Loading...
12/01/1987City COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING December 1, 1987 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at the City Hall, Tuesday, December 1, 1987, with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner James L. Berfield Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner Don Winner Commissioner William Nunamaker Commissioner Also present were: Joseph R. McFate II Interim City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Paula Harvey Planning Director Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. Ordinance 4420-87, Alcoholic Beverage Section 136.024 - (d)(2)a (page 7 & 8) as drafted reads: An establishment which is licensed by the State for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises as a 4-COP-SRX establishment, and which derives 51 percent or more of the gross revenue of the establishment from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages, may be located not less than 250 feet from a church, school or residential zone. However, any such establishment may be located with no minimum distance requirement between the establishment and a residential zone if each wall of the building or portion thereof occupied by the establishment which faces the residential zone contains no door, window or other opening and if there is no loading or unloading docks or areas and no building or service equipment located within 55 feet of the residential zone. It was suggested that this section of the ordinance as written is not what the Commission passed at first reading. There was no intent for the word faces to be in the ordinance; the prohibiting of openings was not to be limited to walls facing residential zones. Commission consensus was to amend Section (d)(2)a, (d)(2)b and (d)(2)c in the following manner: 136.024 (d)(2)a - However, any such establishment may be located with no minimum distance requirement between the establishment and a residential zone provided that no door (excepting emergency fire exit doors), window or other opening or loading or unloading docks or areas of building or service equipment is located within 65 feet of the residential zone. 135.024(d)(2)b - ...25 feet from a residential zone provided that no door (excepting emergency fire exit doors), window or other opening or building or service equipment is located within 50 feet of the residential 136.024(d)(2)c - ...25 feet from a residential zone provided that no door (excepting emergency fire exit doors), window or other opening or building or service equipment is located within 200 feet of the residential zone, and provided... Commissioner Regulski proposed an amendment to Section 136.024(d)(1), Separation requirements as follows: For the purposes of this section, "Residential zone includes the Resort Commercial District in which only restaurant SRX and hotel motel 4COPS licenses are permitted and in which the distance requirements are measured from the nearest property line of a residential use in that zone". Discussion ensued regarding the fact that in the resort commercial zoning district there are hotel/motels where the owner has residential quarters and the amendment could create problems for these owners. It was suggested a better way to regulate would be that the resort commercial district be considered residential for separation purposes from adjoining zoning districts. It was pointed out that Sections 135.112(b) and 135.118(b), of the Land Development Code, dealing with CR-24 and CR-28 zoning would need to be amended. Commission consensus was to amend these two sections. The City Attorney stated he could have first reading of the ordinance amending these two sections of the Land Development Code along with second reading and public hearing of Ordinance 4420-87. Commissioner Winner stated on premises consumption is prohibited in the CR zones unless it is in conjunction with a hotel or motel. He suggested that off premises sales be subject to the same condition in CR zones. Commission consensus was to include this in the ordinance. A question was raised whether the Commission should consider a separation between like alcoholic beverage permits in order to prevent a series of bars being located next to each other. Commission consensus was that between alcoholic beverage licenses 1-COP, 2-COP and 4-COP, the minimum distance requirement would be 200 feet. Section 72.15(b)(2) at the bottom of page 2 reads as follows: Establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises shall not sell liquor between the hours of 1:00 p.m. Sundays and 3:00 a.m. Mondays for consumption off the premises. However, such establishments may sell packaged beer or wine during such hours for consumption off the premises. A question was raised regarding why these establishments are allowed to sell packaged beer or wine during such hours. The City Attorney was directed to research this question and report. The City Attorney proposed that Section 72.15(a), (1) and (2) be changed to read: (1) Alcoholic beverage establishments shall not sell any alcoholic beverage between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on any day of the week except Sunday. (2) Alcoholic beverage establishments shall not sell any alcoholic beverage between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on any Sunday. Commission consensus was to approve these two amendments to eliminate the possibility that a business such as a convenience store would have to close its doors at 2:00 a.m. Section 136.324 (e), Site and structure requirements (page 10) reads as follows: Each establishment which is licensed by the State for on premises consumption and package sales as a 1-COP, 2-COP or 4-COP establishment shall contain a minimum of 50 indoor seats and shall have a minimum interior floor area of 1,000 square feet, and any such establishment which adjoins a residential zone shall be separated from the residential zone by a six foot high solid masonry wall smoothly finished on both sides. It was suggested the masonry wall requirement be changed to appropriate buffer. Discussion ensued regarding the problem of loud music close to residential zones. It was suggested the ordinance address the problem by adding a cutoff time for establishments to cease playing loud music. The problem of defining loud and raucous noise was discussed. Commission consensus was the reversion procedures would be a better avenue for dealing with this problem. The City Attorney stated the noise ordinance, which prohibits loud and raucous noise,is in effect and is being enforced. Commission consensus was to change the requirement for a solid masonry wall to appropriate buffering as determined by the Planning and Zoning Board to prevent access, noise, and lights from becoming a nuisance in adjacent residential zones. Thirteen citizens spoke regarding alcoholic beverage ordinance 4420-87 citing concern with the number of feet of separation required in the ordinance; concern that, if the conditional use does not run with the land, it could be considered a loss of individual property rights; concern with the fact that, if remodeling to an alcoholic beverage establishment is done and the remodeling involves more than 50% of the value of the structure, all building and land development code requirements would then have to be met; concern regarding the six foot solid masonry wall; and concern regarding notification procedures. It was suggested a better means of notifying the public of a proposed alcoholic beverage conditional use would be to post a notice on the property as is done in land use plan and zoning changes. A question was asked regarding what criteria is used by the Planning and Zoning Board for approving or denying a conditional use. It was suggested hardship be defined when granting variances to the minimum separation requirement. The Planning Director stated that posting for alcoholic beverage conditional uses would require more staff to make the signs and post them. The Interim City Manager suggested the fees be increased to cover the extra cost. Commission consensus was to require the posting of notices for alcoholic beverage conditional uses. The Interim City Manager requested that fees for minimum distance variance applications not be included in the ordinance, but be set by the Commission by resolution as is done for other variances and conditional uses. Commission consensus was to delete the fee from the ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.