05/16/1989 (2)
10, "
"",
-1:.1
P&Z
." "-_'- '" ",,'*_".___r~".___
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
DATE
1~ rJ317
~'....__....__... . , .
.'t
~i
.i
""l
~
-~.
,.
'<')
."
,
~ "
,,(:~
110. ,,'
AGENDA
PLA.NNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
l'UESDA Y, MAY 16, 1989 - 1:30 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
r""" INVOCATION
'.
ITEM
ACTION
A. Approval of minutes of May 2, 1989
CONDm()NAL USES:
ALL TESTIMONY IS GIVEN UNDER OATH. The Board follows the procedures outlined below:
1. The Chairman reads from the Public Hearing Notice each item as it is presented.
2. The Planning Director advises the Board of any pertinent background information.
3. The applicant or bis representative presents his case.
4. Persons who support tbe application speak.
5. The Planning Director presents any supporting written documents.
6. Persons who oppose the application speak.
7. The Planning Director presents any opp<>sing written documents.
8. Persons supporting the application (other than applicant) may speak in rebuttal.
9. Persons opposing m.ay speak in rebuttal.
10. The applicant has an opportunity for final rebuttal.
11. The Board makes a decision_
FLORIDA STATUTE 286.0105 S'f ATES: ANY PERSON APPEALING A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
MUST HA VB A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT SUCH APPEAL.
B. Conditional Uses:
If,.,; '..
~' ,:'
, '."'.
, "
1.
(CONTINUED FR()M 5(1189)
Lot 3 and part of Lot 4, Blk. 84, Mandalay
Replat Unit 5 (647 Nandalay Avenue)
Laura H. Wagner (The Ship
Wreck)/Larry H. Wagner
CD 89-27
Request - 4-COP-SRX (On-Premise
Consumption of Alcoholic
Beverages)
Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial)
2. M&B 44.18, Sec. 21-29S-15E
(1569 South Ft. Harrison Avenue)
Fairwinds Properties, Ine./Sugar Creek
Properties, Inc.N eltman & Moore
CD 89-32
Request - Use Not Specifically
Identified In The Code
(Residential Treatment
Facility. lncrease from 28 to
36 Adults)
Zoned - CN (Neighborhood
Commercial)
l.,
P & Z AGENDA
1
05/16/89
.' .";/. ~'~': :': ;., ,',;.
;\,.C. ~ to"
~;
'"
,
}" 3. Lot 2, Gulf-To-Bay Shopping Center Sub.,
\
,
,~ (1675 Gulf- To-Bay Boulevard)
Waldrest Associates Limited Partnership
(Allie's Restaurant)/Marnott Family
r"~ Restaurants, Inc.!J ames Shimberg
CU 89-33
"
Request - 2-COP (On-Premise
Consumption of Alcoholic
Beverages)
Zoned - CC (Commercial Center)
4. Lots 7 through 13 and 15 througb 20, BIk.
E, Bayside Sub. No.5
E & G Investors, Inc. (Gondolier
Pizza)fBill Sioutis/Calvin Samuel
CU 89-34
Request - 2-COP (On-Premise
Consumption of Alcoholic
Beverages)
Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial)
5. M&B 31.01, Sec. 30-28S-16E
(2696 U.S. Hwy. 19 North)
Mobil Oil Corp. (Mobil Oil Service
Station #02-483)/Angela Adams
CD 89-35
Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of
Alcoholic Eeverages)
Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial)
(C-, 6. M&B 32.06, Sec. 02-29S-15E
~,~: (1425 Sunset Point Road)
Stephen Ballis, Trustee (Rosemaries
Garden Cafe )/George & Rosemarie
Smith/K. Paul McGuire
CD 89-36
Request - 2-COP (On-Premise
Consumption of Alcoholic
Beverages)
Zoned - OL (Limited Office)
7. Lots 8 through 11, BIk. 8, Clearwater
Beach Sub. Rev. (32 Eay Esplanade)
Nostimo, Inc. (pick Kwik Food Stores,
Inc.)lHarry D. Hasty
CU 89-37
Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of
Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial)
l'"..,
..
P & Z AGENDA
2
05/16/89
:'Il
('"
4.,,;;,; ,
3.
Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL
(Limited Industrial)
M&Bs 34.26, 34.27, and 34.35, Sec.
