Loading...
09/14/1993 '~;' .: .. l .:. . \. . )'.' I. ~. , , _l......t...........,' ~ ....'.......T ">' ., ._,' .... . . -.,. . o .WORKSESSION City Commission Worksession Minutes r;:) Date ~€~ Ii /qq~~ Jo ,n f Stss/~n 'M#, P/lA.nninj tf Zninj /3t;ard- +- 0?S v ~"~.fi1t':-:::' .,;-"".' .:,:- ,'. '"~' ''''':.:'":. ,',r. I , " . ~ ,.!:!~ o JOINT WORK SESSION . CITY COMMISSION/PLANNING & ZONING BOARD September 14, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater and the Planning & Zoning Board met in Joint Worksess;on in Commission Chambers, City Hall, on Tuesday, September 14, 1993 at 12:15 p.m., with the following members present: City Commission: Rita Garvey Arthur X. Deegan, \I Richard Fitzgerald Sue A. Barfield Fred A. Thomas Mayor/Com missioner Vice-M ayor /Comm iss;oner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Planning & Zoning Board: Ken Hamilton John Carassas Kemper Merriam Lee Savage Jay Keyes Bob Bickerstaffe Chairman ~ i~ Absent: Lois Martin Also present: Michael Wright James Polatty Cynthia E. Goudeau Scott Shuford City Manager Central Permitting Director City Clerk Planning Manager The meeting was called to order by Mayor Garvey. Mr. Shuford said the City Commission has been discussing revising Alcoholic Beverage Regulations for some time and he has been keepin'g the Planr)ing & Zoning Board apprised of the direction the Commission has given him. He welcomed the opportunity for both bodies to meet together in order that staff may be given direction in this regard. mnCCPZ09.93 9/14/93 ,,J 1 , . , " ' ,.J, , " . I . . r~~' ~ f.. .l~ Mr. Shuford referenced agenda memorandum dated August 26, 1993 from the City Manager to the City Commission and Planning & Zoning Board members, item 1, Permitted Uses. He said the intent is to separate restaurant uses from nightclubs and taverns, He noted restaurant uses are usually approved. Under the proposed restaurants would be a permitted use as well as restaurant package sales and non- restaurant consumption facilities if they are they are located in a shopping center or a retail complex. There would be a limit on the total gross floor area of a shopping center or a retail complex that could be devoted to those types of uses. Package sales which are located in individual stores with a minimum of 25,000 square feet of floor area would be also a permitted use, Permitted uses, would not require a conditional use permit. There would be a staff review only. Mr. Shuford said the Planning and Zoning Board was considering adding change of ownership as a permitted use. Chairman Hamilton said the chance of the Commission or Board denying a restaurant such as Ruby Tuesdayts in Countryside Mall, which replaced an established restaurant with plenty Df parking, or an Olive Garden restaurant replaced by another major chain is very unlikely. There is a need to provide this kind of restaurant with an administrative review rather than requiring a time-consuming, expensive application process, , C) w" Mr. Shuford offered, although it is not a significant problem, there is the possibility a business may start out as a restaurant, and change of ownership brings about another type of business, such as a tavern or night club. This can be taken care of through Dther enforcement means. Mr. Shuford cited instances where pDlice enforcement activity prompted P&Z to establish trial periods or conditions to minimize the problems for a particular site location. Mr, Mazur questioned standards fDr backgrDund checks for individuals. Mayor Garvey expressed concern as to how certain undesirable individuals could be banned, CDmmission Deegan stated it was necessary to preserve the right to look at each application on an individual basis by requiring a conditional use permit. CommissiDner Thomas asked for the criteria used in the background check to evaluate whether an applicant qualifies. Mr. Hamilton agreed, indicating there was a need for uniformity in the manner in which it is presented tD the Board, Mr. Shuford reported the PDlice Department is now issuing a single departmental record, Commissioner Thomas asked staff tD recommend what should be checked and establish that as a criteria fDr approval. Mr. Galbraith offered criminal conviction as one criteria. He expressed concern with background checks which may indicate a clear personal record and not indicate the type of establishments with which an applicant has been involved, adding a background check indicates neither the type of person nor how the establishment will be run. Mr. Galbraith said a solutiDn would involve a tracking system fDr similar types mnCCPZ09.93 9/14/93 '-./ 2 f':" .~. ~ of establishments elsewhere in the state. Mr, Hamilton ~poke for small businesses for whom a $600 fee and lengthy application process would be a burden, Chairman Mazur explained to Mayor Garvey in his opinion the purpose of the meeting today was information sharing with the Commission and there were no expectations that decisions would be made. He favored an administrative process for an applicant with a clear background; the lengthy process for an applicant with negative information in his background check. Mr. Thomas requested a historical background check indicating previous business locations in addition to police reports. Mr. Wright asked if the members were trying to do too much, indicating problems of this nature were rare, and there were other ways of dealing with such a situation should it arise. He suggested not over- regulating the businessman. Mr. Merriam noted differences between a new business and an applicant taking over an established business, He did not .favor an automatic assumption of license and endorsed tying the separation variance to the business and not the property. . Mr. Shuford replied because a conditional and permitted use process was being established, change of ownership would mandate conditional use application if changes in the operation of the business occurred. ".