11/14/1995 (2)
" ' . I I . .~ . I" 10 1": ~ I ' ',' '.
'/J~~' ".
,.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING - ACTION AGENDA
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Tuesday, November 14, 1995
Call To Order, Invocation, Pledge Of Allegiance
A. Minutes Of Previous Meeting - October 31, 1995 - Approved as submitted
B. Requests For Extension, Deferred And Continued Items
1. (Continued from 10/17/95J Trial Period Review - Michael & Patricia Vlamakis
(Skycrest Auto Sales) to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage for
vehicle sales at 2010 Drew St., Skycrest Terrace, Blk C, Lots 5 & 6, zoned CG
(General Commercial). CU 95-18
ACTION: Approved subject to compliance with the 11 conditions imposed on
April 18, 1995, plus the following: Confirmation will be provided that proper parking lot
striping and landscaping are in place within two weeks of the date of this public hearing,
or automatic denial will result.
',,~,,~
tJ~~i"
2. (Continued from 10/17/95 & 10/31/95J Luverne M. Loken. TRE (Pinch A Penny) to
permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage at 1480 S. Belcher Rd, See 24-
29-15, M&B 41.02, 41.03, & 41.04, zoned CC (Commercial Center). CU 95-60
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) A plan of the display areas,
with dimensions of the outdoor retail display area, and pedestrian access shall be
submitted and approved by staff prior to initiation of the use with a min imum of six feet
of sidewalk width available solely for pedestrian use; and 2) The applicant shall secure
outdoor display items from wind activity.
C. Conditional Uses
1. Asa J. & Katherine G. Lewis (Suncoast Inn) to permit noncommercial parking at
20162 US 19, Sever Park, part of Lot 3, and Sec 18-29~16, M&8 44.04, zoned OG
(General Office) and RM 8 (Multi Family Residential), CU 95~64
ACTION: Approved subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall file an
executed Unity of Title Declaration with Official Records Pinellas County, which
declaration shall combine as a single property the property subject of this request
together with the property subject of the certified site plan known as the "Menna Motel".
except if the a pplicant is in the process of replatting the lots together. a Unity of Title
Declaration will not be needed; 2) Applicant shall have the requisite major amendment to
the certified site plan for the "Menna Motel" certified within six months of the date of
this public hearing; 3) The requisite building permit shall be obtained within 6 months of
the date of certification of a major amendment to the certified site plan known as the
"Menna Motel"; 4) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 900 cutoff mechanism, with
the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and
street rights-ot-way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the motel
addition; 5) Perimeter landscaping requirements of Section 42.27 shall be met prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy/occupational license, and such landscaping shall
'-...-I be continuously maintained thereafter.
P & Z ACTION
11/14/95
" l.,
\'. .
. ~ t '
'"
~~A1K!!I" ",,...,', 'I';' , '.. '," ",;1 "
~frF,~i:r'!'J:":~>" ,:,;"",
. .1.
I .~ '.'
. .J>,
.. : ..,:. l:: ;\~i
,',,">
~
:,'..,
D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, land Development Code Text
Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review
RezoninQ
1. A 0.67 acre parcel located on the East side of Poinsettia Ave in the center parking
isle of the Memorial Civic Center Parking lot. being a portion of Lot 7, City Park
Sub, for the purpose of leasing to Sky Towers Corp. for the placement of a
tower. (City of Clearwater). Z 95-'7
ZONE: from PIS? (Public/Semi-Public) to CBPD (Clearwater Beach Planned Development)
ACTION: Endorsed Item 0.1 to the City Commission with the original site plan that
maximizes parking spaces.
Land Develooment Code Amendment
2. Ordinance No. 5942-95 of The City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to The Land
Development Code; Amending Section 35.11, Code Of Ordinances, to revise the
definition for "delicatessen;" amending Sections 41.071 and 41.074, Code Of
Ordinances, to provide for Conditional Use permits for certain types of alcoholic beverage
uses; providing an effective date.