01-29S-l5E; M&B 21.01, Sec. 12-29S-15E
(Located on the west side of Hercules
Avenue, north of S.C.L. Railroad)
(Clearwater Concrete Industries, Inc.)
A 89-09
~ "; ,
"
t:
,
ANNEXATION. ZONING. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT
AMENDMBNTS. AND PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW:
(4)
(5)
Statement of case by applicant - 5 minutes
Presentation by staff - 5 minutes
Comments from public in support/opposition:
individual - 3 minutes
spokesperson for group - 10 minutes
Public Hearings are closed
Discussion! Action by Board
p",
f\~.
(1)
(2)
(3)
c. Annexations and ZoninJ!S:
1. Lot 5, Blk. A, Clearwater Highlands, Unit
A (Located at 1857 East Drive)
(Collins)
A 89-06
Request - Annexation and Zoning RS-8
(Single Family Residential
uEightll)
2. M&B 13.11, Sec. 12-29S-15E (Located at
1151 Kapp Drive)
(NUS Corp.)
A 89-07
Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL
(Limited Industrial)
D. ZoniIm: Atlas Amendment:
1. Portions M&B 32.00, Sec. 21-28S-16E and
Portions M&B 41.01, Sec. 2O-28S-16E
(Eight Parcels) (Located at 3030
McMullen-Booth Road)
(City of Clearwater)
Z 89-06
Zo~ Atlas:
FROM: P/SP (public/Semi-Public)
AND OSIR
(Recreation/Open Space)
T(): ~ (Aquatic
LandslInterior)
'"
~\,:
P & Z AGENDA
3
05/16/89
,', ,\i ,,' .
:r,: \ '
-"
:)
1~ -'.
B. Land Deve10nment Code Text Amendment and Local PlanninS! AJ!coty Review:
1.
Chapter 136, Section 136.024( d)
(pROPOSED ORDlNANCE)
r.~
, \
"
To establish minimum distance
requirements between alcoholic beverage
establishments licensed for package sales
(off-premise consumption) LDCA 89-07
F. Director's Items
G. Chairman's Items
H Board and Staff Comments
~~
t,
~;r
P & Z AGENDA
4
. .... ,i'l~'. ',:. -
05/16/89
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 - 1:30 PM
Members Present:
Vice Chairman Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, and Schwob
r,....
It' .,
Members Absent:
Cl1airman Johnson; one member position vacant
A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwab, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve tbe minutes of the May 2, 1989
meeting as corrected. Motion carried Wlanimously (5 t() 0).
Vice Chairman Nixon outlined tbe procedures for conditionalllses 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 wmch 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.
ITEMS ARE LISTIID IN AGENDA ORDER THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DISCUSSED
IN THAT ORDER..
B. Conditional Uses:
1. (CONTINUED FROM 512189)
Lot 3 and part of Lot 4, Blk. 84, Mandalay Replat Unit 5 (647 Mandalay Avenue)
Laura H. W a~er (The Ship Wreck){Larry H. Wagner
CU 89.27
;.~.
L
-'("'I
Request - 4-COP.SRX (On-Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned - C13 (Beach Commercial)
Ms. Harvey advised the applicant has submitted a letter requesting the above item be continued to the Planning
and Zoning Meeting of May 30, 1989.
Motion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to continue the above request to the Planning and
Zoning Meeting of May 30, 1989. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
2. M&B 44.18, Sec. 21.29S-15E (1569 South Ft. Harrison Avenue)
Fairwinds Properties, Inc./Sugar Creek Properties, Inc./VeUman & Moore
CU 89.32
Request - lJ se Not Specifically Identified In The Code (Residential Treatment Facility - Increase
from 28 to 36 Adults)
Zoned - CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
Ms. Harvey advised as folloVls: This is a request for an expanded use of a residential treatment facility from 28
to 36 beds in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district; tl1e governing section of the Land Development
Code is Section 136.025(b); conditional use approval was granted by this Board October 18, 1988 for a 28 bed
operation and applicant intends to convert 8 private rooms to semi-private rooms increasing the population to
36; and, the Traffic Engineer had no objection. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above
request subject to the following: 1) That there be no detoxification carried out in the facility and no lock-up; and
2) That a site plan be subntitted within 30 days showing t:l1e capacity and parking requirements.
Mr. JefiMoore, applicant, stated Fairwinds opened its facility in January, 1989. He stated proposed clients prefer
semi-private rooms to cut down on t:l1e cost and Fairwinds wants to convert the private rooms to semi-private
for this purpose. He stated no construction changes will be required and no increase in staff will be required.
