05/15/1990 (2)
ACTION
, AGENDA
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 1S; 1990 - 1:30 PM
I j,l ,
I
I',
'-
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
ITHM
A. Approval of minutes of May 1; 1990
ACMON
Approved
CONDmONAL USES. ANNEXATION. ZONING. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS. LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS. AND LOCAL PlANNING AGENCY REVIEW:
THE BOARD FOLLOWS nm PROCEDURES OUTLINED BELOW. ALL TESTIMONY FOR
CONDmONAL USE REQUESTS IS GIVEN UNDER OATH.
.~
1. The Chairperson reads from the Public Hearing Notice each item as it is presented.
2. The staff report and pertinent background information are presented. - 5 minutes mm::imum.
3. Staff presents any supporting written documents.
4. Staff presents any opposing written documents.
5. The applicant or his representative presents his case. - 5 minutes maDmum.
6. Persons who support'the application speak - 3 minutes maximum for each individual;
or spolcespcrscn for group - 10 minutes maximum.
7. Persons who oppose the application speak - 3 minutcs m.a:ximum for each individual; or
spokesperson for group - 10 minutes maximum.
8. Persons supporting the application (other than applicant) may speak in rebuttal - 3 minutes
mamnum.
9. Persons opposing may speak in rebuttal - 3 minutes m.axitnum.
10. The applicant has an opportunity for final rebuttal - 5 minutes maximum.
11. Public Hearings are closed.
12. Discussion by the Board.
13. The Board makes a decision. ,
FLORIDA STATUTE 286.0105 STATES: ANY PERSON APPEALING A DECISION OF TI-llS BOARD
MUST HA VB A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT SUCH APPEAL.
P & Z ACfION AGENDA
1
5/15/90
.." ,.
B. Conditional Uses:
1.
(DEFERRED FROM APRIL 17, 1990)
M & B 23.05; See. 5-29-16
(1925 U.S. ]9 North) ,
Robert Rolf, Trustee/Clearwater
Cinema n; Drnfthouse
CU 90-24
Approved subject to the requisite occupational
license being obtained within six (6) months of
the date of this public hearing.
Request - To permit on premise
consumption of beer; wine and liquor
Zoned -
CC .(Commercial Center)
2,
(REQUFST FOR EXTF.NSION)
Lot 16; Grove Circle Subdivision (1706
North Highland Avenue)
Jeffrey N. South, Louis F. Aguiar and
Jules Bishara (Summer Place)
CU 89-86
Continued to the June 19, 1990 meeting.
Request - Level I Group Care Facility
with 10 cared-for residents
-;'1;
Zoned ~ RS-8 (Single Family
Residential)
,:' ,
r Ir..~. .
'_....'
" .~... ~
. 'J,,'. " / . . . '. . ,- '...t '. "t..., . . .' ;' ... i ~ . . '.
...... ~
3.
(REQUEST FOR EXTENSION)
Lots 7-11 and part of Lot 12, Blk. L,
Hibiscus Gardens (211 S. Missouri Ave.)
YWCA of Greater Clw.t Inc. (Cotnmunity
Pride Child Care)/Martha Skelton
CU 89-82
4.
M & B 34.011, Sec. 19-29-15
(1590 Gulf Blvd.) .
Mido USA loCo & Mido Development.,
Inc. (Belleview Biltmore Cabana Club)
eu 90-30
Request -To permit on-premise
consumption of beert wine and liquor,
s.
Zoned -CG (General Commercial)
Lots 14-16t Baysidc Sub 2 (153
Brigbtwater Drive)
W. Neuhaus Massiv~aus Baugescll
eu 90-31
Request - To construct a 6-slip marina
Zoned - CR-28 (Resort Commercial)
and AL/C (Aquatic Lands!
Coastal
6.
M & B 13.31t Sec. 17-29-16
(2862 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.)
James J. Orlando
CU 90-32
Request - To permit animal grooming
and/or boarding facilities
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
C. Annexation. ZoninJ?:. Lnnd Use Plan
Amendment. Land Development Code Text
Amendment., and Local Planninl! Al!cncy
Review:
1.
(DEFERRED FROM APRD..17, 1990)
M & B 1l.03t Sec. 16-29-15/Locatcd on
the N. side of Cleveland St.t approximately
105 ft. E. of Garden Avenue
(City of Clearwater)
LUP 90-03, Z 90-02
Request - Land Use Plan & Zoning
Amendments
LAND USE PLAN:
FROM: Downtown Developmellt
District/Rcglonal Activity
Centcr
Recreation
TO:
ZONING:
FROM:
TO:
Approved cdcnsion for six (6) months.
Approved subject to the requisite occupational
license being obtained within 6 months from the
date of this public hearing.
Tabled until such time the requisite building
permit has been procured.
Approved subject to the following conditions:
a. 'Iherc shall be nO overnight boarding of
nnimllll;l;
b. The parking area along the front of the site
that,is EQ!. part of the FDOT right-of-way
purchase (n nine to ten foot wide strip) shall be
converted into landscaPW& with the species and
number of landscape materials being subject to
review and approval of the City Division of
Environmental Management; and
c. The requisite occupational license shall be
obtained within six: (6) months of this public
h .
eanng. ,
Approved
c _
UC/C (Urban Center. Core District)
OS/R (Open SpacclRccreation)
P & Z ACl'ION AGENDA
2
5/15/90
. 't ". J' . .I .', .; '~. "i, ~. '. ... t . ~ , ~ .. . J' ' . .'. . ": '. .' '. I< . .
1.
r~', 2.
3.
4.
D. Public Hearing for Concurrency Management System Ordinances
Ordinance No. 4980-90 - Relating to Traffic Impact Studies Required for Certain Developments
Ordinance No. 4981.90 - Relating to thc Land Development Codc, creating sections for
Development Agreements
Ordinance No. 4982-90 - Relating to the Land Development Code. creating sections to provide for
a Concurrency Managemcnt System
Ordinance No. 4983-90 - Relating to the Comprchensive Plnn of the City, to establish
administrativc procedures and standards for dctcrmining vested rights to develop property
E. City Attorney to address consideration of separation distance variances in relation to conditional use, .'
appUcations.
",
1\ 1
F. Chairman's Items
G. Director's Items
H. Board & Staff Comments ",
~...
, ,.,./'
't
, .J
.... .-'
".
P & Z ACI'ION AGENDA
3
5/15190
ITEM
A. Approval of minutes of May 1, 1990
ACTION
AGENDA
PLANNlNG & ZONING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 15,1990 - 1:30 PM
#""""
(".".' ':
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
CONDITIONAL USES. ANNEXATION. ZONING. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMIDn'S. LAND
DEVEWPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS. AND WCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW:
THE BOARD FOLLOWS THE PROCEDURES aUTUNED BELOW. ALL TESTIMONY FOR
CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTS IS GIVEN UNDER OATH.