ACTION: Endorsed Item 0.2 to the City Commission, as amended with regard to the
definition of. delicatessen.
E. Chairman's Items - Discussion
. .....""1,
j~
F. Director's Items - Discussion
G. Board And Staff Comments - Discussion
H. Adjournment - 5:31 p.m.
\
'-'"
P & Z ACTION
2
11/14/95
:5f,('f,."":':' "
~tt~~,~,~ ,I . , )
'!.-,~ ,. "
~ , '. ,
, ..
. ~ ole'. .
~
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
November 14, 1995
Present:
Kemper Merriam
Jay Keyes
Robert D. Bickerstaffe
Edward Mazur
Brenda Nixon
Bernie Baron
Frank Kunnen
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Scott Shuford
Sandy Glatthorn
Gwen Legters
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Assistant City Attorney
Central Permitting Director
Central Permitting Manager
Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the
Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal
process.
To provide continuity # items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily
discussed in that order.
;,,:)
Minutes Approval - October 31, 1995
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each
member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items
1. (Continued from 10/17/95) Trial Period Review - Michael & patricia Vlamakis
(Skycrest Auto Sales) to permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage for
vehicle sales at 2010 Drew St., Skycrsst Terrace, Blk C, Lots 5 & 6, zoned CG
(General Commercial). CU 95-18
Ms. Glatthorn gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff
recommendations. She stated the applicant has complied with many, but not all the
eleven conditions of approval imposed at the April 18, 1995 public hearing. She listed
numerous violations that have not been corrected and said, for these reasons, staff
recommends denial of the request.
A question was raised regarding compliance with standards for ingress and egress.
Ms. Glatthorn responded the Traffic Engineering Department had expressed concern with
congestion on the site and recommended conditions related to parking and removal of
inoperable equipment.
~..
,
i
v
mpz11 a.95
Page 1
11/14/95
, ,.,' ~ . ~ " .." . ", , , 'I .. ~
';~:~ ~
j':
"-.. Michael Vlamakis, the owner/applicant, explained the delays he experienced bringing
his two businesses into compliance. He said he worked with Traffic Engineering and
Environmental Management to meet their requirements. He submitted photographs of his
two parking lots, illustrating how most conditions have been met since the last inspection
by Central Permitting staff. In response to a question. Mr. Vlamakis explained what
remains to be done to finish the landscaping.
Discussion ensued regarding what is proposed far the property. Concern was
expressed with cars parking all over both lots. Mr. Vlamakis explained the parking areas
intended for employees. customers and lease vehicles. Concern was expressed with cars
backed into stalls appearing to be for sale. Mr. Vlamakis explained those cars were in
storage and have been eliminated.
Discussion ensued regarding the planned Drew Street widening and how is will affect
this business. In response to a question, Mr. Vlamakis said the area formerly occupied by
the fruit stand will be leased. Concern was expressed the amount of existing parking will
not be sufficient if another retail use goes in there. Mr. Shuford clarified the fruit stand
was considered a retail use and the lot has sufficient parking for another retail use in its
place.
As staff had recommended denial, discussion ensued regarding whether to continue
this item or to condition approval on verification that all standards are met.
(~~~
Member Keyes moved to continue Item 8.1 to the next meeting to ensure the
conditions are met. The motion was duly seconded. Member Keyes voted "Aye";
Members Merriam, Mazur, Nixon, Bickerstaffe, Baron and Kunnen voted "Nay." Motion
failed.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item 8.1 subject to compliance with the 11
conditions imposed on April 18, 1995, plus the following: The applicant will provide
confirmation that proper parking lot striping and landscaping are in place within two weeks
of the date of this public hearing, or automatic denial will result. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
2. (Continued from 10/17/95 & 10/31/95) Luverne M. Loken. TRE (Pinch A Penny) to
permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage at 1480 S. Belcher Rd, See 24-
29-15, M&B 41.02, 41.03, & 41.04, zoned CC (Commercial Center). CU 95-60
Ms. Glatthorn gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff
recommendations. She stated the applicant is seeking approval of a permanent, outdoor
display on tables located to the left and right of the main entrance of the pool equipment
store. It was indicated the applicants will need to submit a plan indicating the dimensions
of the proposal to ensure sufficient sidewalk width for pedestrian access.