After questioning by Mr. Schwab, Mr. Moore stated there will be no changes in procedures as previously stated.
After questioning by Mr. Green, Ms. Harvey stated staff anticipates no increase in parking requirements but the
applicant needs to clarify tlte figures within the body of the site plan.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the ab()ve request.
,
\
'...... .
Motion was made by Mr. Schwab, seconded by Mr. HaDlilton, to approve the above request subject to the
following: 1) Tnat tbere be no detoxification carried out in tIle facility and no lock-up; and 2) That a site plan
be submitted within 30 days showing capacity and parking requirements. Motion carried unanimously (S to 0).
P & Z MINUTES
1
05/16/89
, .. '.j'.; .f~'
, .'. '" ,'., . . ...', - .' , ", " , ' ",'.' , . " . ,I . , . '.. .' . . " '. . j '. .
'.
3. Lot 2, Gulf-To-Bay Shopping Center Sub., (1675 Gulf-To-Bay Boulevard)
Waldrest Associates Limited Partnership (Allie's Restaurant)/Marriott Family Restaurants,
Inc.!J ames Shimberg
CD 89-33
(-.'
Request -
Zoned -
2-COP (On-Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages)
CC (Commercial Center)
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages in the
Commercial Center zoning district; the specific State license being applied for is a 2-COP State license; the
subject property is the site of the existing Wags Restaurant which is proposed to be expanded by 580 square feet
and changed to Allie's Restaurant; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024
and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer noted that a variance is required for 15 parking spaces because there are
not enough parking spaces on site to meet the new COP parking requirements; and, the Police Department found
no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated the new parking requirements apply only to the
expanded portion of the facility. She also stated a variance to the separation requirement from a similarly licensed
facility will be required to be approved by the City Commission. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval
of the above request subject to the following: 1) That a parking variance be approved by the Development Code
Adjustment Board; 2) That a variance to the separation requirement from a similarly licensed facility be approved
by the City Commission; and, 3) That the Building Permit for the expansion be obtained within six months.
Atty. TlDl Shimberg, Jr., representative of Marriott Family Restaurants, stated applicant intends to expand the
Wag's Restaurant by 580 square feet and convert to the restaurant to a new concept. He stated Allie's
Restaurants, which are being developed throughout the State, are contemporary, family-style restaurants featuring
moderate prices and a food buffet. He noted the percentage of alcoholic beverage sales of the existing Warts
Restaurant is less than one percent of total sales. He advised the Wag's Restaurants were purchased from
Walgreen's last year. Mr. Shimberg stated applicant has no objection to the recommended conditions.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to thc above request.
(,';;
tt~.
:v
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the above request subject to the following
conditions: 1) That a parking variance be approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board; 2) That a
variance to the separation requirement from a similarly licensed facility be approved by the City Commission;
and, 3) That the Building Permit for the expansion be obtained within six months. Motion carried unanimously
(5 to 0).
4. Lots 7 through 13 and 15 through 20, Blk. B, Bayside Sub. No.5
E & G Investors, Inc. (Gondolier Pizza)/Bill Sioutis/Calvin Samuel
CD 89-34
Request -
Zoncd -
2.COP (On-Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages)
CB (Beach Commercial)
Ms. Harvey advised the applicant requests the above subject be continued because the applicant is changing the
alcoholic beverage licensc designation.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to continue the above request to the Planning and
Zoning Meeting of May 30, 1989. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
5. M&B 31.01, Sec. 30-28S-16E (2696 U.S. Hwy. 19 North)
Mobil Oil Corp. (Mobil Oil Service Station #02-483)/Angela Adams
CD 89-35
Request -
Zoned -
2-APS (Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages)
CH (Highway Commercial)
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for package salcs of alcoholic beverages in the Highway
Commercial zoning district; the specific request is for a ncw 2-APS State license for use in the proposed
convenience store addition in conjunction with gasoline sales and a car wash at the subject location; the governing
sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no
comment; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated staff
received notice this date that the actual holder of the State license will be Station Operators, Inc., not Mobil Oil.
Ms. Harvey also statcd that no variances will be required as the applicant agrees to no deliveries between the
P & Z MINUTES
2
05/16/89
" "" ,:" '.. ..' .. . . .,... -',' " " ,'..' " "., ',' '. " , ,. ", .
hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject
to the following: 1) That there be a sllccessful background check completed by thc Police Departmcnt; and, 2)
That the Building Per/nit bc obtained within six months.