1"
~.~,
1. The Chairperson reads from the Public Hearing Notice each item as it is presented.
2. The staff report and pertinent background information are presented. - 5 minutes maximum.
3. Staff presents any supporting written documents.
4. Staff presents any opposing written documents.
5. The applicant or his representative presents his case. - 5 minutcs maximum.
6. Persons who support the application speak - 3 minutes maximum. for each individllal;
or spokesperson for group - 10 minutes maximum.
7. Persons who oppose the application speak: - 3 minutes maximum for each individlllll; or
spokesperson for group - 10 minutes maximum.
8. Persons supporting the application (other than applicant) may speak in rebuttal- 3 minutes
maximum.
9. Persons opposing may speak in rebuttal ~ 3 minutcs maximum.
10. The applicant has an opportunity for final rebuttal - 5 minutes maximum.
11. Public Hearings are closed.
12. Discussion by the Board.
13. The Board makes a decision.
FLORIDA STATUTE 286.0105 STATES: ANY PERSON APPEALING A DECISION OF TIllS BOARD
MUST HAVE A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT SUCH APPEAL.
B. Conditional Uses:
1. (DEFERRED FROM APRIL 17, 199O)
M & B 23.05, Sec. 5-29-16
(1925 U.S. 19 North)
Robert Rolf, Trustee/Clearwater
Cinema n' Drafthouse
CU 90-24
Request - To permit on premise
consumption of beer, wine and liquor
Zoned -
CC (Commercial Center)
!.
1:-
I
2. (REQUEST FOR EXTENSION)
Lot 16, Grove Circle Subdivision (1706
North Highland Avenue)
Jeffrey N. South, Louis F. Aguiar ami
Jules Bishara (Summer Place)
CU 89-86
Zoned ~
RS-8 (Single Family
Residential)
Request - Level I Group Care Facility
with 10 cared-for residents
(
''-
P &' Z AGENDA
1
1 . ~,
- ".,'
{
"
3.
(REQUEST FOR EXTENSION)
Lots 7-11 and part of Lot 12, Blk. L,
Hibiscus Gardens (211 S. Mi.,souri Ave.)
YWCA of Greater Clw., Inc. (Community
Pride Child Care )/Martha Skelton
CU 89-82
r'.'
"
>,
..',
4~ M & B 34.011, Sec. 19-29-15
(1590 Gulf Blvd.)
Mido USA Inc. & Mido Development,
Inc. (Belleview Biltmore Cabana Club)
CU 90-30
Request - To permit on-premise
consumption of beer, wine
and liquor
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
5. Lots 14-16, Bayside Sub 2 (153
Brightwater Drive)
W. Neuhaus Massivhaus Baugesell
CU 90-31
Request - To construct a 6-slip marina
Zoned - CR-28 (Resort Commercial)
and ALIC (Aquatic Lands/
Coastal
6.
M & B 13.31, Sec. 17-29-16
(2862 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.)
James J. Orlando
CU 90-32
(':"
, \
II... :
Request - To permit animal grooming
and/or boarding facilities
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
C. Annexation. Zo~ Land Use Plan
Amendment, Land Development Code Text
Amendment, and Local Planninf! As!ency
Review:
1. (DEFERRED FROM APRIL 17, 1990)
M & B 11.03, Sec. 16-29~15lLocated on
the N. side of Cleveland St., approximately
105 ft. E. of Garden Avenue
(City of Clearwater)
LUP 90-03, Z 90-02
Request - Land Use Plan & Zoning
Amendments
LAND USE PLAN:
FROM: . Downtown Development
DistrictlRegional Activity
Center
TO: Recreation
(j
ZONING:
FROM:
TO:
UC/C (Urban Center - Core District)
OSIR (Open SpacelRecreation)
P &, Z AGENDA
2
I::;
D. Publie Hearing for Concurrency Management System Ordinances
Ordinance No. 4980~90 - Relating to Traffic Impact Studies Required for Certain Developments
Ordinance No. 4981~90 - Relating to the Land Development Code, creating sections for
Development Agreements
Ordinance N o. 4982~90 - Relating to the Land Development Code, creating sections to provide for
a Concurrency Management System
1.
2.
('\
. .
3.
4.
Ordinance No. 4983~90 - Relating to the Comprehensive Plan of the City, to establish
administrative procedures and standards for determining vested rights to develop property
E. City Attorney to address consideration of separation distance variances in relation to conditionalllse
applications.
F. Chairman's Items
G. Director's Items
H.
Board & Staff Comments
t....,.
~. . :.1
'" ....:1
~~\;: '
c"
P & Z AGENDA
3
..
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
TUESDAY, May 15,1990
.,.. "j',..,., .",. ::""~~,,,-(',, _J. t....
(""',
Members Present:
Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Mazur, Schwob, Hamilton and Gans
Members Excused:
Mr. Ferrell
Also Present:
James M. Polatty, Director of Planning and Development
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Michael Wright, Assistant City Manager
M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney
A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, and seconded by Ms. Nixon, to approve the minutes of the May 1, 1990
meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).
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.
ITEMS ARE LISTED IN AGENDA ORDER THOUGH NOT NECESSARlLY DISCUSSED
IN THAT ORDER.
1.
(DEFERRED FROM APRIL 17, 1990)
M & B 23.05, Sec. 5-29~16
(1925 U.S. 19 North)
Robert Rolf, Trustee/Clearwater
Cinem.a n' Drafthouse
CU 90-24
t
.~~;,:
Request - To permit on premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor
Zoned - CC (Commercial Center)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendations.
Mr. Shane Bryant, General Manager of Clearwater Entertainment, Inc., representative of applicant, stated the
applicant is requesting a conditional use to transfer business ownership. The business will be run as before with
no changes made except for upgrading the food and equipment. Hard liquor has been dropped and only beer
and wine will be served. He stated the policies and procedures followed by the establishment are in the
franchising guidelines and offered them for review. He further stated there has been no adverse activit)' at the
establishment.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwab, and seconded by Mr. Mazur, to approve the above request subject to the
requisite occupational license being obtained within 6 months of this public hearing. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0).
2. (REQUEST FOR EXTENSION)
Lot 16, Grove Circle Subdivision (1706
North Highland Avenue)
Jeffrey N. South, Louis F. Aguiar and
Jules Bishara (Summer Place)
CU 89-86
(
\....,
Request - Level I Group Care Facility
with 10 cared~for residents
Zoned ~
RS~8 (Single Family
Residential)
P & Z MINUTES
1
05/15/90
"r~
r "'t~ ..
Mr. Shuford prescnted a lctter from the applicantrcquestiIlg an extension (see lctter attached). He pointed out
that staff has prepared an amendment to thc Land Development Code addressing congregate living facilities
which would take the Level I Group Care out of residentiul districts entirely allowing family care there. Since
the City Commission has not had an opportunity to review it 11c.~ did not want to bold up this request at this time.
The staff recommended granting the extension.
The applicant was not present.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
In discussion, the Board agreed it did not want to set a precedent of granting extension') without knowing the
reason for the request. They felt the applicant sllOuld be present to be consulted. Upon advice from the City
Attorney, the Board concurred the safest way to handle the matter would be to grant a one~montll extension
giving the applicant time to respond without causing further expense to the applicant.
Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Ms. Nixon to continue the above request to the June 19,
1990 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).
3. (REQUEST FOR EXTENSION)
Lots 7-11 and part of Lot 12, Elk. L,
Hibiscus Gardens (211 S. Missowi Ave.)
YWCA of Greater Clw., Inc. C Community
Pride Child Care )/Martha Skelton
CD 89-82
Mr. Shuford presented a letter from the applicantrequestmg a six-month extension (letter attached). The letter
advised the applicant is in the process of buying the building and will begin renovation in the near future. Staff
recommended approval of the request for extension.
The applicant was not present.
,.
\
No persons appeared in support or in opposition of the above request.
The Board discussed the fact the applicant was not present, but 'Were in consensus about granting the request
since the reasons were well stated in the letter making the rCCI.uest.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, and seconded by Ms. Nixon, to grant the request for the six-month extension
from the date of this public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).
4. M & B 34.011, Sec. 19-29-15
(1590 Gulf Blvd.)
Mido USA Inc. & Mido Development, Inc. (Bellevicw Biltmore Cabana Club)
CD 90-30
Request - To permit on-premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford
read a letter in opposition received from Joseph and Beverly Koutny, 1582 Gulf Blvd., #1302, Cleanvater, FL.
~
~<... '.
Mr. TlID. Johnson, 911 Chestnut Street, applicant's attorney stated the Cabana Club is located on Clearwater
Beach, the zoning is General Commercial District/Commercial Tourist Facility, and they are here because of
a change in ownership. This property was formerly owned by Bernie Powell and his associates and was sold to
Mido as a part of the transaction of the sale of the Bellevic\v Biltmore and the Pelican Country Club. Mido is
the new owner and it has every present intention to operate the club in the same manner it has in the past. The
Cabana Club is a private club; it is available only for its members; and it does conduct some banquet business
as well. There have been no problems at the club. The parking situation you heard about with members parking
in the condominium parking spaces apparently cuts both ways. The access is throughout both the Cabana Club
and the condominium so people will park wherever space is available. In response to an inquiry from the Board,
Mr. Johnson stated the Cabana Club had been doing business for many years.
No persons appeared in support or in opposition to the request.
P & Z MINUTES
2
05115190
...
..
Zoned - CO (General Commercial)
("'" .
In discussion the Board felt that the Koutnys objections were unfounded.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, and secondcd by Mr. Hamilton to approve the above request subject to the
requisite occupational license being obtained within 6 months of the date of this public hearing. Motion carried
Wlanimously (6-0).
5. Lots 14-16, Bayside Sub 2 (153 Brightwater Drive)
W. Neuhaus Massivhaus Baugesell
CU 90-31
Request - To construct a 6-slip marina
Zoned - CR-28 (Resort Commercial) and ALlC (Aquatic Lands/ Coastal
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Ms. Nixon
expressed some concern that people across the waterway most affected by the increase in boat traffic were not
notified of this request because measurements are taken 200' from the property line and not from the
construction.
Mr. Michael Murphy, no Island Way, #204, applicant's representative, stated that Neuhaus, et al owns the three
lots on Brightwater Drive and plans to build condominiums there. The corporation plans to sell the slips with
the condominiums and wanted to be sure the slips were in place. He stated the applicant is requesting to build
three piers with six slips. There will only be 2 cat walks as the DNR and DER limitations are 10 sq. ft. of water
to each linear foot of waterfront, which gives them 1800 sq.ft. He further pointed out that the adjacent property
owners each have 180' of waterfront and have 10 and 12 slips. He further stated this is a private marina and will
not be l'ented. In response to the Board's inquiry, Mr. Murphy stated the slips would take 3 to 5 working days
to construct.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
if
. ~"
'li-:.'
Discussion by the Board ensued with concern expressed over the slips being built before the condominiums
were ready for occupancy. The Board did not wish to preapprove the slips. They wanted to be sure someone
would be on the building site responsible for the slips to ensure they would not become a commercial marina
with all the attending problems, and that the slips would be sold with the condominiums. Mr. Polatty advised
the Board they could either deny this request, table it until they have approved the condominiums, or condition
the request upon the construction of the condominiums. Mr. Shuford advised there are no requirements as far
as resubmittal if the request were tabled, but if it were denied, there would be a waiting period for resubmittal.
It was ascertained from Mr. Murphy that the applicant had approval from the DER and DNR and would obtain
permits upon approval by the Planning & Zoning Board.
Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Schwob to table the above request until such time as a
building permit for the condominium units has been secured. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).
6. M & B 13.31, Sec. 17-29-16
(2862 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.)
James J. Orlando
CU 90-32
Request - To permit animal grooming and/or boarding facilities
(
~"
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford
stated he had received two letters in support of this proposal from people who own neighboring businesses in
the existing center. In answer to a question by the Board as to when landscaping would be put in, Mr. Shuford
replied that as part of the recommendation it should be after the DOT does the widening, so the land can be
used for parking until that time.
Mr. James J. Orlando, 2280 Lagoon Drive, Dunedin, FL, applicant, stated he is the owner of a strip of stores
located at 2862 Gulf-to-Bay from 2862B, C, D, and F, known as the Bayview Stores. B is occupied by a beauty
parlor, D and E is occupied by a bar. The store in question is C between the beauty parlor and bar. He stated
Ms. Pamela Cummings is the prospective tenant interested in grooming animals at this location and that she
will not keep animals overnight even though the notice refers to boarding. He had contacted some of the tenants
P & Z MINUTES
3
05/15/90
1. (DEFERRED FROM APRIL 17, 1990)
M & B 11.03, Sec. 16-29-15/Located on the N. side of Cleveland St., approximately 105 ft. E. of
Garden Avenue
(City of Clearwater)
LUP 90-03, Z 90-02
!~1;:;>::'
,
to get their input on this t)'pe of business in the strip, and found it very favorable. Ms. Cummings had
accompanied Mr. Orlando and was available if the Board had any questions. Mr. Schwab asked Mr. Orlando
if he had any problem with the required landscaping. At that point Mr. Shuford explained to Mr. Orlando
exactly wh.ere the State right-of-way was on the map. Mr. Orlando advised that he has an agreement with the
State whereby he is allowed to park on the State right-of-way. Mr. Shuford further advised him that the State's
requirements may differ from the Citts requirements and Mr. Orlando stated he would have his attorney, Charlie
Stratton in Tallahassee, look into tbe matter.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Discussion by the Board ensued with regard to the landscaping. Concern was expressed that the Board was
asking for more than the Code required. Mr. Shuford indicated that overall landscaping on the site would still
be deficient. Mr. Shuford suggested that this condition should be enforced only at the time the State begins
construction of its widening.
