Loading...
05/21/1996 (2) {?,~.>:' . , -, f~ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING -- ACTION AGENDA Tuesday, May 21. 1996 Call To Order, Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance Minutes Approval -- May 7. 199 6 ~- Approved as submitted B. Requests for Extension. Deferred and Continued Items 81. (cant. from 5/7/96) ~ Trial Period Review - R.C. Lawler, Inc/Gregory Vance Moore/Debra Ann Oelemeester (The Kennel Club Bar & Grill, Inc) to permit nightclubs, taverns, and bars (change of business ownership) and package sales of beer, wine, and liquor (new license} at 1400 Cleveland Street, Knollwood Replat, Blk 1, Lots 1-4, zoned CG (Commercial General). CU 95-63 ACTION: Continued to June 6, 1996 c. Conditional Uses C1. Trial Period Review - Equator, Inc/Boston Investment Group, lnc d.b.a. Jamz-N- Java to permit nightclubs, taverns and bars (change of business ownership) at 2516 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Studebaker's Sub. Lot 2, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 95-54 ACTION: None -- Business has closed (:) C2. Marshall Harris/G.T.B. Ventures Co./Homestyle Harmony. Inc. to permit nightclubs, taverns and bars (new license) at 2456 Gulf to Bay Blvd., See 18-29-16, M&B 13.06, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 96-26 ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit. certificate of occupancy and occupational license within 6 months of the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90 degree cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and streets rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to consumption on premises consumption with no package sales; 4) There shall be no outdoor entertainment, seating'or speakers, except to communicate to patrons waiting to be served; and 5) The conditional use shall be subject to approval of the requisite parking variance. D. Annexation, Zoning, land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment. and Local Planning Agency Review 01. 1517 W. Virginia Lane, Virginia Groves Estate 16t Addition, Blk 10, Lot 2 (Neil W. Wyllie. Jr/Janice KnoxwBronson) A 96-17 ZONE: RS-B (Single Family Residential) ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission 02. 2192 Dell Avenue. Pine Dell Sub, Lot 2 (Jorge F. Cruz) A 96-18 ZONE: RS-8 (Single Family Residential) ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission , ~J P & Z ACTION 05/21/96 . ,~, ~', ~ ~,' .+ .~ .. , I t:1." " ' '!' f.~ 03. 2275 Manor Boulevard North, Clearwater Manor, Lot 85 (Christopher J. McClure) A96-20 ZONE: Rs.a (Single Family Residential) ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission 04. Rezonlng the downtown zoning districts as follows: UC ( C ) 1: Bounded on the North by Jones Street. on the East by Garden Avenue, on the South by Rogers Street. and the West by Osceola Avenue. UC ( C ) 2: Bounded on the North by Jones Street. on the East by Myrtle Avenue, on the South by Turner Street. and the West by Garden Avenue. UC ( E ): Bounded on the North by Jones Street, on the East by Fredrica Avenue, on the South by Court Street, and the West by Myrtle Avenue. ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission the revision showing the Prospect Avenue boundary between UC(C)2 and UC(E) 05. 1142 lakeview Drive, Sec. 22.29.15, M&B 21.10, (School Board of Pinellas County/Pinellas Bd of Pub Inst) Z 96.04; LUP 96.02 LUP: From Residential Medium to Institutional ZONE: From RM 12 (Multi.Family Residential) to PISP (Public/SemiPublic) ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission ;~'} ~'H~ 06. Approx. 330 ft east of Greenwood Avenue, Georgas Sub, Lots 5. 6. 7, 8, 9 & 10, See 22.29.15, M&B 21.05. (School Board of Pinellas County/Fusco Management Carpi Property Capital Trust) Z 96-05; LUP 96-03 LUP: From Residential Medium to Institutional ZONE: From RM 12 (Multi-Family ResidentiaU to P/SP {Public/SemiPubl,ic~ ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission 07. (Cont. from 4/16/96) Ordinance 5962.96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida. relating to the Land Development Code; amending Division 26 of Chapter 40, Code of Ordinances, to provide for revised development standards in the Urban Center district: providing an effective date. ACTION: Endorsed to the City Commission subject to a recommendation to change the proposed maximum height in UC(E) from 100 to 1 50 feet; and from 150 to 180 feet with bonus. Board and Staff Comments n Discussion Adjournment -. 4:40 p.m. v P & Z ACTION 2 05/21196 . . . " .' '. . . . , . . >"l"-' , . f~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER May 21,1996 Present: Brenda Harris Nixon Edward Mazur Kemper Merriam Robert D. Bickerstaffe Bernie Baron Leslie Dougall.Sides Sandy Glatthorn Gwen Legters Jay Keyes Frank Kunnen Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Assistant City Attorney Central Permitting Manager Board Reporter Chair Board Member Absent: To provide continuity. items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. i ',...;) .