(
Atty. Angela Adams, representative of applicant, statcd Mobil Oil will be rebuilding the site. She advised two
variances will be required, one for setback requirements and one for green space. Ms. Adams explained the
surrounding uses and felt there would be no problem with package sales at the subject location. She felt the use
would be compatible with. the surrounding area and there would be no hardships to the surrounding uses. After
questioning by Mr. Green, Ms. Adams stated there will be two accesses, one on the south end of the property
on to U.S. 19 and one on S.R. 580 as far as possible from the intersection.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Ms. Harvey stated, since variances are required for redeveloping the site, a condition of approval should be added
that approval is granted subject to approval of necessary variances.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following:
1) That there be a successful background check completed by the Police Department; 2) That the Building
Permit be obtained within six months; and, 3) That the necessary variances be approved by the Development
Code Adjustment Board. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated the applicant must discontinue sale
at midnight according to existing City ordinance. Ms. Nixon expressed concern about traffic. Motion carried (4
to 1) with Ms. Nixon voting "nay."
6. M&B 32.06, Sec.02-29S-15E
(1425 Sunset Point Road)
Stephen Ballis, Trustee (Rosemaries Garden Cafe)/George & Rosemarie SmithJK. Paul McGuire
CU 89-36
Request -
Zoned -
2-COP (On-Premise Consumption and Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages)
OL (Limited Office)
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on-premise consumption and package sales of alcoholic
beverages in the Limited Office zoning district; the specific request is for a 2-COP State license; the governing
@r:' sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); applicant intends reopening a
~i' restaurant now to be called Rosemaries Garden Cafe; the Traffic Engineer commented a parking variance would
be required; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated no
parking variance would be required because the property is grandfathered for a restaurant use as the restaurant
is being reestablished within the time specified in the Land Development Code. Ms. Harvey stated the property
was rezoned to Limited Office during the areawide rezonings in the early 19805, the restaurant existed at the time
of the rezonings and was recognized as a nonconforming use. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval
of the above request su.bject to the following: 1) That approval is granted for on-premise consumption only; and,
2) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within six months.
After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated that a condition may be included that a new Occupational
License be obtained within sL"< months but whether fees for the last three years should be paid would need to
be deferred to the Occupational License office.
Atty. K Paul McGuire, representative of current and prospective owners, stated the new use will be a great
improvement over the old use. The applicant intends a family restaurant in which the alcoholic beverage sales
will be incidental to food sales. He stated package sales was requested because of anticipated carry-out food
orders. He advised no liquor store is intended for the site. He stated applicant is requesting a closing time of
11:00 PM. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. McGuire stated applicant would prefer to have package sales but
would have no objection to approval of on-premise consumption only. Ms. Harvey clarified the reason staff
recommendation did not inc.:lude package sales was that package sales reinforces the commerciaVretail activity
that the City was trying to not have in the area.
Ms. Harvey advised onc letter of objection was received in opposition to the above request.
In opposition to the above request, Ms. Helen Chaoman.1432 Sunset Point Road stated she lives directly across
the street. She stated 5 restaurants have been at the location, 2 of which were bars. She expressed concern about
package sales. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Chapman stated she does not want beer and wine at the
\,._.. subject location.
P & Z MINUTES
3
05/16/89
~"
("''''':'
"
(,.: '
c,
In rebuttal, Alt)', McGuire slaled this restawant will not be like previous establishments as the applicant intends
a family restaurant operation. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. McGuire stated he would have no
objection to a condition that limited alcoholic beverage sales to no later than 11:00 PM.
Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the
following: 1) That approval is granted for on. premise consumption only; 2) That the alcoholic beverage license
be obtained within six months; 3) Tltat there be no alcoholic beverage sales after 11:00 PM; and, 4) That an
Occupational License be obtained within six months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
7. Lots 8 through 11, Blk. 8, Clearwater Beach Sub. Rev. (32 Bay Esplanade)
NostimoJ Inc. (Pick Kwik Food Stores, Inc.)/Harry D. Hasly
CU 89-37
Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial)
Mr. Hamilton declared a conflict of interest and advised he will excuse himself from the Board for the subject
item (see form attached). Ms. Harvey advised since there will be no quorum the above item must be continued.