>>..:. C'-, ....~ Mr. Thomas questioned the 51 % non-alcoholic sales rule and whether the City audited restaurants to determine compliance. Mr. Wright replied that was a license which the State issues and monitors. He further explained licensing processes and added the Commission approves whether the business can operate at a specific location, and not the alcoholic beverage license. He said the City does not audit but, if a law enforcement situation occurs, the City brings in the state to work with City police. Mr. Thomas requested the Planning and Zoning Board bring to the Commission a list of items they would like the Commission to consider for change, specifically those which would enable the Board to operate in a more efficient and economical manner, It was indicated such a list was provided in Mr, Shuford's Augu~t 26. 1993 memorandum. Mr. Shuford indicated staff was now looking for direction from the Commission. Responding to a question from Commissioner .Berfield, Mr. Hamilton said the $600 cost and six-week time frame is prohibitive to many small businesses. Mayor Garvey opted for application to one Board; Commissioner Thomas suggested appeals to the City Commission; Mayor Garvey disagreed and reiterated her mnCCPZ09.93 9/14/93 , , --..- 3 fr~ .t<"" .~.....?. ~ ~ preference for application to one Board rather than three. Mr. Shuford asked if the Commission was authorizing staff to establish administrative standards to make a distinction between applicants which would qualify on a routine basis and those which would be problematic; the Commission agreed this was the direction it wanted to go. Mr. Shuford explained the Planning & Zoning Board would be responsible for review of both separation variance and conditional use applications. The Commission has been discussing how to establish the standards for conditional use approval to effect control over separation, He explained two separation alternatives, Table A with short and flexible standards for separation, and Table B having strict standards and no flexibility . Commissioner Deegan said he viewed Table B as an attempt to impose tighter controls on increasing in the number of establishments. Commissioner Deegan said barst lounges, taverns, etc. should be located only in certain sections of the City. Mr. Shuford explained with Table A, if an applicant were denied by the Planning & Zoning Board, they could appeal to the City Commission; using Table 8, they could not even apply. Under Table A, an application would have to meet one of the use requirements under para b) secs 1, 2 or 3. Discussion ensued relative to separation, i.e. residential abutting strip centers and it was noted distances are measured property c::> line-te-property line. Commissioner Thomas asked how a citizen would petition the Commission if Table B were chosen. Mr. Shuford replied a citizen could state his case to the Commission, but the Commission's only response would be it could change the ordinance for that applicant. He said under para b) a new see 4 could be added to accommodate that particular case which would allow the conditional use permit to go forward, but this would essentially create a Table A situation. An applicant appealing to the Commission under Table B would be asking for a change of rule, and would not be appealing a denial. Commissioner Thomas was assured that Table B would not preclude development of the Maas Brothers property or the Eastern Corridor. Mr. Thomas stated the City's problem areas include the Missouri Avenue corridor, the Fort Harrison corridor and Drew Street and asked for assurance that revitalization of these areas not be limited by the proposed conditional use standards, Commissioner Fitzgerald disagreed with Table B, saying it is too restrictive and the 1 % problem applicants would not justify the restrictions placed on the majority. He opted for Table A as less restrictive. Mr. Hamilton said Table A gives the Commission control without automatic denial. mnCCPZ09,93 9/14/93 '--" 4 . ' l., '. .' .. ~ .. . > I ~'f'1,";' "" ,-:" (~ Commissioner Deegan argued for Table B saying approval is now almost always given, citing saturation on the Beach of 25 drinking establishments per linear mile along Mandalay and Gulf Boulevard. Mayor Garvey said indicating "25 drinking establishments" may include restaurants and the number may be misleading. Commissioner Berfield said criteria needed tightening up. and opted for Table B. She commented staff had asked earlier for approval standards criteria from the Commission; and she said those standards are clear under Table 8, adding background checks alone may prove inconclusive, Commissioner Thomas asked each member of the Planning & Zoning Board to indicate his/her individual recommendation of Table A or Table B and the reason for their support. Mr. Hamilton - Table Ai he indicated there has to be some subjectivity and there is no way to make this process Itblack and white". Mr. Mazur - Table B; with a provision which states, "or other corridors to be established by the Commission". Mr. Carassas - Table A; he spoke in support of smaller businesses, and noted the