~~~ The meeting was called to order by the Vice Chair at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the lnvocation and Pledge of Allegiance. She outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process. Conditional use applicants were advised an affirmative vota of four of the five members present is required for approval, so conditional use applicants may wish to request a continuanc~. Minutes Approval -- May 7, 1996 -- Approved as submitted B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items B 1. (cont. from 5/7/96) - Trial Period Review ~ R.C. Lawler, Inc/Gregory Vance Moore/Debra Ann Delemeester (The Kennel Club Bar & Grill, Inc) to permit nightclubs, taverns, and bars (change of business ownership) and package sales of beer, wine, and liquor (new license) at 1400 Cleveland Street, Knollwood Replat, Blk 1, Lots 1-4, zoned CG (Commercial General). CU 95~63 Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating original approval was granted on October 31, 1995, subject to seven conditions, which she read into the record. She detailed the surrounding uses and said the State has issued a beer and wine license. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval subject to the original seven conditions. Ms. Glatthorn noted Engineering staff has been working with the applicant regarding relocating or screening the dumpster in accordance with condition 1/4, but is experiencing difficulty finding a suitable site accessible to sanitation vehicles. She said the problem is not uncommon and staff is working on an ordinance to establish standards for refuse and recycling container location and enclosure. She invited board suggestions for this site and the ordinance. Members had no comments at this time. u mpz05b.96 OS/21/96 . .' I. ') . . . ., +, ' , . " I I :'~ \ j' f) One member referred to a pollee incident report indicating the business was becoming a nuisance, and was serving alcohol to intoxicated people. He questioned whether staff wished to add conditions to mitigate these concerns. Ms. Glatthorn responded staff did not suggest additional conditions because the Police Department did not object to continuation of the business. Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated the State would be aware of the police report and has its own mechanisms of dealing with service related to liquor licenses. Ed Armstrong, attorney representing the applicant, requested a continuance due to the shortage of board members today. Member Merriam moved to continue Item 81 to the next meeting on June 4, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Three persons in the audience wished to speak in opposition to the request. They were not able to return on June 4 and asked to be allowed to give their remarks today. Ms. Leslie Dougall-Sides advised it was not appropriate to hear testimony after the decision to continue was made because the applicant would not have an opportunity to speak in rebuttal. The opposers asked it the June 4 hearing could be continued to a later date. While the board did not object, it was pointed out the applicant's representative had already left the meeting and could not respond. Staff was asked to coordinate contact between the applicant's representative and the opposers to see if they could agree on a alternate date for the hearing. Four letters were submitted in opposition to the request. Two members expressed concerl,1 with the police not objecting to continuation of the L:~~ business in view of the statement on the police report that the business was becoming a nuisance. Staff was directed to ask the reporting officer, James Thomas, to attend the meeting when this matter is heard, or submit a report in writing. C. Conditional Uses C1. Trial Period Review - Equator, Inc/Boston Investment Group, Inc d.b.a. Jamz-N-Java to permit nightclubs, taverns and bars (change of business ownership) at 2516 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Studebaker's Sub, Lot 2, zoned CG (General CommerciaH. CU 95-54 In a memo dated May 10, 1996, Ms. Glatthorn stated the property owner reported the Jamz-N-Java business has been closed since January 1996. No action was talcen by the board. C2. Marshall Harris I G.T.B. Ventures Co./Homestyle Harmony. Inc. to permit nightclubs, taverns and bars (new license) at 2456 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 13.06, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 96-26 Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant wishes to operate a restaurant with entertainment. They propose to have singing waiters serve patrons in the dining room, then have patrons move into a Itparloru where no food or beverages are served, to see a 45-minute stage show hosted by restaurant staff. Ms. Glatthorn explained an establishment serving alcoholic beverages is classified as a \qrd nightclub when 15 percent or more of the gross floor area is devoted to other uses such as mpz05b.96 2 OS/21/96 . ' . . ;: .,' , ~, . . I . ", . '. ~ I., ~l. :::~ . - ~ ' waiting, lounge, or entertainment, where alcoholic beverages may be served, but other menu items are not typically served. The entertainment area of the proposed business is 20 percent of the gross floor area. While the applicant has stated to staff they do not intend to serve alcoholic beverages in the parlor area, it would be difficult for the City to enforce, and the code has no alternative to the nightclub classification. The applicant has applied for a parking variance due to the increased parking requirement caused by the nightclub designation. Staff supported the request, as the use is compatible with surrounding conditions and should have no detrimental effects on the area. Staff recommended approval with four conditions. In response to a Question, Ms. Glatthorn reiterated this is the only category in the code for uses that serve alcoholic beverages and have more than 1 5 percent of the