Motion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to continue the above request to the Planning and
Zoning Meetingscheduled for May 30,1989. Motion carried (4 to 0) with Mr. Hamilton abstaining.
C. Annexations and Zoninas:
1. Lot 5, Blk. A, Clearwater Highlands, Unit A (Located at 1857 East Drive)
(Collins)
A 89-06
Request - Annexation and Zoning RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight")
The above property is located at 1857 East Drive.
The applicant was not present.
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation and RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight")
zoning; the request is consistent with the Low Density Residential Land Use Plan classification; the lot is
developed with a single family residence; all required fees bave been paid; and City water and sewer are
available. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation and RS-8 (Single Family
Residential"Eightll) zoning.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the annexation and
RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
2. M&B 13.11, Sec. 12-29S.15E (Located at 1151 Kapp Drive)
(NUS Corp.)
A 89-07
Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL (Limited Industrial)
The above property is located at 1151 Kapp Drive.
The applicant was not present.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Hamilton, to continue the above request to the Planning and
Zoning Meeting of May 30, 1989. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
P & Z MINUTES
4
05/16/89
", ;Mi. .'tAf:'\:v.- ~. :',,1" ~"""il" ->i,.,.;.... 1f' "i,l"'..',.<.
3. M&Bs 34.26, 34.27, and 34.35, Sec. Ol-29S-15E; M&B 21.01, Sec. 12-29S-1SE (Locutcd Oil the west
side of Hercules Avenue, north ()f S.c.L. Railroad)
(Clearwater Concrete Industries, Inc.)
A 89-09
~~1
t!.!t
~r.,
Request - Annexation and Zoning, lL (Light Industrial)
The above property is located on the west side of Hercules Avenue, north of S.C.L. Railroad.
Mr. BmceMcLaughlin, representativc of property owner and prospective purchaser, statcd applicant is rcquesting
annexation and zoning. He stated the applicant is actually requesting a heavy industrial stipulation even though
the City has 110 heavy industrial. He felt the request could be accomplished by either a development agreement
or some kind of conditional use under the Light Industrial zoning. He stated the applicant wishes to annex
primarily for City sewer and water serviccs. He statcd the existing use is a defunct concrete plant. After
questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. McLaughlin stated the proposed use would probably be more intensive than
the concrete plant. He stated proposed use would be similar but the level of activity of the excavating contractor
and the variety of equipment would probably be more intense than that of the concrete plant.
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: Tlus is a request for annexation and IL (Light Industrial) zoning; the petition for
annexation provided for a stipulation for the allowability of heavy industrial use; presently, the Land Development
Code does not recognize what is generally known as heavy industrial uses; Clearwater Concrete would be in tbat
category and their use and continuance of use through resale of the property is grandfathered in and may
continue; the City felt the industrial area would be primarily developed with lighter industrial-type uses and heavy
industrial uses were not considered to be welcome at the time the Land Use Plan in 1979 was adopted; an
amendment to the Land Development Code would be required to allow heavy industrial uses, either in the
Industrial zoning district itself or by the incorporation of some heavy industrial uses as conditional uses; and, the
City currently has no enabling legislation for development agreements. Ms. Harvey expressed concern about the
heavy asphalt use and consideration of heavy industrial uses changes the context of what the City thinks of as
allowable industrial uses in Clearwater. Ms. Harvey stated as follows: The property is currently classified on the
Land Use Plan as Industrial and no amendment to the City's plan is necessary; the applicant would need to
obtain an easement of the adjacent parcel in order for City sewer to be extended to the property; City water can
be extended to serve the property; natural gas is available; and, Sanitation notes that the City would not take over
the refuse service on the subject property until the expiration of the current contract existing on the property and
at the expiration the dumpster would need to bc relocatcd as required by the City's Sanitation Division. She
stated there arc no staff nor departmental objections to the petition for annexation for Light Industrial with
continuation of the existing use. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation
and IL (Light Industrial) zoning.
,,"
)
,
After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Harvey stated applicant can continue the present operation if annexed,
but a heavier use or expansion of the use would not be permitted under the current Land Development Code.