Chuck Saunders appeared to present the application. The Board noted Mr. Saunders
was not listed as an authorized representative. Janet Lopeman, the authorized
representative. verified Mr. Saunders was speaking on her behalf.
'--J
mpz11a.95
Page 2
11/14/95
. . . '. I' . .'
. " "..!. .
';'" .
<'-"',
Mr. Saunders distributed copies of a drawing of the proposal requested by staff. He
said they arB asking for two 4 by 6 foot display tables. The display merchandise is to
secured so nothing will blow away.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal. It was indicated over nine feet of sidewalk
width will remain. Staff verified the drawing was sufficient to satisfy their request.
Concern was expressed by one member who felt window displays, not sidewalks, should
be used to attract customers.
Member Keyes moved to approve Item B.2 subject to the following conditions: 1) A
plan of the display areas, with dimensions of the outdoor retail display area, and pedestrian
access shall be submitted and approved by staff prior to initiation of the use with a
m'inimum of six feet of sidewalk width available solely for pedestrian use; and 2) The
applicant shan secure outdoor display items from wind activity. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Merriam, Keyes, Mazur, Nixon, Baron and Kunnen voted "Ayett;
Member Bickerstaffe voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Conditional Uses
1. Asa J. & Katherine G. Lewis (Suncoast Inn) to permit noncommercial parking at
20162 US 19, Sever Park, part of lot 3, and See 18-29~16, M&B 44.04, zoned
OG (General Office) and RM 8 (Multi Family Residential). CU 95-64
~ ..,..:\
",rt'/
Ms. Glatthorn gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, staff
recommendations. She stated the applicant wishes to expand his motel, adding the
necessary parking on an adjacent parcel. She explained the parcel is in the process of
being annexed and will need either replatting, or a Unity of Title Declaration. Staff
recommended approval subject to five conditions.
Mark Menna, the motel owner, stated he has contracted to purchase the adjacent lot
from Mr. and Mrs. Lewis. Concern was expressed the application was filed on behalf of
the lewis' and Mr. Menna is not listed as an authorized representative. In response to a
Question, Mr. Menna said he could provide authorization before the end of the meeting.
Member Keyes moved to continue Item C.1 to the end of the meeting to allow time to
verify authorization of the representative. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Discussion of this item resumed after the conclusion of Item 0.1. Mr. Menna
presented written verification of authorization from Attorney Donald McFarland, the
representative of record. Mr. Menna and Ms. Glatthorn responded to questions concerning
the parking lot in relation to a proposed swale and wetlands mitigation. Mr. Menna stated
he has met with Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), US Army
Corp. of Engineers and City Environmental Management to ensure all regulations are met.
Ms. Glatthorn stated approval of this request will enable proceeding with site plan
certification and permitting.
'.J
mpz 11 a.95
Page 3
11/14/95
I .' I I . . ... . , . .', .,...." ~ . ," . . :. _ _
'--....,
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C.1 subject to the following conditions: 1) The
applicant shall file an executed Unity of Title Declaration with Official Records Pinellas County,
which declaration shall combine as a single property the property subject of this request
together with the property subject of the certified site plan known as the "Menna Motel",
except if the applicant has the lots replatted together, a Unity of Title Declaration will not be
needed; 2) The applicant shall have the requisite major amendment to the certified site plan for
the "Menna Motel" certified within six months of the date of this public hearing; 3) The
requisite building permit shall be obtained within 6 months of the date of certification of a
major amendment to the certified site plan known as the "Menna Motel"; 4) 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 street rights-of-way prior to the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy for the motel addition; 5) Perimeter landscaping requirements of Sec.
