Loading...
11/16/1993 - 12:30 PM - Joint Worksession CC & P&Z JOINT WORK SESSION - CITY COMMISSION/PLANNING & ZONING BOARD November 16, 1993 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater and the Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z) met at Joint Worksession in Commission Chambers, City Hall, on Tuesday, November 16, 1993 at 12:30 p.m., with the following members present: City Commission: Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Commissioner (arrived 12:50 p.m.) Absent: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Planning & Zoning Board: John Carassas Chairman Ed Mazur Jay Keyes Kemper Merriam Lee Savage Bob Bickerstaffe Absent: Lois Martin Vice-Chairman Also present: Michael Wright City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Scott Shuford Planning Manager Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The Vice-Mayor called the meeting to order. The purpose of this joint worksession is to discuss proposed changes to the alcoholic beverage regulations. Scott Shuford, Central Permitting Department, explained the Planning Department is in the process of designing an ordinance which reflects the Commission's direction. In this regard, Walgreen's has presented an unusual situation which causes concern. Mr. Shuford introduced an "agenda" of issues which were developed by Central Permitting Department, offered in his memorandum dated November 10, 1993 (attached), and proposed for discussion at this meeting. Mr. Shuford noted while most of the information is the same as has been previously provided, several notable changes were made to the permitted use and conditional use issues (Issues Numbers 1 and 2 below): 1. Permitted Uses: On September 14, 1993, Commission and Board consensus was reached that the following uses should be allowed as permitted uses: ? Restaurants (4-COP-SRX licensed facilities or other consumption on premises licensed facilities having 51% food sales, 15% limit on lounge area, and no package sales) (Examples: Flagship, Frenchies, Arrigatos). ? All restaurant, package sales and non-restaurant consumption on premises facilities located in a shopping center or retail complex up to 15% or 10% gross floor area caps, respectively (Examples: Mall food courts; Ruby Tuesdays). ? Package sales uses located in an individual store containing a minimum of 25,000 gross square feet of floor area (Example: Beer and wine sales in a grocery store). ? Changes of business ownership for all alcoholic beverage sales facilities. Given recent concerns about a proposed Walgreens locating in close proximity to Clearwater High School, staff suggests that there be use limitations placed on the first three of the above permitted uses prohibiting their location within 300 feet of a conforming church, school or park use, except in the Urban Center district. For changes of ownership, since they involve existing facilities, staff recommends that this requirement not be imposed. 2. Conditional Uses - Standards and Board Assignment. Both boards recognize problems with existing standards for approval (both conditional use and separation distance variance standards), and feel a consolidated approach under the Planning and Zoning Board is the right approach. The Commission has considered two proposed sets of standards (see attached Tables A and B). Table A provides the Planning and Zoning Board with flexibility in considering uses which fall within the 300 foot separation guidelines. This table has been proposed for modification consistent with the above discussion on permitted uses. This change would prohibit new alcoholic beverage uses within 300 feet of a conforming church, school or park (except the UC district), but allow the Planning and Zoning Board to consider such uses within 300 feet of a residential zone or a similar use. Table B prohibits consideration of cases which fall within the 300 foot separation requirement, except in three specified circumstances. Mr. Shuford reintroduced recent concerns about Walgreens locating in close proximity to Clearwater High School. He noted in this situation the facility would be classified as a retail center, and the floor area associated with alcoholic beverage sales is less than 10% of the gross floor area of the entire center. As a result, it would be regarded as a permitted use under the proposed changes. In this case, he said, Planning and Zoning Board members have expressed concern whether Walgreen's proximity to a school would constitute a permitted use. One option to consider is that the Commission allow these uses to be permitted uses in the code, but a 300 foot use separation limitation be established, which would keep these types of uses from close proximity to a school, church or park. Mr. Shuford stated further that Central Permitting's problem with separation is generally not schools, churches or