Ms. Harvey stated, it was her understanding that the heavy industrial use would be permitted in the County on
that portion of property that is zoned for heavy industrial uses but if a heavier use was intended for the portion
current zoned for light industrial use, an amendment to the County Plan would be required. After questioning
by Mr. Green, Ms. Harvey advised her recommendation for approval is based upon the plan as it exists. She
clarified that if the subject request is approved, the approval is based upon the current use at the subject
property.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to thc above request.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified which portions of the property arc currently zoned in the County as Light Industrial
and which portions of the property are currently zoned in the County as Heavy Industrial.
After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised that to her knowledge, if the request is approved, it would
be the fust approval for a new heavy industrial use in the City since the early 1970s.
Mr. Hamilton stated he is opposed to heavy industrial but is in favor of light industrial.
Following Board discussion on heavy versus light industrial uses, Ms. Harvey felt it would be important for the
Board to clarify if they arc opposed to heavy industrial uses because the applicant provided the heavy industrial
use as a condition on the petition for annexation ftled with the City. She added that the City Commission has
discussed the possibility of amending the Code to allow for the use but it was done in consideration of Clearwater
Concrete being an important industry to Clearwater. She stated there was no discussion regarding asphalt
processing. She also clarified that the Countywide Plan having a large majority of the property shown as heavy
industrial does not extend entitlement to heavy industrial under the jurisdiction of the City. She added that the
P & Z MINUTES
5
05/16/89
. '" ' I , ,F' ' I , . , " '. ',' ~ .' . , I " " .
("'.",'
_ ~f.;,
Mr. Green expressed concern that if an exception is made for the subject property, ()thcr exceptions will also
have to be made.
Special Act that governs the Countywide Plan specifically states that if there is a conflicting Lund Use Plan
classification between the County and a municipality, the lesser intcnsity is the classification that will prevail.
After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey advised it is tlte applicant's option to develop the property under
the County's regulations but if development is done in the City, it must be in accordance with the City's Code
and Land Use Plan.
Motion was made by Mr. Scltwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend approval of the annexation and IL
(Light Industrial) zoning, but tlte Board would be opposed to an amendment to tbe Land Development Code
to allow heavy industrial use for the property. Mr. Hamilton felt the Board would see an amendment before it
went to the City Commission which cOllld be addressed at that time, but he felt tbe Board's comment that it is
opposed to the heavy industrial use proposed should be retlected in the minutes. Ms. Nixon expressed concern
about the impact on surrounding industrial uses. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated it would not
be possible at this time to add a conditional use section to the Light Industrial zoning district because of the
provisions of the Special Act that govern the Countywide Plan. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
D_ Zo~ Atlas Amendment:
1. Portions M&B 32.00, Sec. 21-28S.16E and Portions M&B 41.01, Sec. 2O.28S-16E (Eight Parcels)
(Located at 3030 McMullen-Bootlt Road)
(City of Clearwater)
Z 89-06
l
(,..,"
Zoning Atlas:
FROM: P/SP (Public/Semi-Public)
AND OSIR (Recreation/Open Space)
TO: AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior)
The above property is located at 3030 McMullen-Booth Road.
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for a Zoning Atlas amendment from ?/SP (Public/Semi-Public)
and OSJR (Recreation/Open Space) to ALII (Aquatic Lands/Interior) for eight pieces of property located east
of Landmark Drive, west of McMullen-Booth Road and north of S.R. 580; the property in question is the
property to be developed at the Chi Chi Rodriguez Golf Course; the areas requested for rezoning have been
classified as being under D.E.R. jurisdiction; and, a condition of site plan approval was that the subject parcels
be rezoned to ALII in order to have zoning protection on the parcels. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended
approval of the request for a Zoning Atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) and OSIR
(Recreation/Open Space) to AI/I (Aquatic LandslInterior).