gross floor space dedicated to entertainment with no food sales. David W. Green, contractor representing the applicant, read a prepared statement into the record. He said the applicant strongly opposes the nightclub classification because their business is strictly family oriented and the increased parking requirement is a hardship. The applicant has no intention of operating as a nightclub and no food or beverages will be served or sold in the parlor where the entertainment is conducted. They operate a similar business in Sarasota that is enjoying great success and was featured on a local television news program. Mr. Green played a brief video excerpt from the news broadcast depicting scenes as described above. He said the applicant will pledge his certificate of occupancy against the fact that he will never sell or serve food or alcohol in the parlor. In response to questions, Mr. Green said the Sarasota establishment has been open two years. They will have outdoor speakers used to page diners to their tables, but no music is amplified outside. Diners are served from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and four 45.minute shows are held each evening. He explained they do not serve food or beverages in the parlor because it creates a staging area to promote more efficient turnaround of dining tables. They do not want patrons lingering after each show because they need to make room for the next group of customers. Franklin Ronald Smith, the business owner, said he and his brother oppose the nightclub classification because it does not reflect the family values in which they believe. He said they want to attract family and church groups that might not be comfortable going to a nightclub. He listed a number of groups he serves in his Sarasota establishment. He said he applied for a beer and wine license only because their European customers want it. Mr. Smith urged the board and staff to find some way to avoid placing his business in the nightclub category. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. One letter of opposition was read into the record. Discussion ensued regarding the application. Member Bickerstaffe said it was not common sense for the code to go in the opposite direction from the positive image wanted for the City. Ms. Glatthorn responded while staff totally supports this request, the code is very specific in the case of restaurants. Regarding the applicant's pledge, she said staff did ~ not feel it was possible for the City to adequately monitor or enforce where alcoholic mpz05b.96 OS/21/96 3 ,', '" . .. I . . ) . . ft.. J~~ ~. . I " j.l ,; I f~ beverages Bre served within an establishment. One member felt the classification is a technicality not likely to make a difference to the public. It was indicated approval of the conditional use would allow service of alcoholic beverages in the parlor. Whether or not the applicants choose to do will be up to them. Ms. Dougall-Sides concurred, stating on premise consumption would be allowed. One member recommended the applicant not be asked to make unnecessary promises. Member Mazur moved to approve Item C2 subject to the following conditions: 1} The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within 6 months of the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90 degree cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and streets rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to consumption on premises consumption with no package sales; 4) There shall be no outdoor entertainment. seating or speakers, except to communicate to patrons waiting to be served; and 5) The conditional use shall be subject to approval of the requisite parking variance. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. O. Annexation, Zoning, land Use Plan Amendment, land Development Code Text Amendment, and local Planning Agency Review ,.--..... t.....) 01.1517 W. Virginia Lane, Virginia Groves Estate 1st Addition, Blk 10, Lot 2 (Neil W. Wyllie, Jr/Janice Knox-Bronson) A 96-17 ZONE: RS~8 (Single Family Residential) Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of annexation to obtain City sewer service. No one other than the applicant was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. Member Mazur moved to endorse Item 01 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 02.2192 Dell Avenue, Pine Dell Sub, lot 2 (Jorge F. Cruz) A 96-18 ZONE: RS-8 (Single Family Residential) Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of annexation to obtain City sewer service. No one other than the applicant was present to speak in support or opposition to tha request. Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item D2 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 03. 2275 Manor Blvd North, Clearwater Manor, lot 85 (Christopher J. McClure) A96-20 ZONE: RS-8 (Single Family Residential) Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of annexation to obtain City sewer service. No one other than the applicant ~J was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. mpz05b.96 4 05/21/96 . '. . 