parks, but residential. Mr. Shuford said this addresses both issues; a protection for these types of uses without a variance or conditional use situation with every facility within 300 feet of a residential use. He said staff recommended Table A as more flexible standards, not allowing a conditional use to be sought if the proposed use is within 300 feet of a conforming church, school or park use. In the ensuing discussion, Vice-Mayor Deegan remembered prior discussion of Tables A and B and asked the results of a "straw ballot". Mr. Shuford answered the majority favored the more flexible standards of Table A, adding Table B essentially establishes the 300 foot separation as a rule. He suggested combining the flexible and strict tables for all uses except residential zone and leave to the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Board whether the applicant is too close to a residential zone. Vice-Mayor Deegan opined the proposed ordinance should not be framed to address one particular case, but indicated the use of Walgreen's as a model for similar cases. He added if such cases were delegated to the Planning and Zoning Board and the Commission would not be involved, the Board would have clear direction with a option regarding separation distance in a residential area. Mr. Shuford noted an exception for the Urban Center District downtown, because it is a true mixed use district. Lee Savage (P&Z) asked for clarification of Urban area, expressed concern about precedent setting and asked for more discipline in determination of decisions. Mr. Shuford said Urban is the only mixed use district that allows churches, and he is not concerned with this as a point of challenge. He added issuance of new alcoholic beverage licenses in the North Greenwood district may be affected by a church in the center of the district, adding there was indication that the district itself wanted to cap licenses at no more than the existing licenses. Commissioner Fitzgerald questioned whether a rigid stipulation of 300 feet is too inflexible. He opined it would be impossible to determine all variations. Mr. Carassas (P&Z) noted measuring property line to property line, will make it more stringent. Revisiting the Walgreen's issue within 300 feet of a school, he asked what their recourse would be if this ordinance were now in place. Mr. Shuford replied Walgreen's would have no recourse other than the courts. If a "park" is defined by use, Mr. Wright opined it will nullify cruise ships. Commissioner Deegan offered the ships would not serve at the dock, and service on board while on the Gulf could not be controlled. Mr. Wright said the license is based on where the ship would be docked. Mr. Shuford stated a condition could be placed on cruise ships prohibiting the sale of alcohol while in port. Mr. Wright said there are four City "park" locations where alcohol is permitted. A general consensus indicated churches and schools would be kept sacrosanct as protected uses; proximity to parks would require conditional use, as with residential. Mr. Bickerstaffe (P&Z) stressed the need to specify conditions for cruise ships. Mr. Shuford said the issue is not consumption on premises (COP), but package sales (PS) next to a church or school. Vice-Mayor Deegan recommended staff add a sentence to indicate commercial vessels going out beyond territorial limits of the City, would be permitted with the condition that alcoholic beverage sales not take place until after the ship is outside of the territorial limits. The Commission members agreed they did not want to stop new vessels coming into Clearwater for entertainment purposes, and the word "vessels" be used, rather than "cruise ships". Mr. Mazur (P&Z) suggested adding a sentence saying, distance restrictions shall not apply to commercial ships and vessels as long as they do not serve alcohol beverages while docked, and the consensus was agreement that Mr. Shuford write this as a provision. In summation, Vice-Mayor Deegan reiterated churches and schools would be sacrosanct; permits for conditional uses would be allowed within 300 feet distance of residences and parks, each taken on its own merit. Answering Commissioner Fitzgerald's question, what constitutes a church, and using a Scientology motel as an example, Mr. Shuford said the definition section for this ordinance will specifically indicate "church" is the place of worship as opposed to associated offices, convents, parking, etc. Vice-Mayor Deegan said the definition of "school" will include all places of public or private education that are accredited. A discussion ensued relative to width of right-of-way. Mr. Shuford will advise the Commission which are main thoroughfares and which thoroughfares are more than 100 feet in width. Mr. Mazur questioned Table A, sec 3 regarding a second application which creates neighboring COP