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the request for a
Zoning Atlas amendment from PIS? (Public/Semi-Public) and OSIR (Recreation/Open Space) to AL/I
(Aquatic Lands/Interior). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
E. Land Develonment Code Text Amendment and Local PlanniD~ A2cncv Review:
1. Chapter 136, Section 136.024( d) (pROPOSED ORDINANCE)
To establish minimum distance requirements between alcoholic beverage establishments licensed
for package sales (off-premise consumption) IDCA 89-07
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for amendment to the Land Development Code, Section
136.024( d), relating to the separation requirements of establishments selling alcoholic beverages; this request was
initiated by former Commissioner Inn Berfield who requested tbe City Commission look at the fact that there
is currently a separation requirement foJ' establishments licensed for on-premise consumption but there is no
separation requirement for establishments selling for off-premise consumption; in consideration of the
construction of the existing separation requirements and the types of licenses it applies to, as issued by the State,
the City Attorney drafted an ordinance to provide for separation requirement for the l-APS, 2-APS, and 3-PS
licensed facilities, which licenses allow for the sale of beer, beer and wine, and beer, wine and liquor, respectively,
for off. premise consumption; the specific separation requirement proposed is 200 feet as is t11e separation
requirement for on-premise consumption for licensed establishments that are similarly licensed; the result of this
P & Z MINUTES
6
05/16/89
, "" : '., '.. " " , ' . ' .... . .' , . ,': .' , '. " . . . f."" ' " . . ., , ' , ~ , I
("
change, for the most part, is going lo affect new package sale operations; all establishments that arc currently
licensed to sell alcoholic beverages are grandfathered in in the same sense that olher applications arc
grandfathered in, that is business ownership may change and the business may be resold; a variance to the
separation requirement would not be required for business ownership change; and, only new licenses would be
required to seek variances to the separation distance before the City Commission.
After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey advised the grandfathering would apply to those establishments
closed for less than one year.
In support of the above request, Ms. Anne Garris. 38 Acacia Street. stated the Clearwater Beach Association
requested this subject be clarified in the Land Development Code. She stated the Association voted to support
the change. She stated there are 53 various types of alcoholic beverage establishments on a 2 1/2 mile section
of Clearwater Beach. She felt tltis Code amendment was desperately needed. Slle slated tlle license to sell
alcoholic beverages is a privilege, not a right.
4.,<
In opposition to the above request, Atty. John Blakelv. rcnresentativc of Pick Kwik. questioned whether thc
ordinance would affect current businesses. Ms. Harvey advised Mr. Blakely the ordinance would not affect a
change of business ownership of a State license but the specific request with which Mr. Blakely is concerned
would be affected because it is dealing with a change of license designation from a 2-COP to a 2-APS. She
advised the separation distance requirement would apply. She clarified that the separation distance would apply
if the ordinance is approved and in effect at the time Mr. Blakely's specific request is made. Mr. Blakely advised
that Pick Kwik opposes the ordinance and, though not retained by other similar operation, he felt other similar
enterprises would oppose the ordinance. He felt the effect of the ordinance would be anti-competitive and would
give a monopoly to the first business at an intersection. He felt there is no public purpose to sustain the
ordinance. He stated the responsibility for regulating these operations lies with the State and felt restrictive
zoning is improper. He felt the only reason the ordinance is being considered is because there is a similar
requirement for on-premise consumption. He felt there was no public detriment by two convenience stores across
the street from each other selling package sales of alcoholic beverages.
Ms. Harvey stated the City regulates the location of alcoholic beverage sales each time this Board reviews a
conditional use application. She staled this Board reviews whether it is proper for sales to occur, either package
sales or for on-premise consumption. She stated the City Commission has done so for years under a different
procedure. She felt it is a valid purpose to be able to do so. She stated the City Commission and tltis Board have
always had concerns about the number of establishments providing package sales throughout the City. Ms.
Harvey stated this regulation, in her opinion, is a public pllrpose.
Mr. Schwob felt APS sales seem to have a negative impact on the City. He stated the applicant does have the
opportunity to seek a variance to the separation distance requirement.
The Board was in agreement with the proposed ordinance.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance
as written. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
F_ Director's Items
Ms. Harvey advised that Board Member John Ehrig resigned from the Board because be will be relocating to
the east coast of Florida.
After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised the earliest the proposed ordinance regarding separation
requirements of package sales establishments could be adopted would be June 15, 1989. She clarified that those
applicants already ftIed for package sales would be exempt from the separation requirement.
The Board expressed concern that there may not be a quorum for the Pick Kwik item on May 30, 1989. Ms.
Harvey stated it is a hardship when there is a missing Board member but there must be five for a quorum.
Meeting adjourned at 3:06 PM.
P & Z MINUTES
7
05/16/89
.',: .'.' ~ '.. , ' l -,:.' . ' . ',', ',' ~',' , . 'l. t' ...,' " ' ... "'.' . ~ , " . / . I, , ,,", , . ". ' , , " I, ,., '
LASt" NAMF-F1RSr NAME--MJI)()U: NAME
./'/(\' II I / I (~I'I.' ;V,'( ,/ :, If. fl') (~";,-.