42.27 shall be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy/occupationallicense,
and such landscaping shall be continuously maintained thereafter. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Staff was requested to devise a means by which to ensure that applicants understand they
must appear at the public hearing to present their application, or authorize a representative in
writing.
Annexation, Zoning, land Use Plan Amendment, land Development Code Text Amendment
and local Planning Agency Review
· ~~J) R~zoning
1. A 0.67 acre parcel located on the East side of Poinsettia Ave in the center parking isle
of the Memorial Civic Center Parking lot, being a portion of Lot 7, City Park Sub, for
the purpose of leasing to Sky Towers Corp. for the placement of a tower. (City of
Clearwater). Z 95~17
lONE: from PIS? (Public/Semi-Public) to CBPD (Clearwater Beach Planned Development)
Scott Shuford, representing the City of Clearwater, gave the background of this item and
presented, in writing, staff recommendations. The staff report, indicated the City Commission
has entered into a lease agreement that would allow placement of the proposed tfSky Tower"
on Clearwater Beach in the City-owned parking lot immediately across Poinsettia Avenue from
Clearwater Beach Civic Center. This lease agreement is contingent upon the representative of
the tower project obtaining appropriate zoning and construction approvals. The representative,
Mr. James Grogan, has submitted a request for planned development zoning to address the
unusual and site-specific design issues associated with the project. At the request of staff,
two separate concept plans have been submitted for consideration. Plan One maximizes
parking, providing 71 spaces (a reduction from the current 74), but does not meet the
minimum perimeter landscaping requirements. Plan Two meets the landscaping requirements,
but provides only 48 parking spaces. Either plan can be approved as a planned development.
Based on revenues, the parking lot in which the tower is to be placed has a current average
occupancy of around 8%, indicating this lot is not frequently utilized. A photograph and
specifications provided by Mr. Grogan, along with several letters supporting the tower were
included with the Board packet.
'---~
mpz11a.95
Page 4
11/14/95
. ...._ . ..' '. L, .....~
.-..,
City staff reviewed this request and determined it meets the minImum City Code
requirements, as well as the applicable standards of approval (Sec. 40.674) for such requests.
The site does not meet the minimum area requirements for a Clearwater Beach Planned
Development District, as the stated minimum arBa for such zoning is 4.0 acres. To approve
this reduced area, according to the ordinance establishing the CBPD, the City Commission must
find that deviation from the minimum acreage is in the public interest.
A photograph and specifications of the tower, provided by Mr. Grogan, were filed with the
application. Several letters supporting the tower were copied to the Board.
Mr. Shuford discussed the rationale associated with the development of each site plan. He
asked, if the Board endorsed the request, to specify which plan they recommended. He said he
was interested in hearing Board and public input whether they felt parking or landscaping to be
more important. He indicated the tower could be considered a character defining structure and
asked the Board to consider whether they felt the height deviation from the low level style of
construction common on the beach was in the public interest. In response to a question, he
discussed height limits in various beach zoning districts, stating the tower would exceed all of
those.
Reterring to parking available at various locations in the area, Mr. Shuford stated his
opinion that availability would be more than sufficient to meet the demand. He said the most
fen 1\ distant parking space was about 3,000 feet from the proposed site, compared to about 2,400
,",.~,'" feet at Countryside Mall. He said people will generally walk farther to an attraction than they
would to a restaurant or a store.
A question was raised regarding how the proposal would affect future development. Mr.
Shuford indicated the potential for large scale development of either business or a causeway
extension was considered and the tower would fit in either way.
A question was raised if consideration had been given to placing the tower in the little park
near the water tower. Mr. Shuford responded the City charter does not allow long term lease
of that property.