41 ~... , . u .' ' . f~ Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item 03 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 04. Rezoning the downtown zoning districts as follows: UC ( C )1: Bounded on the North by Jones Street, on the East by Garden Avenue, on the South by Rogers Street, and the West by Osceola Avenue. UC ( C )2: Bounded on the North by Jones Street. on the East by Myrtle Avenue, on the South by Turner Street, and the West by Garden Avenue. UC ( E ): Bounded on the North by Jones Street, on the East by Fredrica Avenue, on the South by Court Street, and the West by Myrtle Avenue. This item was considered along with Item 07, an ordinance concerning revised development standards in the Urban Center district. Mr. Shuford presented written backgr.ound information and gave an overview of the changes to the original proposal since this issue came before the Planning and Zoning Board on January 9, 1996. Staff met with downtown property owners, the Downtown Development Board, Pinellas Planning Council, and a number other groups in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce, to achieve the current proposal as directed by the City Commission. (,:;;~ Presenting display boards and handouts, Mr. Shuford explained the new zoning divisions and substantial changes in use intensity. He explained the north/south diving line between UC(C)2 and UC(E) was moved to Prospect Avenue, one block to the east of its former location along Myrtle Avenue. He described how height, bonuses, floor area ratio, density t and permitted uses were revised in the subdistricts. in conformance with the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The intent is to make downtown smaller in scale and spread out the uses to keep new development in scale with the existing buildings. Addressing concerns the proposal imposes building height limits where none previous existed, Mr. Shuford discussed the issue of high rises. He displayed a drawing comparing a proposed 430 foot high rise with the existing downtown buildings. In response to a question, he said the drawing was prepared to demonstrate what could happen to the Clearwater skyline if building heights remain unlimited. He explained how certain height and floor area ratios will be grandfathered under the amended pr.oposal to address concerns that restricted building height will make certain existing properties non- conforming. Mr. Shuford said they have taken into account the large number of public comments and he felt the ordinance strikes a good balance between the development needs of property owners with the City's need to develop in a certain manner. He asked for the board"s endorsement and opened the floor for questions. Discussion ensued regarding trends in past development, and suggestions for future development to maximize view of the water. Two citizens spoke in opposition to the proposal, as follows. 1) Harry Cline, attorney, spoke on behalf of two downtown property owners. He represents Dr. Gills, owner of the "Eleven Hundred building", and Oimmit Car Leasing, owner of several parcels south of ~ ,., Cleveland Street, on both sides of Prospect Avenue. He indicated Dr. Gills objects to his './!I! mp:z05b.96 5 OS/21/96 . ..'... . .' . . , ' " . .. ~ . "\ . ' ;.~'::} . ,.., building becoming non-conforming under the proposal, adversely affecting the resale value. Or. Gills objects to City government advocating a plan to promote alcoholic beverage businesses in downtown. Mr. Cline distributed copies of a map showing the locations of the numerous Dimmit land holdings in the subject zoning districts. He pointed out two parcels separated by Prospect Avenue, that will be adversely affected by the allowable height difference along that boundary. While Mr. Cline agreed the days of unlimited heights are gone, he did not feal the 150 foot height limit between Greenwood and Prospect Avenues was appropriate. He did not feel the current proposal is in the best interest of the public. He questioned whether or not advertising was changed to reflect changes since this item was brought forward in January. 21 Randy Sarvis, owner of property at Prospect Avenue and Court Street, expressed concern with the possibility of property devaluation, and questioned the location of the proposed Downtown Lake in relation to his property. Mr. Shuford responded to the opposition. reiterating how the non-conforming height issue has been addressed. He did not feel the proposal promotes bars over the many allowable uses for ground floor pedestrian amenities under the modified plan. He pointed out the Dimmit properties have remained undeveloped for many years and did not feel they would be unduly impacted by the transition line at Prospect Avenue. Staff will investigate whether the amended language was advertised correctly. Mr. Shuford responded Mr. Barvis' property is located in an area of 180 to 200 foot maximum heights, the tallest undel' the plan. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated it is premature to speak of the affect of the proposed lake project on any particular property. Board members expressed their views of the downtown redevelopment plan and 1~::J discussion ensued. While the majority supported the downtown redevelopment plan, the following concerns were raised: 1) The eastern boundary of UC(C)2 should be moved farther out. possibly to Missouri Avenue, to avoid bisecting Dimmit's large property holdings with an arbitrary dividing line at Prospect Avenue. 2) Taller buildings should be allowed in the low lying area along Cleveland Street, where they would have less impact on the skyline. 3) Proposed downtown parking requirements could compel the use of structured parking costing four to five times mora than flat parking. 4) A drastic drop in maximum allowable height at Prospect Avenue will not be aesthetically pleasing. 