Motion was madc by Mr. Schwab, and seconded by Ms. Nixon approving the above request subject to the
following conditions: 1) There shall be no overnight boarding of animals; 2) The parking area along the front
of the site that is not part of th.e FOOT right-of-way purchase (a nine to ten foot wide strip) shall be converted
into landscaping within 60 days of initiation of the roadway improvement project by the FDOT, with the species
and number of landscape materials being subject to review and approval of the City Divis\on of Environmental
Management; and 3) Thc requisite occupational license shall be obtained within six (6) months of this public
hearing. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).
C. Annexation. Zonin~ Land Use Plan Amendment. Lmd Development Code Text Amendment, and Lo(',al
Planning ~ncv Review:
Request - Land Use Plan & Zoning Amcndnlellts
LAND USE PLAN:
FROM: Downtown Development District/Regional Activity Center
TO: RecreatioIl
ZONING:
FROM:
TO:
UC/C (Urban Center - Core District)
OSIR (Open Space/Recreation)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. He stated
the request is to modify the land use plan as well as zoning to permit the City owned parking lot to be converted
into a mini park. Mr. Shuford stated there was adequate downtown parking and the rezoning would fit in with
the Comprehensive Plan.
.....~ .
In oppositioD, Mr. Tom Brown of :Brown Brother~ statcd he owns 88 ft. of property directly across from the
parking lot and has been doing business there for fifty years. He owns 4 stores and 26 offices. He stated he is
opposed to literally giving the property away, and to eliminating the parking places needed for the downtown
businesses. When this matter was first presented, he statcd consideration was given to leaving some parking
spaces. He further stated he is in favor of the building, but would like a compromise on the parking with 15 to
20 spaces retained for downtown shoppers. He opposed the fountains planned for the park as being a waste of
water and would only attract birds and drunks. He then presented a site plan to the Board.
Mr. Polatty came forward and explained this site plan was the adopted site plan for the MAS 1 project. The park
would be on some City land and some private land and is designed to enhance the downtown area at the loss
of a certain number of parking spaces. Mr. Poiatty further explained there are not many places for pedestrians
or office workers to go to have lunch in a nice clean area. The beach has many spaces, but downtown is lacking.
He further advised that William Whyte has done some research across the nation to determine what attracts
people downtown, and what amenities are needed to make a downtown successful. One amenity necessary to
make a downtown successful is a place for office workers to go to eat lunch. As a result, the City wants to create
a green environment or mini park. Part of the deal to get the high rise downtown was to create the park for all
the office workers downtown. The office building will provide 400 parking spaces as opposed to the 40 which
\
l
P & Z MINUTES
4
05/15/90
will be deleted. Mr. Polatty fllrther pointed out that there is a good deal of parking in the various downtown
garages. He also advised the park has not yet been designed.
Discussion by the Board followed regarding City ownel's11ip and private ownership of the mini park. Mr. Gans
questioned why the Cit)' desired to develop private property and what control the Cit)' would have. He thought
it might be more feasible in consideration of the City building the park, for MAS 1 to donatc their portion of
the land and turn the title over to the City. Ms. Nixon stated she was not in favor of improving park land
belonging to a private owner. Mr. Polatt)' advised that the City has a contract with MAS 1 which ties in this sitc
plan and the City is just improving the park. Ms. Nixon further asked how the City could justify not needing this
proposed park spacc for surface parking when the City had just finished discussing on-street parking on
Cleveland. She pointed out the type of stores being left in downtown are not the kind you want to spend two
to three hours browsing in, but rather are the kind in which you make 3 to 5 minute stops, and you do not want
to park in a garage for that type of shopping. She thought this was giving away the store to the developer
because he was not able to meet his own green space requirements. She furt11er stated she couldn't believe the
City Commission acting as the CRA would give away this land to the detriment of downtown businessmen for
the purpose of having MAS 1, who would probably put in the park anyway. Mr. Polatty responded by stating
our downtown, not unlike any other downtown, has become a financial administrative center now with somc
retail. Most of the employment force are people working in our financial administrative center and these people
need a place to eat lunch and need park amenities. Coachman Park was mentioned as a beautiful amenity, but
did not meet the downtown requirements of peoplc with 30 minute lunch hours. Mr. Hamilton summarized the
issue before them as going in two directions: 1) having a park available for downtown workers to have lunch in,
and 2) long time downtown businesses being adversely affectcd by the pa.rk taking away necded surface parking.
The Board then discussed the possibility of a compromise by cutting down thc size of the park to leave 10 to 15
parking spaces.
Mr. Michael Wright, Assistant City Managcr, was called upon at this point to clarify for the Board 1.) ho\V much
of the park would be on non-public property, 2) what would be on the remaining City property, and 3) whether
some parking could be left on the City property. In rcferring to the site plan, Mr. Wright stated the City
Commission made an agreement as an inducement to the development that a park would be put in this area and
that this land would be sold to the company doing the development. Part of the tradeoff was the developer
would put 300 to 400 parking spaces in the building. He furthcr pointed out several municipally owned parking
areas and stated it was the City Commission's decision therc was sufficient parking available, together with the
planned space, to make this a public park in the downto\Vll arca and to sell this land for the development of the
building. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Wright advised that a rcferendum is not needed for the
Redevelopment Agency to sell land if it is not zoned for open space/recreation. Mr. Wright further advised that
the City will bc responsible for the major plants and trees for the entire park area as part of its agreement, and
the developer will be responsible for the day-to-day maintenance. Mr. Wright explained that thc Redevelopment
Agency sold the land as an inducement to build the office building in the downtown area and that it serves the
dual purpose of complementing the building and being used as a downtown mini park. It is not unlike the
inducement given to the folks building the condominium units by the Police Department. Rather than
discounting land, we said we will build the entranceway to your building which will serve the dual purpose of
being a public facility plus saving some land.
The Board further discussed whether the City Commission considered the possibilit)' of leaving some parking
spaces available for Cleveland Street businesses. Mr. Wright assured them the removal of parking was fully
considered by the Redevelopment Agency, that several plans were looked at, but a workable compromise could
not be developed. Mr. Gans asked if the City was coming to the Board as a matter of form to get the zoning
changed because the commitment had already been made. Mr. Wright replied that by changing the zoning
designation to open space/recreation this property would fall under the referendum requirement, whicl1 was the
purpose of locking it in as a park. Mr. Wright further advised that several public hearings had becn beld and
this had been on both the City Commission and The eRA's agendas several times.
In rebuttal, Mr. Brown stated they wcre indirectly told that if the businesses didn't go along with this, tile Cit)'
would not give them parking on Cleveland Street, which they have since decided against. He reiterated the need
for a compromise of 15 to 20 parking spaces to be included in this area.
In opposition, Mr. Alan Bitman of 646,647 and 649 Cleveland Slreet, fclt the decision had already been made
by the City Commission and wondered why the Planning & Zoning Board was even hearing it. He was
conccrned about tile City taking care of people working in the office building and forgetting about those who
have been downtown for 10, 20 or 30 years. He mentioned the parking spaces eliminated by the Sun Bank
building and now tIlls parking would also be eliminated. He felt downtown business was definitely dropping
because of lack of parking. He owns Park Jewelers, the Service Shoe Repair and the building which used to
house Undersea Imports before they moved to the Bay Area Outlet Mall because of the lack of parking
downtown. He further stated he just purchased a parking lot with 22 spaces on the corner of Park and East and
P & Z MINUTES
5
05/15/90
...