In response to questions regarding parking, Mr. Shuford said a survey team was scheduled
to start having public hearings at the end of November. He said if the tower is more successful
than they anticipate, any parking problems that arise can be addressed at that time. He
discussed his Commission directed involvement with other beach redevelopment issues. He
stated, while metering could become necessary in the future, tower parking would remain open
to the public. Brief discussion ensured regarding road traffic rating and flow. It was noted the
8 percent parking lot occupancy based on revenues does not take into account those with free
parking passes. One member pointed out some of the offsite parking is outside the area being
rezoned. Mr. Shuford agreed, stating Plan One would require a right-at-way utilization
agreement with Florida Department of Transportation. He noted all Plan Two parking is on
City-owned property.
,~
mpz11 a.95
Page 5
11/14/95
:,.10"
'---.
One member expressed strong concern with the potential danger of placing a structure
over 300 feet tall along an evacuation route. Mr. Shuford assured the Board staff wiU
insist on all engineering standards being met with an acceptable margin of safety. Concern
remained that even the most superior structures can fall under the right conditions.
James Grogan, the tower owner, addressed the Board. He read from a handout
detailing the tower's dimensions, manufacturer, history, maintenance and construction. He
said any needed structural improvements to meet or exceed code requirements will be
done. He Axplainad the wind dynamics of cylindrical shaped structures, stating the tower
will withstand 125 mph winds. He said the tower will be an educational tool for helping
children and adults learn about ecosystems and has the endorsement of many local groups.
He did not feel the tower had the potential for damaging property in excess of the
$10 million liability insurance he will carry. Discussion ensued regarding possible adverse
conditions during a major storm, including wind and storm surge.
Referring to a model of the tower, Mr. Grogan responded to questions regarding
elevation, floodproofing the base, foundation construction and depth and storage of the
parts since the tower was dismantled in 1990. He said the mechanical and electronic
components were stored in a warehouse, while the body was urethane coated and kept
outside.
Discussion ensued regarding the technology, planned development format and
economic impact. Mr.. Shuford also asked the Board to consider whether the proposal
. .,', ~~ would create unreasonable demands on the infrastructure, or enhance the health, welfare
"~..;J and safety of citizens. In response to a question if height variance would be requested,
Mr. Shuford said a planned development allows for waiver of standards such as setback
and height, etc.
Six people spoke in support of the tower proposal as follows:
Ralph Howes, speaking on behalf of Clearwater Marine Aquarium, said the tower will
help increase attendance at the nonMprofit aquarium as well as benefit the economy. He
felt the influx of tourists and residents would also increase trade with local merchants.
John Doran, representing the Clearwater Beach Association, stated they endorse the
tower. He submitted two photographs comparing the view of the Smoky Mountains from
a tower in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, to what could be seen from the proposed tower
overlooking Clearwater Beach.
Dr. Kenneth Rosenow, representing the Clearwater Beach Tourism Council, stated he
has been a Clearwater businessman for over 20 years. He indicated the most common
complaint he hears from his motel guests is lack of things to do except visit the beach. He
felt the tower would be a positive step toward creating more family-oriented ecoMtourisrn.
Charles Pollock, representing the Clearwater Tourism Council, spoke regarding
engineering reports, errors and omissions insurance, no harm to vista and increasing
tourism.
'-"
mpz11 a.95
Page 6
11/14/95
. . : ~. .' , . .' '" ..' .' . .'. . .. ' .', " , . -. . L ,.... ..... < ." '.
:.:'c1. '
'--,
The meeting recessed from 4:00 to 4:10 p.m.
David Little stated he has served on various task forces and advisory boards during his 25
years as an area resident. He felt the tower is a good opportunity that will attract tourists and
residents. He compared parking needs to any other attraction or shopping mall, stating times
of peak demand will occur. If approved, he asked that an American flag be correctly flown
from the tower.
AI Lijewski spoke in favor and asked the Board to support the proposal.