5} The opinions expressed in the visual preference survey are not representative of public opinion. Mr. Shuford addressed board members' concerns, stating the proposal would allow continuation of the same level of development currently existing in Clearwater. The maximum height allowances arB representative of the existing buildings and the valley along Cleveland Street was taken into consideration when height limits were calculated. He pointed out parking requirements are less restrictive downtown and the height, density and parking calculations are supported by construction and real estate market input. He said the visual preference survey was taken among a 40Q-person cross section of the public staff feels to be representative of the public at large. Discussion ensued regarding how the grandfathering rules would apply if the Eleven-Hundred Building were to be increased in size. It was noted the map of the Dimmit holdings was persuasive and some board members renewed their strong concern with allowing 180-foot heights on one side of y Prospect Avenue, dropping to 100 feet on the other side. It was indicated the board mpz05b.96 6 OS/21/96 . ;. ~ . , ' , " .. . ~ .'~ r ' r" " .'4 . '.~ ::c . r<A~ would support the ordinance if the proposed maximum height was changed in UC(E) from 100 to 150 feet; and from 1 50 to 1 80 feet with bonus. Mr. Shuford expressed resistance to the change, but said he will indicate the board's recommendation to the City Commission. Member Mazur moved to endorse Item D4 to the City Commission, according to the plan showing the Prospect Avenue boundary between UC(C)2 and UC(E). The motion was duly seconded. Members Nixon, Mazur, Merriam, and Baron voted IIAyell; Member Bickerstaffe voted "Nay." Motion carried. D5. 1142 lakeview Drive, Sec. 22-29-15, M&B 21.10, (School Board of PineUas County/Pinenas Bd of Pub Inst) Z 96-04; LUP 96-02 LUP: From Residential Medium to Institutional ZONE: From RM 12 (Multi-Family Residential) to P/SP (Public/SemiPublic) Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating this item is for one lot, and subsequent Item D6. is for six vacant lots being obtained by the School Board of Pine lias County to provide for expansion of adjacent Belleair Elementary School. Staff recommended endorsement. No one was present to speak in support or opposition to the request. f~1>",\ ..~ ,Jim Miller. Reat Estate Manager for the Pinellas County School Board, stated they need to acquire more land to meet the needs of the community. He detailed the proposal to obtain vacant parcels adjacent to Belleair Elementary School to provide for expansion in the student population. Currently at 377 students, the State projects more than 550 students by the year 2001 . One member who lives in the vicinity requested a vehicle turnaround constructed on the Lakeview Drive lot to clear some of the traffic congestion in the mornings. Mr. Miller stated they are aware of the need and are working to improve bus and parent pickup areas in aU schools. He stated the Lakeview Drive parcel will be used for onsite parking for evening events and heavy traffic days. He indicated they propose unpaved overflow parking because impervious surfaces create a large stormwater retention requirement. They feel the space would be better used for playfield area. One member who lives ~earby complained the school's pubic address system awakens neighbors at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Miller said he will bring these issues to the attention of the school principal. Member Mazur moved to endorse Item D5 to the City Commission. The motion was duty seconded and c'arried unanimously. 06. Approx. 330 ft east of Greenwood Avenue, Georgas Sub, Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10, Sec 22-29-15, M&B 21.05. (School Board of Pinellas County/Fusco Management Corpl Property Capital Trust) Z 96-05: lUP 96-03 LUP: From Residential Medium to Institutional ZONE: From RM 12 (Multi-Family Residential) to P/SP (Public/SemiPublic) ~; mpz05b.96 7 OS/21/96 , '. . . I . . . "'.. ~ ' . ~ , .. t;;.?t;,~ ,< " " ~ .' This item was considered along with Item 05, above. Member Mazur moved to endorse Item 06 to the City Commission. The motion was duty seconded and carried unanimously. 07. (Cant. from 4/16/96) Ordinance 5962-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amendIng Division 26 of Chapter 40, Code of Ordinances, to provide for revised development standards in the Urban Center district; providing an effective date. Lengthy discussion of this item occurred along with Item 04, concerning rezoning the downtown zoning districts. Member Merriam moved to endorse Item 07 to the City Commission, subject to a recommendation to change the proposed maximum height in UC(E) from 100 to 1 50 feet; and from 150 to 180 feet with bonus. The motion was duly seconded. Members Nixon, Mazur, Merriam. and Baron voted "Aye"; Member Bickerstaffe voted "Nay." Motion carried. Board and Staff Comments Member Nixon questioned whether the Twin Palms mobile home park issue had been resolved. Mr. Shuford said it is scheduled to go before the City Commission in June. t:;) Member Merriam expressed concern with City staff basing economic development decisions on the results of the visual preference survey. He said he survey indicates citizens' opinions regarding the appearance of the community without regard to economic impact. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. r anning and Zoning Board Attest: ~~ y mpz05b.96 8 OS/21/96