~
r
I
,/-.'li',-,
(
has had to put up signs to keep people from parking there. Thc lot can be full without a customer in his store.
He further stated this was the first meeting he was aware of as tlns matter had not been widely publicized.
Mr. Wright then advised the Board the City is in the process of buying land adjacent to the Police Department
which will free up the Park Avenue garage presently being used for police cars. This would bring total garage
spaces available to between 500 and 600. He also stated the issue was more complex than parking, and
mentioned the changing dynamics of the downtown area and the creation of malls. The Board felt the mall
situation was directly connected to parking in that you were assured of parking when you went there regardless
of how far away it was. The Board then discussed the fact that there is a good deal of parking downtown, but
its whereabouts is not highly visible. It was felt some education and publicity should be done to make people
more aware of downtown parking.
--
In support, Mr. William C. Cravis, 620 Qeveland Street, advised the Board that he owns a parking lot with 75
spaces immediately behind his building on Cleveland. He understood thesc properties would be conti&lllOUS and
there would be walking access between his parking lot and the proposed park area.
In support, Mr. Tim Johnson, 911 Chestnut Street, stated he was surprised at Ms. Nixon's opposition to the park
based on protecting a businessman who relied on the City for parking. He felt businesses should provide their
own parking or be at risk. He has had to supply parking for his office building located in the downtown
development area and feels that is the way it should be. You either provide your own parking or get it in writing
from the City as MAS 1 has done.
Motion was made by Mr. Mazur, and seconded by Mr. Johnson, to approve the above request. Motion carried
5-1 with Ms. Nixon voting IInaY'.
D. Public Hearing for Concurrency Management System Ordinances
1.
2.
3.
I
r,}
4.
Ordinance No. 4980-90 ~ Relating to Traffic Impact Studics Required for Certain Developments
Ordinance No. 4981-90 - Relating to the Land Development Code, creating sections for
Development Agreements
...
Ordinance No. 4982-90 - Relating to the Land Development Code, creating sections to provide for
a Concurrency Management System
Ordinance No. 4983-90 - Relating to the Comprehensive Plan of the City, to establish administrative
procedures and standards for determining vested rights to develop property
Mr. Shuford presented the above ordinances to the Board and submitted, in writing, the prcliminary
recommendations given by the Board to the City Commission in their May 1, 1990 meeting.
The board members discussed each of the items on the attached list. The Board had previously accepted item
Nos. 3, 4, 7, 11 and opposed item Nos. 5, 9, 10, 12,13, and 15. It was noted the City Commission had revised
No.4 to include a 90 day review period rather than a 60 day review period. Item No. 16 was reviewed during
the meeting and included with those being accepted.
Mr. Mazur inquired why item No.6 was not included in the comments to be accepted and Mr. Shuford explained
this was one of several (2, 6, 8, and 14) which needcd further study. Mr. M:aZUf then asked for an explanation
as to why No.6 would not automatically be grandfathered in. Mr. Shuford replied they are grandfathered in
unless there is a deviation from the plan. He further explained that it can be a substantial deviation in other
areas but not for the affected level of service. He gave the situation where it is not meeting some wetland
retention or preservation requirement that puts it in substantial deviation but has no affect on level of service.
Mr. Polatty directed the Board's attention to item No.2, which is related to No.6, on the handling of a vested
DRI with substantial deviations in concurrency. He referred to Mr. Shuford's example which had a substantial
deviation for water, but not for traffic, sewer, recreation, etc. In this case the one area of substantial deviation
would be addressed, namely water consumption, and the others wOllld be left alone. Mr. Polatty stated that at
this time the City Attorney is questioning the need for this.
,
............
The Board asked the question of how can you have a substantial deviation to the DR! that doesn't relate to one
of the adopted level of service standards. Mr. Mazur rclated that Park Place, which is an office complex and one
of the City's two DRls, is floundering and the possibility exists for someone to develope an apartment complex
on that site. He stated the DRI in the development order did not address residential. As a result schools will
be considered a substantial deviation becausc the DRI did not address it initially because it was irrelevant. Mr.
P & Z MINUTES
6
05/15/90
Mr. Hamilton stated the difficulty comes from the compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, which is one
of their considerations, and which is a close [-unction of the distance requirement. He felt the issue was how
to jlldge compatibility without including distance. Ms. Nixon stated that at one point the Board did have the
distance separation consideration, but it had been taken away and given to the City Commission. The public
wanted it appealed to the City Commission, but in order to do that the rules were dropped from approximately
300' to 50' or so, with certain qualifications. At tlus point Mr. Polatty advised the Planning & Development
Department is in the process of drafting amendments to the Land Development Code with regard to the
Comprehensive Plan and to top community priorities. He encouraged the Board to let them know if they wished
them to address this issue.
/"-
f
Mazur asked why should the fact there is going to be some impact on schools in the area have anything to do
with eliminating the possibility of grandfathering the project because it doesn't relate to schools. Mr. Galbraith
replied the possibility to grandfather a project had not been eliminated and a vested rights determination can
be applied for and obtained. Mr. Galbraith stated the developer must go through the process of filing out the
application and showing the City what his intentions are and what affects thcy will have so that a vested rights
determination can be made.
In answer to a request from the Board, Mr. Polatty stated that a substantial deviation as defined in the Florida
Administrative Statutes is a DRI that has a certain percentage change in its impact changes. The Board
concurred that a substantial deviation should be based on the state procedure.
Motion was made by Mr. Mazer, and seconded by Mr. Hamilton to approve Agenda Item D with the inclusion
of items Nos. 2 and 6. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).
E. City Attorney to address consideration of separation distance variances in relation to conditional use
applications.
Mr. Schwob stated the Board had been told not to factor in distance when they consider a conditional use that
concerns alcoholic beverages. They were to apply Conditional Use Standard No. 136.025 (compatible use),
subject to a variance granted by the City Commission. He further stated that Commissioner Regulski assumed
they were considering distance when hearing a conditional use request. Ms. Nixon added that Mayor Rita Garvey
was also of that opinion. Mr. Galbraith stated the way the ordinance is worded you cannot establish an alcoholic
beverage establishment within the minimum distance unless you get a variance from the City Commission. The
City Commission is supposcd to consider the factors and the DCAB considers when it hears a variance. He
advised at present Conditional Use standard No. 136.024 sets forth the sequence of events to be followed in the
process of a conditional use application for alcoholic beverages as: 1) Planning & Zoning Board, 2) DeAB, and
3) the City Commission, in that order. He further stated that perhaps the time had come for the ordinance to
be reexamined to prevent confusion in this area.
