different in that it would allow no building whatsoever within the 300 foot setback. Mr. Green stated this ordinance would not be considered a taking of all property rights because parking would be allowed. Mr. Galbraith agreed and felt the majority ~..l..., : ~ I. >~', . . ~: .......:..... -.' ;' -. '" , ~ :'\ .,', ( .', " ,',\",.,... '1.' ,"'---. ,'1 " :; , ", l -' '..""' ,'. I' .~. '.', " ';:'(>" " , I " " '".' , , ,,' " , . .~~~~~!3;';'!-:f'i'-I''''*'' '~-~~I~~fI,,\~~:;"'\~f"'--I' ~,;~ ;'.,:r'~'::~-I"'liffi'" '~I . " ,N!N~u_."" """llib!l~~~V.f'~~'M*~""'J~,.' ...~s.n;.;P,'~.;tl:l,:a".tt~~l(;:~~t.":t:....~1:~t~1~ Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board - June 16, 1987 Page -8- O. ., opinion of the Supreme Court emphasized that regulations denied a property owner of all use of property. He advised the opinion stated the Court was not thinking of the different questions raised by ordinary delays of permit process and zoning changes, etc. Ms. Nash didn't want to see high buildings taking more open space. Ms. Ann Garris, 38 Acacia Street, Clearwater Beach, urged that something be done with this ordinance. She agreed with Ms. Harvey regarding the 300 foot setback and felt the City should consider both the proposed ordinance and a 300 foot setback. She questioned why it is necessary to have the ordinance in the book which says you may use City parking and not provide your own parking. She felt the City is moving backward by allowing people to be able to sell parking lots. She suggested a change to the wording of the ordinance from "on- site parking available" to "now in use" or "currently used to serve that use may not be reduced." She stated she would prefer to see a 300 foot setback. '1'1:" i P,,<;\J; ~~~{i~ Mrs. Lois Corllier, 625 KcClenoan Street, Clearwater, stated she was at the Ci ty Commission meeting in March when the proposed ordinance was passed at first reading, and she supports the proposed ordinance. She also stated she is surprised no opposition is present. She advised she disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning Department and asked that the Board recommend the City Commission approve the proposed ordinance. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mrs. Cormier stated she felt the ordinance was not intended for Maas Brothers only. She further felt it is risky depending on others for adequate parking. MS. Bonnie Harding, 31 Island Way, Clearwater, stated she would like to see a marina built on the bayfront and nothing very high would be built to obstruct the view. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Ms. Harvey stated an ordinance passed at first reading doesn't obligate the Commission to adopt an ordinance at second reading but it does put the ordinance in a form in which it may be discussed / and further reviewed by staff, the Advisory Boards affected, and the public. Mr. Galbraith advised this ordinance was suggested by Commissioner Moore before his last meeting. Mr. Galbraith felt Commissioner Moore wanted the formality of a first reading of the ordinance before the Commdssion before his terIll expired. Ms. Nixon stated this ordinance affects City-owned property only and will not affect agreements between private owners. She also felt she would not be in favor of the proposed ordinance but would be in favor of an ordinance that provided for a sufficient setback to prevent large buildings from being built on the hayfront. Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Ms. Nash, to recommend to the City ComIllission that it not approve proposed Ordinance No. 4375-87. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). . , ' , ',: t'" " " . ~" ~ . .....,>. '. , ............--- _..... ..- ..----- .:"" " ' "4' "',' . ," ,'. . . ');' .. .". " .':', :.J) ,,/, '--. I I , j I I ! . 't. ,l~". .;, . ,." ": ~: '.~; "It :", "':',1\...,.,.:1..: .. ~, ~.....J, . '. /" . ,:.,,'.... ". ,~$ '};>, ;~~~r_ '- ~~,~ '.- ,:',' ',' ... .... . ,"., ; < " . ,'\ "'\. " , .', , , } '\ '1 l' ,,\', . ',I.. ". . ~ i ' -:: ~ ::: '7]'" . , \ '". f I' 0'-;; , . ." , ,~ .:; " . ~ ' '- ,1,' , ' " ,\ . " l. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board - June 16, 1987 Page -9- . Motion was made by Ms. Commission that setback line to deny building voting "nay." Nixon, seconded by Mr. Schwob, it give consideration to adopting coincide with the bluff line on the within the setback. Motion carried (6 to recommend to the City an ordinance, establishing a bayfront, to be used to to 1) with Mr. Ferrell Mr. Ferrell stated the line is that he felt a going to be used. He bayfront other than recreation complex or parking lot. he voted against the motion regarding a line would adversely affect how the bayfront felt some sort of development shollld exis t existing asphalt. He also felt something, such marina, would attract more interest to downtown reason setback setback is on the as than a a Ms. Nixon marina. She Commission. stated she questioned would not be opposed to one story if an additional recommendation buildings such should be made as a to the Mr. and Hogan felt that may cause input the recommendations from others. to the City Commission are a beginning (G) Director's Items . Ms. Harvey advised that copies Planning Association have been She stated she participated include Clearwater's Planning of a report included in in the survey and and Zoning Board. of a the survey done by the American Board's information folders. the results of the survey Meeting adjourned 2:45 PM. Paula Harvey Planning Director . . .~ /;r. I.; I,. -:?~~:.~'.~~, ',~:...: , ~1':'t~~:<::~1~;J/.i~:';~';."t!,: .' :'," ", '.,' ;f.;(,,;: ~).. ::-' ,(', '.~ c" . .'.~' ,. . ',~ :': \~. \~~'~;.-:""":r....~,':'!' ',' " l.~:\ ",.', :.,';.:," .... ."~, ,:. 'J':;';I "":':1' '~<:"~":'?: ,,',/. \ '," ;''''', " "~," 'I I, ~ ~.' ,....! 'r / l-:':,:. .... . ""'.~ t,,' ,:~' ::',.: :. :\' :','.Y:/"J'., ,. .:,> tr,. ','\' :"'-~'.:,. /:' , ....:....\' 'f" ~ ' " ,< I,:';