establishments. Mr. Shuford stated the intent was to allow the Board to decide when there was an over-concentration of alcoholic beverage uses in any one particular area, making it part of the conditional use process. Mr. Shuford suggested an additional paragraph could address conditional use for such a business located within 300 feet of a similar alcoholic beverage use. The applicant would describe certain conditions which are unique, and give examples. Mr. Shuford suggested language which would allow the Board to make a distinction between a heavily commercial area and a mixed development. Mr. Shuford will contact Mr. Galbraith for the legal aspects of over-concentration. Noting sec d) in both tables, Mr. Mazur said Planning & Zoning Board should have the ability to look at a person's prior experience when issuing an alcoholic beverage conditional use. Mr. Savage (P&Z) said he would be interested in an applicant's management ethics. Mr. Bickerstaffe said it would be it would be impossible to monitor who applicants hire as employees. Mr. Bickerstaffe and Mr. Keyes (P&Z) agreed. Mr. Shuford mentioned Police Reports include information on both the individual and location, allowing the Board to set a trial period to see if the location or the operator is creating a problem. Commissioner Thomas questioned why a convicted felon would be considered for a liquor license. Mr. Galbraith cited an example of a person with a 20-year old conviction, now rehabilitated, adding the point is whether Civil Rights were restored. Commissioner Berfield said disturbance of the peace, demeanor of the offender, and lewd and lascivious behavior should justify denial of an application. Mr. Shuford reported applicants for change of ownership frequently have a State license and are unaware of the need for a conditional use permit. He cited circumstances which justified changes of ownership as a permitted use. Mr. Merriam opined such subjective considerations could not be put into objective terms, adding the Planning and Zoning Board considers location and not the individual. Readdressing the property line-to-property line separation recommendation, Vice-Mayor Deegan cited the current staff recommendation differs from the current ordinance which indicates "property line or zone" which he thought was ambiguous. Mr. Shuford agreed, adding applicants within 300 feet could still be considered if they could prove they would not be a problem. Mr. Wright posed a technical question, i.e., land owned by a church or school for the intended purpose of building. He suggested adding "operating", and noted preeminence would be given to the facility which is granted a building permit first and it was agreed that Mr. Shuford provide a definition. Mr. Shuford will draft an ordinance according to directions and consult with Mr. Galbraith. Mr. Shuford noted sec 6 of his November 10, 1993 memorandum, variances for parking, and mentioned a possible future cruise ship variance. Mr. Shuford agreed with Mr. Carassas that it would be desirable to eventually have licenses and parking variances considered "at one shot." Vice-Mayor Deegan said once the ordinance is in place the recommendation of the Commission is that separation variances will be turned over to P&Z. Following explanation by Mr. Shuford, it was agreed that a 3' radius around a bar would constitute a lounge area. Responding to a question from Mr. Shuford, all present agreed the parking variance will be left off. Commissioner Thomas questioned Walgreen's approval notwithstanding separation from Clearwater High School. Mr. Galbraith said this was a consequence of splitting authority between City Commission and P&Z. If the Board were to deny a conditional use approval on the basis of the distance issue, that would preclude the applicant from going to the Commission where the issue would be the distance factor. He reiterated his advice that if distance is the reason, that is reserved for the City Commission and if the Board were to vote no for that reason, they will be pervading the Commission's purview. He recommended P&Z be the one board to make the decision. It was noted a suggested change would have appeals heard by the Commission rather than a Hearing Officer. Mr. Wright noted the decision to eliminate the parking variance requirement has opened up Clearwater Beach again, making it considerably looser, and asked whether this was the intent of the Commission and the Planning & Zoning Board. He added the parking variance stopped proliferation. Following a short discussion, Mr. Shuford was asked leave sec e) in Tables A and B. Mr. Shuford remarked that such action might preclude expansion of desirable existing businesses. It was agreed the ordinance will come back in final version and the Commission will make a final determination on the matter at that time. The meeting adjourned at 2:02 p.m.