.f
, LINli AlJ[)l{[SS .',
p, :,:t)r-'It j(l(,ll~'_'
c.L{ C[-J'
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
NAME OF 1l0ARL), COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR. COMMITTEE
j 1,.-,.r.'V i {'" )<'1 .-{ 7;'~ ('. I' , " I' ) r-
11/1: BOARD. C'01.JNCII.. COMM ISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COl\.1M ITTEE ON
WIIIClI I SERVF IS t\ UNI r OF:
".'.,
J /: 1'.:.)"'\ l)
e1r...
C, J (. cl ,." t, '\ I ct, ..J.e. \--
)-<n I Y
! : ('( )!JNTY
! 1 OTIIEH LOCAl AGENCY
COUNTY
" ').
f-- ", ' d (, \1 C1 c:
NAt\lE 01' I'DlJrtCAI. SlJIlDIVISION:
DAl EON WllIell VOl E (KTURRElJ
('( ) C\ 'I (( r I q 7/</
MY POSI110N IS:
I' ELECTIVE
>:(, APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8D
This form is for llse by any person serving at t he county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board,
council, commission, authority, or cOlllmiUee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented
with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. The rl'<luirements of this law are mandatory; although
the use of this particular form is not required by law, you are encouraged to Ilse it in making the disclosure required by law.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in \....hich you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form
before complcting the rcverse side and filing the form.
I
\
<'
t..
ELEClEU OFFICERS:
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office f\'IUST A BSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures
to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special
gain of a principal (ot her than a government agency) by whom he is retained.
In either case, you should disclose the confliet:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by rublicly stating to lhe assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on
which you are abstaining from vOfing; alld
WITHI N 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCU RS by completing and filing Ihis form with the person responsible for recording
the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
A person holding appointive Coullty, municipal, or other local public offh:e MUST ABSTAI N from voting on a mcasure which
inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from kno,"vingly voting on a rneasure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a governmcnt agency) by whom he is retained.
A person holding an appoinli vc local office otherwise llIay participate in a maller in which he has a COil f1kt of interest, but must
disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether
made by the officer or at his direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE TilE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING Ar WHICH
THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: ..
( !ou should complete and file this fOfm (before Inaking any attempt to influcncc the dcdsion) with the person responsible for
.~ recording the minutes of tile rJ1Cctillg. who \vill inC()rJloratc the fornl in tile mirlutes.
· A copy of the form should be provided immc<.lialcly to the other members of the agcncy.
· The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of t he mailer in which you have a conflict of interest.
(I 1(1"\1 1111 In.M"
(2Y~ f,
!~..;cr.j:t~,,~ ~i" ;,;..'l::.
PAGE I
IF YOU MAKE NO ATfEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPr BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
o You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You should complete t he form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes ~,
of the meeting. who should incorporate the form in t!lC minutes.
, "N..
, '~,
.
.....
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S IHTEREST
I. k""l ;'~~-,j,} {;, J-I-cvrl { l-tc':llcrebY disclose that 011 ____ l?/Jo l-f / (~
/
c-9c
.19 0 I:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
_ inured to my special private gain; or
_ inured to the special gain or ___________,
-I
by whom I am retained.
(b) The measure before my agency anti the nature of my interest in the measure is as 1'0110\'5:
-7
--J-.
C L.U )/-)) r"\ ,~
/,/> ,l ~ - --i' (
./ " ~, .r, \ (- ( c ,~.,) -- "-,'~ -\
'- --'.' (.' ------
J;;';l (VY") f;~tvl'l { 'I /(::) V"'} j
~r-;(<., ,/
f/ ,/7 ,r;f/-{\ r "-:',.. (. t
/ / L.' ~ ./ L_
{~ e.: \/ C, / {l f/ (TJ e, V') -(--
Be n c~ h ,
-/---[7 e::,., n (.)) r.r"! ( ~ e.J I'r-!-'. / / -/- -J-'() H--, C":'~
t./
f~ 'e k )(1"'" k / /\) "" ~ -h'v?-1n/~1 ~V) c~
/T)'l' ) ,lel { n d
(
'"".
l.~'1 {/l
A-l/ e..
/
L> ( l--l)
.)
~/)J/ 00
------, ,
Date Filed
;2:, l '
// -r-' -
_ ..:'L.i....LL"'L..; L J~~--~
Signal lire
" <:1: FORM 81) . 10.86