impact of fee, and added the restaurant definition was for large establishments, (:> Mr, Shuford said a 4COPSRX is for a large restaurant and indicated a proposed change of the definition of a restaurant to include any consumption-on-premises license, small or large. Mr. Carassas added he could not understand how the Board could distinguish between any applicant applying for a 4COPSRX license. Mr. Savage M Bits and pieces of both; he said he was looking for control, character of business, ethics; also does not want to inhibit small business opportunity. Mr. Bickerstaffe - Table 8; he said there is a need for strictness with fairness, saying staff could work in fairness and simplicity. Chairman Carassas commented upon the inflexibility of Table B and the improbability of an applicant coming before the Commission and effecting a change of Rules. Mr. Merriam - Table A; he cited Table B is entirely too restrictive, but he opted for more restrictions on separation variance than allowed, which would be tied to the business, not the property. He said competition will solve the saturation problem. \ ''"-'' mnCCPZ09.93 9/14/93 5 ~,,-'.I;1 >.' , ~ Commissioner Thomas asked whether Table A or Table B allows any restaurant I" ) to apply for a,beer and wine license. Mr, Shuford said any restaurant which fits the definition of "restaurant" will be a permitted use. He added under State rules seating capacity is a factor, but the City's proposed Rules do not include a maximum seating capacity. Mr. Shuford said there are four conditions under which any consumption-on- premise facility will be considered a restaurant: 11 State 4COPSRX license is for large establishment; 2) 1 COP, 2COP, 4COP with 61 % or greater food sales; 3) 16% maximum gross floor area, lounge or entertainment area; 4) no package sales at all, consum ption-on-premises on Iy. Commissioner Berfield expressed concern with the cost of fees for small businesses unable to pay, and asked if a mechanism could be established to pay fees in stages. Mr. Hamilton replied this would in essence mean the City is financing the small business; Mr. Shuford added this would apply only to conditional uses, not permitted uses. rR~. '} t, ,.~~.~ Staff has recommended Planning & Zoning Board appeals go to the City Commission instead of the State Hearing Officer. Mr. Hamilton noted if appeals were permitted from any party, every alcoholic decision could be appealed and the alcoholic beverage issue would be back in the political arena, which is why the Planning and Zoning Board was originally charged with this duty. He strongly favored the Hearing Officer process which is already in place. He said to allow an appeal to the City Commission by anyone who wants to appeal every decision of the Planning and Zoning Board would be wrong, ~, Commissioner Thomas said the City of Clearwater is governed by the City Commission and not someone coming down from Tallahassee. He said the Commission is elected by the citizens, and the citizens of Clearwater should determine what occurs in the City. He opined the appellate process should go to the City Commission and thereafter to the Circuit Court. Mr. Hamilton replied the appeal process requires a certain amount of objectivity and at times it might be difficult for the Commissioners to be objective. Mayor Garvey favored Mr. Hamilton's view indicating the appeals process evolved over the years and the Hearing Officer is still the appropriate way to go. She asked for a reading from the Commissioners whether any wished the established procedure to change. Commissioner Deegan did not want the Commission to be left out entirely. Commissioner Fitzgerald favored appeals to the City Commission because it is the lawful body of the City, but he questioned whether all P&Z appeals should be heard by the Commission, which in his opinion would negate the Board. Commissioner Berfield mnCCPZ09.93 9/14/93 "'---' . 6 . J ' , l ',' ."' .... r '. . , . F:. :'," ':' ~, " \" < \1 .' f ,c, ~ " f": , " 'j, l:. ~ ' ~: '. "; c... . . .;".'I'7fl..t;;rO/'\'....T+ct'..~.. l.t ro.::'-"",' l::.'t" r,~' . \ / . ,', <...~ ',>',' ,"" > . ~ ',.' . ,'; , .:: , . ' .. r" I . .."\ . , >,r "". ... I c:~ i I" ~ favored the State Hearing Officer as more impartial, adding if a vote were called today, (:''-:7 she would favor the Commission and readdress the issue at a future date. Chairman Mazur called a "toSS.Up" t agreeing the Commission is a policy setter and elected to represent the citizens, but occasionally there may be an illusion of partiality with the Commission. As an attorney, Mr. Carassas favored the Hearing Officer; as a citizen he chose the City Commission. Mr. Savag~t Mr. Bickerstaffe and Mr, Merriam all favored the City Conimission. Mayor Garvey favored the Hearing Officer. Mr. Mazur spoke briefly about single cans of beer sold in gas stations and consumed by drivers of vehicles and asked that this matter be addressed in the future, He asked if the City Attorney could assist. Mayor Garvey suggested the way to deal with this matter is to include it with the legislative package for the State and also apply to the County Commissioners for their consideration, She indicated it would have to be addressed as a State or County wide issue so that all convenience stores have the same rules. Mr. Mazur questioned if this could not be accomplished at a State or County level t could the City still effect change. Mayor Garvey suggested the item be agendaed and discussed further. The meeting adjourned at 1 :50 p.m. '0 " , 1 v mnCCPZ09,93 9/14/93 7