Mr. Galbraith suggested the Board request the distance limitation factor be brought back to them and to create
a two-tier distance requirement, with one tier giving a certain minimum requirement with no variance, and a
second tier with another minimum but with certain other built in requirements. He further suggested having it
go to a hearing officer on appeal and not to the City Commission. Mr. Galbraith stated specific footage
requirements would be better than the general term of reasonable distance. However, the Board liked the
democratic process of having seven independent citizcns hearing each request with regard to a reasonable
distance and coming to a majority opinion. Mr. Polatty urged the Board not to make the motion too specific
as the Department would like the opportunity to research the ordinance law and come back with an ordinance
meeting their intent. Mr. Schwob asked Mr. Galbraith to advise the Commissioners that under the present
procedure when the Board passes a liquor vote on to the City Commission that distance has not been considered
according to his instructions.
G. Director's Itcms - none
Motion was made by Mr. Gans, and seconded by Ms. Nixon to direct the Planning and Zoning Staff to make
recommendations to them on a priority basis in connection with the Conditional Use Standards for alcoholic
beverages. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).
F. Chairnlan's Items - none
H. Board & Staff Comments
Ms. Nixon reported that in the Sand Key Shopping area on Clearwater Beach there is a sign two doors down
from the Pick Kwick announcing Sand Key Liquors & Winc will be coming soon. She felt this should be checked
on. Mr. Johnson reported that the Board had approved Lokey Motors on Gulf-to-Bay for storage and parking
P&ZMINUTES
7
05/15/90
";..
;:/ .' '."" , .
~...
'!>:,:'
J '.
..
l r,
",
with certain recommendations on landscaping. He stated there is now a building on the property with no
landscaping. They have moved their clltire used car operation to the south side of the street. Mr. Hamilton
advised there was a new name hanging on the Sand Piper. It was also mentioned that Britts has moved and
have not come before the Eoard. Mr. Hamilton advised they are scheduled to come before the DCAB 13oard.
When Britts lost its lease they convinced the motel across the street to tear out units and they moved in there.
Since they are selling alcohol they should be checked on. Mr. Schwob mentioned there is a new place in
Northwood Plaza called Munchies, which sells beer and wine which should come before the Board.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
~
..
"~
,}
t.......
,..;..,,"";,
, i
~l;;;:,;."
"
J
I
...
(
.......~.
-
P & Z MINUTES
8
05/15/90
. ., " ',,' ' : .' , .,,' . t,.., . ." " 'J, . . J . ' . .
.---.
{ .
\
'.
,.
t....
;~\-F
I
I
i
! I
II
f:
I I
1.
i i
l."
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--'
;e~
, I
"1 6 \~<:lAQ.-(y~c-
I, OSOM t-\C~(} ~\... ~c..C / I\cLF
: i \7 0 G N .~ ~ 'JA Q a..... c:l f\ ~ ~
! I C1k tL 'Y L..J 0-..-\ V\ I F L 31-6 I 5
,.
. .
p ~C<. V\ vv.: VI. 3- . ~ U"" b CA '^- 'De<<. to ~ M ~ +-
~''UI\5 4-T4-~
~L1rlL0 a.~ . ~L 3f61 j -- 411-%
I
ApiiP 3o/\QcrU
! 1 ~: ~ \} ~ C.1 - ~ ~ / N O~ ~<.r \ 1-
.
'b t' o..t S~ ~
? ~~ Q c.. "- €- ~ (. U.....:. ~ ~ a..
't"C~~"'f ~ ~ e..kk~ ~ nt.~
c.LrrH \1 an ~ ,'-" A. c.. L- t=" t-'
lo . '"'f1-,y\ ~ trk.. e, I Q.. -t t7 0 , I\! tJY ft.
M f f~ d .,A Vl- / ~ 1ft c,'.-y c1!.... I Lo f I /
Zo-vv d R s - F'
I A 0 J.. t 7<r-
.9 l.. Ct- JC c1 )
~ ~ t: 4;~ 1 h ~~~j::,:.="",d:~ '
',''::.~:~~~,;;'>'...,fct~r~ ,. . .. . ")'.l~.\_. . . '. .
\1,.
J"""""'
[ ~.,
\..,
Todey's Youths I Tomorrowl Le.de"
FUND RAISING
HONORARY CHAIRMEN
Frances A, Breeden
Dorothy Hamlin
8eatrice Lewis
Christine A. Nodine
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
8ruce Baldwin
Jeff Butler
Or. Joseph Carwise
Larry Dimmitt, Jr.
Holly Duncan
Charles B. Galloway. Jr.
Honorable Aita Garvey
Edward Henry
to '.f. Howard Hinesley
fl.." .uss Kimball
Philip Mann
Connie Marquardt
Hallie Maxon
Larry K. Meyer
Else S. Nichols
Lowell Paxson
Wray S. Register
Lee Savage
Ellen Snibbe
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Robert C. Young
President
Isay M. Gulley
Aseelah Harris
Malachi McCaskill
Christine Morris
Marlene Murray
Wayman Pearson
William M. Roberson
Margie Stonom
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Martha Skelton
l'
: ~ /
L1cen.. 11 C62513
c. u. 8r -3~
Community Pride Child r:are Center Of Clearwater, Inc.
1235 Holt Avenue . Clearwater, Florida 34615 . (813) 443-0958
1436 S. Madison Avenue . Clearwater, Florida 3461 e e (813) 443.0948
Apri 1 20, 1990
Mr. steve Dougherty
Planning and Development
City of Clearwater
P. O. Bo>: 4748
Clearw~ter, Florida
34618
Re: CU~~89-82
Dear Mr. Dougherty;
I am asking for a si~ (month) eKtensian of the
approval for Conditional Use to operate a day care
center at 211 South Missouri forme~ly known as the
YWCA Thrift Shop. The approval was granted at the
rneeting on October 31~ 1989.
At that time we wer~ going to rent the facility
from the YWCA. Because of circumstances with grants
being awarded late and the YWCA~s change in plans
we are now in the process of buying the building
for the same purpose. We plan to close on the
building within a few weeks and will begin
renovation soon after.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
APR 24 1990
PlANNING & URBAN
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
d:3
ThilAgency il Funded in Partbvthe Department of Health and Rehabllltativ. Service., St.t. of Florid....n~Ti,~I.~)O(~.!~c Socl~! S~o~r~r(~ot......
,: .,.,,, . ." .l:!..'.
~~
. "
1"1artha Shel ton
'01 l' ec:t.or-
13-3
.
A UNITEDWAV AGENCY
Unlled Way
05/17/90
r"""
, ~UBJEcr:
Concurrency Management System .. Ordinances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Commi~~ion adopt on second reading four ordinances relating to the concurrency m.anagement system.: Ordinances
#4980-90 (traffic impact study), 4981-90 (development agreement),4982-90 (concurrency) and 4983-90 (vested rights).
,
[ ] And that the appropriate omci:tl~ be authorized to ~te same.