Ed Armstrong, attorney representing Dave Spalding of Clearwater, spoke in opposition to
the proposal. He did not agree with staff's comparison of the tower proposal to that of a
private development and said it will not be in the public interest. He felt several of the eleven
standards for approval are not being met, stating the parking issue is the largest problem. He
referred to a parking deficit at the Clearwater Marina and submitted copies of a letter to this
effect his client received from the City Harbormaster.
Charles Pollock and David littlo spoke in rebuttal to the opposition, stating the supporters
feel very strongly the tower is in the public interest due to the potential educational and
financiDI benefits. Mr. Pollock said the opinion of Mr. Spalding is not representative of the
majority at the Marina. Mr. Little said visitors would support the tower for the same reason
penthouse and corner real estate is more desirable; because of the view it affords.
\ ;'.""i,
'~f~l:f
Mr. Armstrong spoke in rebuttal to the supporters. He referred to a recent City
Commission campaign, stating those who went out into the community and spoke to the public
found most do not support the tower.
Mr. Grogan made his closing statements. He pointed out the issue involving Mr. Spalding
was because he exceeded his parking allowance when he increased his boating capacity. He
said the opposition is usually the most verbal in any issue and felt it was a good sign the
supporters outnumbered the opposition by such a large margin. Mr. Grogan stated he
submitted his proposal in March and has been present to answer questions at numerous
meeting since then. He emphasized his credibility as a businessman, stressing that he was
invited to Clearwater to make his proposal.
In response to questions, Mr. Grogan said he will not operate the gondola in winds over 35
mph or during electrical storms. He indicated the narrated ride lasts 8 to 10 minutes and can
accommodate 64 people at once, although he did not expect to use that capacity.
I.
A
Mr. Shuford summarized his position. He stated staff found the 11 standards for approval
were met, the structure is character defining and is compatible with surrounding uses. He did
not feel the proposal seeks special privileges or that the owner would benefit more than the
citizens and visitors of Clearwater. He indicated the proposal does not burden public facilities
or private properties, but enhances the health, welfare and safety of citizens, and adds
economic and educational benefits. He said lease agreement issues with the City Commission
had also been resolved. He said it was up to the Board to decide whether or not they agree
with this analysis.
,,_..I
mpz11 a.95
Page 7
11/14/95
. > " 'II' . . '., " '. ~'. ... , ' . 4 .' . .. , .', . ' . ." ,., . ~./ ,'> .," ':.. : . .. >". ...'.. l
~, . . .
, '
)'.=;,
,,~
I
Board members indicated their positions as follows:
Member Kunnen expressed concern with the trand toward building increasingly taller
structures. He fait the tower would create an amusement park atmosphere in
contradiction to the benefits currently existing on the beach. He did not support the item
but ha did agree it should be examined.
Member Bickerstaffe felt the proposal is definitely in the public interest since tourism
is Clearwater's number one industry. He felt this is a good opportunity to raise funds
without increasing taxes. He said the tower will be busy all the time because it is different
and will appeal to people who flock to take pictures. He did not feel it would have any
adverse impact on parking because of the large amount of pedestrian traffic already at the
beach. Raferring to the terms of the agreement, he felt the City has everything to gain and
nothing to lose.
Member Keyes felt the tower was a way to help build beach economy and increase
occupancy. He did not feel it would create parking problems because people would not
come just to ride up and down all day. He supported the proposal, stating his home will
actually be in the shadow of the tower.
~:~,~
Member Merriam stated he spoke with the president of the Civic Association, who
was opposad to a tower until he saw this proposal. Ha fait the majority of the opposition
has the mistaken impression the tower is much larger and more complicated than it
actually is. He said he is not worried about it falling down because he understands wind
action on a cylindrical structure. He compared the tower to lighthouses that have stood
for hundreds of years.
Member Mazur expressed strong concern with placing the tower in an evacuation
corridor. While he was inclined to accept the opinions of experts: regarding safety, he did
not feel the liability insurance would come near to satisfying claims resulting from loss of
life and property in the event of a disaster. He said he would vote against it because of
the location.