BACKGROUND:
Attached please find copies of four ordinances relating to the City's concurrency management &)'Stem. These ordinances address the
following components of concurrency m~nagement:
(1) Ves~ed Development Rights
(2) Development Agreements
(3) Traffic Impact Studies
(4) Concurrency Management
The Plpnning and Development staff has received several comments concerning the proposed concurrency management system, from
both the PJpnning and Zoning Board and from other private individuals. These comments are listed below. The Planning and Zoning
Board has reviewed the other comments, and the Board's recommendations relative to these comments are indicated in brackets ({})
following each comment. The Ph~nning and Development staff made preliminary recommendations to the Board, at the May 1, 1990
(~:";ting, which generally followed the theme and tenor of the Board's comments. ~ (G,
Current City staff recommendations are providedfollowiug each comment. P)....., note that the~""8!;S Jro>tlO'lCC!ro the oriJlDIaI
olrlinances discussed under first readin2 on Mav 3. 1990 are described in Items 3. 4. 7.. and 11 The Citv Attorney will orovidc a
motion to amend the orWnal ordinances to reflect these chaIu!es at the Mav 17. 1990 Commi~c:i()11 meeting.
PIANNING AND ZONING MEMBERS' COMMENTS
1. The Concurrency Management Ordinance should be refened to as the "Concurrency Management (Adequate Public Facilities)""
Ordinance" to better inform the public of the purpose and intent of the concurrency regulations.
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The ordinance, although it technically does not have a name, can be refened to as desired
by the Commission. .
2. 'The Vested Development Rights and/or Concurrency Management Ordinance should explicitly spell out how substantial deviatioDS
. -t6 DR! development orders will be handled with regard to concurrency (e.g., in accordance with State of Florida procedures).
CITY STAFF RECOM:MENDATION: Further study and analysis of this issue must be undertaken prior to the staff l1111king a
formal recommendation. If deemed appropriate, the staff will bring an amendment to the Comm;s.l)ion duringthe first round of Land
Development Code amendments scheduled for mid-summer.
Planning & Development
l,..
Ordinances:
4980.90
4981.90
4982.90
4983.90
n
C.C.05/1719O
Concurrency Management System
Page 2
t..... . The effective date of the Traffic Impact Study Ordinance should be immediately uJlon adoption, as provided, since the newly-
1'6 ",vided exemptions may affect existing site plans. The other ordinances should be effective on May 31, 1990. This will provide
maximum flexibility for developers whose plans are already in the process.
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City staff concurs with the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation and will
implement this change.
4. Some time frame needs to be established for vesting determinations by the Director of Planning and Development; a 60 day review
period by the Director was suggested. This would require prompt action by the Director on vesting determinations.
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This change is appropriate. Staff would recommend changing the first sentence of Sec.
137.076 to read: "Upon receipt of a complete and accel'table applicatio~ as determined bv the pJ~nninp': and development director....
the director shall determine within ninety (90) days of the date of submittal whether the owner has the right to develop [the rest of
the sentence remains unchanged]". .
S. An appeal system for positive determinations of vested rights, indu.ding the circumstances and time period in wWch an appeal
can be made, should be explicitly stated in the Vested Development Rigb.ts Ordinance. This would provide all parties with a clear
understanding of how appeals could be made, as well as providing needed limits on appeals.
CITY STAFF RECO:MMENDATION: The City Attomey has advised that positive determinations of vested rights are ~imi1ar to
other admini!ltrative determinations like whether a use is conforming or nonconforming. No party other than the property owner
would have "standing" to appeal such a decision. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary or appropriate.
OTHER COMMENTS
VESTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
:'(~- .Am.endSec.13,1.074 (a) t~ read:. ~e d:velopment is an approved developmen~ of regional impact~ and ~e development is ~ot
. ~rmmed to be 10 substantial deV13.tion Wlth regard to any adopted level-of-selVlce standards established m the CompreheIlSlve
'han." {This proposed change was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board as it appeared to address the development of
regional impact concern expressed in Item #2 above.}
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Further study and analysis of this issue must be undertaken prior to the staff m~1cing a
formal recommendation. If deemed appropriate, the staff will bring an amendment to the Commission during the first round of Land
Development Code amendments scheduled for mid-summer.
7. All references to "date of adoption" should be changed to "effective date". {The Planning and Zoning Board felt that since the
Vested Development Rights Ordinance was r.ecommcnded to go into effect May 31, 1990, the reference should be changed.}
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City staff concurs with the Pl~nning and Zoning Board's recommendation and will
implement this change.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
8. Amend See. 137.043 to delete subsections 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15. {The P]~nnlng and Zoning Board felt that the content of the
required submissions for a development agreement should be provided in an administrative manual, rather than by ordinance. The
recommended cbange would be to modify the Section to simply read: "Upon a determination by the City Commksion that it desires
to proceed with further negotiations relative to a development agreement, the property owner shall promptly submit a development
proposal for the subject property containing any information required by the City Manager pursuant to established administrative
policies for development agreements."}
CITY STAFF RECO:MMENDATION: Further study and analysis of this issue must be undertaken prior to the staff m~king a
formal recommendation. If deemed appropriate, the staff will bring an amendment to the Commission during the first round of Land
Development Code amendments scheduled for mid-summer.
,.,' \mend Sec. 137.044 to add the phrase ",in and of themselves," after the word "owner" in line 7 of the Section. {The Board felt
\;,...".... this was primarily a legal issue, and indicated its acceptance of wh.atever the City Attorney deems appropriate.}
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City Attorney has advised that the proposed language, in and of itself, would not add
anything useful or meaningful to the Section; therefore, the staff does not recommend this change. ...
.' _. . . ." .' - . .:. . . ....,..:. '.' '.'..,. . ,,}. . .' ... .'. .' . . . (i' ., ',' . . ..
,-
C.C.05/17/9O
Concurrency Management System
Page 3
(~. .
10. Amend Sec. 137.046 to: (1) Reduce Planning and Zoning Board review period to 30 days; (2) Require waiver of recommendation
if not completed in 30 days. {The Planning and Zoning Board was strongly opposed to these proposed changes.}
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff concurs with the Planning and Zoning Board's positioll on this proposed
amendment and would therefore not recommend that the change be adopted.
.' 11. Amend Sec. 137.047(2) to permit extension of development agreements beyond 5 years. {The Board reconnnended amending
the ordinance to allow extending development agreements beyond five years, pllrsuant to the Pllblic hearing requirements established
in state statutes.}
CITY STAFF RECOM:MENDATION: The City Attorney suggests that if an extension is desired, the following language should
be used: "... and maY be extended for one additional term not to exceed three Vears bv mutual consent of tbe city commission and
the developer. subiect to the same public heariIuz process necessary for the initial approval of the development agreement."
.~
12. Amend Sec. 137.047(4) to delete requirement for conceptual site plan altogether. {The Planning and Zoning Eoard was strongly
opposed to deleting this requirement.}
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff concurs with the Plannirlg and Zoning Board's position on this proposed
amendment and would therefore not recommend that the change be adopted.