Member Baron said he was dead set against the tower. He compared this proposal to
other developments that were denied or experienced major difficulties with the City's
maximum height standards.
Member Nixon said, while initially against the idea, she would now support the
proposal because she did not feel it was extremely negative or harmful. From a safety
standpoint, she compared it to emergency radio communication towers in heavily
residential areas. While she did not feel it was a great idea to place it in a parking lot, she
said that lot is not especially useful with one hour parking meters. She felt the location in
the park near the water tower would be a better location.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item 0.1 to the City Commission with the
original site plan that maximizes parking spaces. The motion was duly seconded. Members
Merriam, Keyes, Nixon, and Bickerstaffe voted .IAye"; Members Mazur, Baron, and Kunnen
voted "Nay. to Motion carried.
....J
mpz11 a.95
Page 8
11/14/95
t . . .' ',' .' , . . . _', I. I.. . . . ~ ( '. .
." ,
;;~'. :1....
,...,..........
,
Land Deverooment Code Amendment
2. Ordinance No. 5942-95 of The City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to The Land
Development Code; Amending Section 35.11, Code Of Ordinances, to revise
the definition for "delicatessen;" amending Sections 41.071 and 41.074, Code
Of Ordinances, to provide for Conditional Use permits for certain types of
alcoholic beverage uses; providing an effective date.
Mr. Shuford stated staff worked with the alcoholic beverage regulations for six
months before taking them to the City Commission for direction. This amendment
represents minor revision to the definition of "'delicatessen" and eliminates the lIeap"
on floor area percentage that can be considered as a conditional use.
One member Questioned removing from the definition on page one the phrase,
"with only incidental sales of grocery or non-food items." Mr. Shuford responded it
was not his intent to strike that language and he would restore it to the definition.
Member Keyes moved to endorse Item 0.2. to the City Commission, as amended
with regard to the definition of delicatessen. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
1>-<>'\
"',\,,-:/
Chairman's Items
Member Merriam reported he was told by a Po!ice Department representative that
it is permissible to stop a car in a pedestrian' crosswalk in the case of visual
obstruction. He questioned if a new pub opened at 2284 Gulf to Bay applied for a
change of ownership. Staff is to investigate. He questioned if the Board approved the
amended 1996 meeting schedule. Staff was requested to remail the schedule as not
everyone received a copy.
Director's Items
Ms. Glatthorn distributed copies of a planning and zoning association newsletter.
She stated she brought responses to Board questions from previous meetings. Due to
the late hour, it was decided to hear this information at the next meeting.
Board and Staff Comments
Discussion ensued regarding the Board's annual Christmas luncheon. Member
Keyes recommended the Anchor Room at 880 Mandalay. He stated it is under new
management and the food is wonderful. He also volunteered to make the reservation.
Consensus was to accept the recommendation and schedule the luncheon for
December 19, before the regularly scheduled Board meeting.
'--....
mpz'1a.95
Page 9
11/14/95
. ~ . ..'." ~
<. ,.\'t " ~ ' : . (, :. I, '.. .
.......:;";.,
. ~ ,.r
",
,
"
i~if;t!':"" '!(";!/f r;':R.::;: ):,'t :!; .,:,,:.: 'i;;',';:t' '.
, "
. :.: :~'~~.!~' ': ~
.. " "..:~, :'";',\"~:':;'::';:;';..',:::,::;>.i"',,,:;, ,
, ,
, :..:.",;
,<.
, . 't.
.... ..
\ .~ '.' . . ~.: .
. ~ . "
~,',', ~1
.'
, .'~
, ;
.'1..0........
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:31 p.m.
Chair
Planning and Zoning Board
Attest:
~~
Board Reporter
'::0
. ~'n
" "\
U
mpz11a.95
Page 10
11114/95