13. Amend Sec. 137.047(11) to delete "monetary penalties" language. {The Board referred this comment to the City Attorney.}
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The City Attorney notes that this laI1guage refers to any monetary penalties negotiated
between the Commission and the developer. Since these penalties are mlltually agreed upon, and provide an option to insure
adherence to the development agreement, it is not recommended that this change be adopted.
i
~
~
b
~
"
(
;"
~c IMPACT STUDY
~
"
14. Amend subsection (8)(a) to read: "The development is an approved develcpment of regional impact, and the development is
not determined to be in substantial deviation with the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, if the development
order was approved prior to [the effective date of this ordinance]." {The Plmning and Zoning Board felt that this proposed change
was appropriate, and tb.at it helped address the issue raised in Item #2 above.}
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Further study and analysis of this issue must be undertaken prior to the staff making a..
formal recommendation. If deemed appropriate, the staff will bring an amendxnent to the CoIIlJJli..ssion during the first round of Land
Development Code amendments scheduled for mid. summer.
:'
~
~.~
~
1
.;
i'
f!
CONCURRENCY ORDINANCE
15. Amend Sec. 137.063(4)(b) to read: "attempt to arrange" rather than simply "arrange". {'The Planning and Zoning Board was
strongly opposed to this proposed change because it felt that the wording would permit clearly bogus efforts to provide required
facilities to clog the system with encumbrances.}
CITY STAFF RECOM:MENDATION: The staff concurs with the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation; therefore, the
staff does not recommend this change.
1
16. (NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITY COMMlSSIO::N'8 ATTENTION AT ITS MAY3, 1990 }d.l:it~Tll'lG.
TIm PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD'S COMMENTS ON THIS I.'1'Bf WILL BE VERBALLY PRESF.Nl'ED TO THE
COMMISSION AT ITS MAY 17, 199() MEElrnG.) Add new Sec. 137.074(1) (i) to the V csted Development Rights ordinance as
follows: "The development of the property is the subject of a final development order or certified site plan the application for which
was submitted to the City on or before February 15, 1990, provided that the final development order or certified site plan applied
for is approved on or before July 30, 1990."
l . 'Y STAFF RECO:MMENDATION: This proposed amendment would provide a "grace" period for development projects alread.y
w-the re"iewand approval process. Staff supports the proposal as it provides a reasonable time period for continued pro~ of
these projects, while still ensuring a good faith effort on the part of the develo:p~r to proceed expeditiously through the process.
,!i;"';",
t "
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
ITEM
A. Approval of minutes of May 1, 1990
ACTION
AGENDA
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1990 - 1:30 PM
CONDITIONAL USES. ANNEXATION. ZONING. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS. LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS. AND LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW:
THE BOARD FOLLOWS THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED BELOW. ALL TESTIMONY FOR
CONDrrIONAL USE REQUESTS IS GIVEN UNDER OATH.
{'""
t
t...",
1. The Chairperson reads from the Public Hearing Noticc each item as it is presented.
2. The staff report and pertinent background information are presented. - 5 minutcs maximum.
3. Staff presents any supporting written documents.
4. Staff presents any opposing written documents.
5. The applicant or his representative presents his case. - 5 minutes maximum.
6. Persons who support the application speak - 3 minutcs rnmrimum for each individual;
or spokesperson for group - 10 minutes maximum.
7. Persons who oppose the application speak - 3 minutes maximum for each individual; or
spokesperson for group - 10 minutes maximum.
8. Persons supporting the application (other than applicant) may speak in rebuttal - 3 minutcs
maximum.
9. Persons opposing may speak in rebuttal - 3 minutes maximum.
10. The applicant has an opportunity for final rebuttal - 5 minutcs maximum.
11. Public Hearings are closed.
12. Discussion by the Board.
13. The Board makes a decision.
FLORIDA STATUTE 286.0105 STATES: ANY PERSON APPEALING A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
MUST HA VB A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT SUCH APPEAL.
B. Conditional Uses:
1. (DEFERRED FROM APRIL 17~ 199O)
M & B 23.05, Sec. 5-29-16
(1925 U.S. 19 North)
Robert Rolf, Trustee/Clearwater
Cinema n' Drafthouse
CU 90-24
Request - To permit on premisc
consumption of beer, wine and liquor
Zoned -
CC (Commercial Center)
2. (REQUEST FOR EXTENSION)
Lot 16, Grove Circle Subdivision (1706
North Highland Avenue)
Jeffrey N. South, Louis F. Aguiar and
Jules Bishara (Summer Place)
CD 89-86
Request - Level I Group Care Facility
with 10 cared-for residents
Zoned -
RS-8 (Single Family
Residential)
.(
l.
P & Z AGENPA
1
3.
(REQUESr FOR EXTENSION)
Lots 7-11 and part of Lot 12, Blk. L,
Hibiscus Gardens (211 S. Missouri Ave.)
YWCA of Greater Clw., Inc. (Community
Pride Child Care )/Martha Skelton
CU 89-82
P'"
f.. "-'.
~
4. M & B 34.011, Sec. 19-29-15
(1590 Gulf Blvd.)
Mido USA Inc. & Mido Development,
Inc. (Belleview Biltmore Cabana Club)
CU 90-30
Request - To permit on-premise
consumption of beer, wine
and liquor
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
5. Lots 14-16, Eayside Sub 2 (153
Brightwater Drive)
W. Neuhaus Massivhaus Baugesell
CU 90-31
Request - To construct a 6-slip marina
Zoned - CR-28 (Resort Commercial)
and AL!C (Aquatic Lands!
Coastal
6.
M & B 13.31, Sec. 17-29-16
(2862 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.)
James J. Orlando
CU 90-32
,..
~.,,-
Request - To permit animal grooming
and/or boarding facilities
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
c. Annexation. Zoning. Land Use Plan
Amendment Land Development Code Text
Amendment. and Local Planninp: Asrencv
Review:
1. (DEFERRED FROM APRll.17, 1990)
M & B 11.03, Sec. 16-29-15/Located on
the N. side of Cleveland 81., approximately
105 ft. E. of Garden Avenue
(City of Clearwater)
LUP 90-03, Z 90-02
Request - Land Use Plan & Zoning
Amendments
LAND USE PLAN:
FROM: Downtown Development
District/Regional Activity
Center
TO: Recreation
l~-
ZONING:
FROM:
TO:
UC/C (Urban Center - Core District)
OSIR (Open SpacelRecreation)
P & Z AGENDA
...
2
..,
. . .,'
. .'~ "
,',
::
1.
r~\ 2.
3.
4.
D. Public Hearing for Concurrency Managemcnt System Ordinances
Ordinance No. 4980-90 - Relating to Traffic Impact Studies Required for Ccrtain Developments
Ordinance No. 4981-90 - Relating to the Land Development Code, creating sections for
Development Agreements
Ordinance No. 4982-90 - Relating to the Land Development Code, creating sections to provide for
a Concurrency Management System
Ordinance No. 4983-90 - Relating to the Comprehensive Plan of the City, to establish
administrative procedures and standards for determiDing vested rights to develop property
E. City Attorney to address consideration of separation distance variances in relation to conditionalllSe
applications.
F. Chairman's Items
G. Director's Items
H. Board & Staff Comments
C""',',' \
j
......
lrJ