Loading...
06/14/1988 MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1988 - 1:30 PM Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Green, Hamilton, and Schwob ALSO PRESENT: Miles Lance, Assistant City Attorney Members Absent: Messrs. Ferrell and Hogan A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the minutes of the May 31, 1988 meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (S to 0). Chairman Johnson outlined the procedures for conditional uses and advised that anyone adversely affected by a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, with regard to conditional uses, has two weeks from this date in which to file an appeal through the City Clerk's Office. Florida Law requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. B. Conditional Uses: 1. M&B 33.03 & 33.04, Sec. 17-295--16E (1051 U.S. Hwy. 19 South) First Federal Savings & Loan Assn. of Largo/Ronald Niske & James J. Pope/Harry Cline CU 88-45 Request - Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays and/or Storage (On Unpaved Areas of Property) Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: On May 3, 1988, this Board reviewed and approved a conditional use request for outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage, specifically for boat/vehicle sales in the Highway Commercial zoning district; on May 3, 1988 the Board saw a drawing showing proposed display areas; several conditions were imposed on the approval, one of which was parking on paved areas only; and, applicant has filed another request that the condition be removed. Ms. Harvey advised she has inspected the property and she advised there is a great deal of grass area. She further advised the applicant is here today to show the proposed layout. She advised that when computing open space grass parking is treated as though it were paved parking. She stated that a formal site plan would indicate the actual areas to be used for grass parking which would be one way the City would have some sort of control where parking would be allowed. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised she has no recommendation but in accordance with Code regulations the City cannot allow applicant to park anywhere at anytime but the applicant may be authorized for parking designated on a site plan. Atty. Harry Cline, representative of applicant, stated applicant is requesting he be allowed parking on unpaved portion of the property and the only viable area of the property for parking would be the southwest corner. He stated applicant does not want a concrete area but to park on the concrete would allow little visibility from U.S. Hwy. 19 where traffic travels at a high speed. He stated the proposed use will be a better use of the property. He added that he is trying to legitimize the display of vehicles. He felt parking on the grass would be more aesthetic. He also stated applicant wants to preserve as much grass and as many trees as possible while still having the commercial use that is permitted in the commercial zone. He stated other previously proposed uses might have resulted in a higher generation of traffic. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised this Board cannot authorize grass parking but the Board can prohibit grass parking. She further advised that if the Board removes the condition the applicant will still be required to park in paved areas unless authorization is received by the Traffic Engineer and Public Works Director. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Mr. Hamilton felt the request was appropriate. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to remove condition of approval of ITEM B(3) on May 3, 1988 which stated "8) That parking only be permitted on paved areas" Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 2. Lots 41 and 42, Oakland Heights (1249 and 1251 Lincoln Avenue) Heriberto Quintero, Sr. CU 88-46 Request - Business Service (Air Conditioning Company Office and Storage Area) Zoned - CN (Neighborhood Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for business service in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district; applicant proposes expansion of an existing air conditioning service; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b) and (c)(6); and, the Traffic Engineer had no objection as long as adequate parking is provided. Ms. Harvey advised that staff recommended approval subject to the following: l) That a parking plan be approved by the Traffic Engineer^j 2) That all service be performed indoors; and 3) That the Occupational License be procured within six months. Mr. Herbert Quintero, applicant, requested approval of the above request and stated he had no objection to the conditions. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Quintero advised the following: The property is proposed for some office space and for air conditioning equipment storage; there will be no noise generated from the property; and, all equipment will be stored indoors. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following: l) That a parking plan be approved by the Traffic Engineer; 2) That all service be performed indoors; and 3) That the Occupational License be procured within six months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 3. Lot 1 The Regency Sub. (2551 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) Hardees Lease Partners/William H. Bullard/Keith R. E. Johnson CU 88-47 Request - 4-COP (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CC (Commercial Center) Ms. Harvey advised as follows. This is a request for on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages in the Commercial Center zoning district; the specific state license being applied for is a 4-COP license; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the property is the site of an existing vacant restaurant and applicant proposes to use the property as a restaurant and lounge; the Traffic Engineer had no comment; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey advised that July 14, 1987, this Board approved a conditional use request for a 4-COP license for sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the above location. She stated one of the conditions of approval was that the kitchen remain open to one hour before closing. She advised that should the Board approve the above request staff recommends that condition remain. Ms. Harvey advised that staff recommended approval subject to the following: l) That the kitchen remain open until one hour before closing; and 2) That the Occupational License be procured within six months. Atty. Joel B. Giles, representative of applicant, stated the building and improvement were designed for use as a restaurant and the applicant wants to add the sale of alcoholic beverages to the current use. He stated applicant has no objections to the conditions regarding the kitchen remaining open or obtaining the Occupational License as recommended. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Giles advised as follows: The use is for a restaurant and lounge with a dance floor and sound system; it is his understanding there will be live entertainment but he is unsure of what type of live entertainment will be on site; and, there will be no outside seating. The following persons appeared in opposition to the above request to give their comments: Mr. James Towers, Sr., adjacent property owner^S stated the above property has very little parking and he does not want parking for the above request to take place on his property. Mr. Jake Hoskins, 430 Lakeview, ~117, Palm Harbor, stated he represents Sweethearts Lounge, the only dance bar in Clearwater, and he is at this hearing in opposition to the above request to protect his business. He stated he does not want to change his business and he has built a good business. He also stated applicant owns two topless lounges and felt applicant will not run a nontopless bar. Mr. Hoskins stated he was advised by his attorneys that the City's Ordinance prohibiting topless or nude entertainment would not stand up in Court. He advised the exit and entrance to the property are not good. Mr. Hoskins felt approval of the above request would be detrimental to the community. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Hoskins stated applicant currently runs 2 topless bars and if the above request is approved the applicant will be within 500 feet of his establishment. Mr. Hoskins added he has a good record and he expressed concern that it will change if the above request is approved. Ms. Harvey advised that staff received a telephone call from Darryl Hogan, 2690 Drew Street, #1812, Clearwater, in opposition to the above request. In rebuttal Mr. Giles stated applicant does own other topless bars but applicant is fully aware of Clearwater s Ordinance and does not intend to run a topless bar. He stated Mr. Hoskins has other competitors in the area. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Giles advised as follows: he does not know if applicant would object to a condition that would prohibit topless or nude dancing; and, there are 40 parking spaces on site and an easement agreement allowing tenants to use 19 or 20 parking spaces in the shopping center. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Lance stated the City's Ordinance regarding the prohibition of topless or nude dancing has not been challenged. He felt the Board should base its decision without regard to any possibility of the City's Ordinance being unconstitutional. After questioning by Mr. Green, Mr. Lance felt the Board would be be better off to use the Ordinance as a means of control rather than a condition of approval. Ms. Harvey advised the Board can place conditions regarding conditional use standards. She felt the Board should not place conditions when the Ordinance should be regulating the nuisance. Mr. Lance felt it should not be necessary for the Board to place a condition on approval. Mr. Schwob felt Section 136.025(b)(7) of the Code regarding compatibility of uses gives the Board the authority to impose such a condition. He felt that the nearby residences, the church and office buildings would make a topless bar in the area incompatible with the surrounding uses. Mr. Green stated Section 136.025(b)(7) of the Code allows the Board to specifically limit the type of facility to be used at the location. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated it appears this establishment does not need one parking space for every two occupants. She added the applicant would be required to meet new standards if this request would be a new use of the property, if there would be an expansion of the floor area, or if there would be increased seating. Mr. Hamilton expressed concern that, in some cases this Board has heard, all facts may not have been brought out. He felt the Board should have a better idea of the proposed concept. Mr. Schwob stated he had no problem with a bar or lounge if the kitchen remained open but felt a specific condition should be placed that would prohibit topless or nude entertainment. Ms. Nixon stated if approval is granted, the conditions should be appropriate conditions. Mr. Schwob felt that, in accordance with Section 136.025(b)(7) of the Land Development Code, the proposed use should be reasonably compatible with the surrounding uses. He also felt placing a condition to prohibit topless or nude entertainment would be appropriate because such entertainment would be incompatible with the surrounding area. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Ms. Nixon, to approve the above request subject to the following: l) That the kitchen remain open until one hour before closing time; 2) That the Occupational License be procured within six months; 3) That there be no service in outside areas; and, 4) That there be no entertainment featuring topless or nude dancing. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 4. Lot 1 and Part Lot 3, Palm Bluff First Addition Lots 21 through 26, 28, 29 and Part Lot 27, J. J. Eldridge Sub. (1011 North Ft. Harrison) S. J. Vaccaro CU 88-48 Request - Noncommercial Parking (In RM-8 Portion of Property) Zoned - RM-8 (Multiple Family Residential "Eight") AND CN (Neighborhood Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for noncommercial parking in the RM-8 zoning district; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b) and (c)(l9); the Traffic Engineer had no comment; and, on August 4, 1987, this Board reviewed and approved a conditional use for noncommercial parking for a portion of the lots zoned RM-8. She stated Discount Marine provided for indoor storage of boats. She stated the site plan, which has been received for official review, indicates applicant is proposing an additional building on North Ft. Harrison which will require additional parking. She advised the City Commission expressed concern regarding an access on Garden Avenue. She stated access to Garden Avenue would improve traffic circulation but that kind of access is precluded unless specifically permitted by this Board. She also stated there have also been additional requirements for parking in the RM-8 zoning district, among which are there be no parking of boats or trailers, fencing is required, and any lighting be no higher than fencing. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval subject to the following: l) That there be no access to Garden Avenue from the parking area; and, 2) That the parking lot be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed new building adjoining the subject property. Mr. 5. J. Vaccaro, applicant, stated the new building will contain 9 stores that will be marine related and the upper level of the building will be a showroom. He stated his biggest problem is keeping all his inventory inside since the boats are quite large. He advised the site required 65 parking spaces and with the expansion additional parking will be required. Mr. Vaccaro requested that the condition limiting access on Garden Avenue not be imposed so that customers towing boats can get in and out of the parking and so that he would have the required amount of parking. He felt the condition would make it more difficult to communicate with the Traffic Engineer regarding parking. After questioning by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Vaccaro stated the access to Garden Avenue has been used but it was for a different business. Ms. Harvey advised that one letter of support was received from Carillon Rug Company. Ms. Harvey advised applicant he is subject to citation because the existing storing of boats on the property is an unauthorized use of the property. Ms. Harvey advised that in order for applicant to expand, certain conditions have been set as follows: The City Commission set as a condition that there be no access on Garden Avenue and if applicant wants reconsideration, it must be considered by the City Commission; the City Commission expressed concern about the amount of expansion and that further changes will take place other departments have not yet had a chance to comment regarding the plan; the condition regarding lighting is not a condition set by the Board but is a Code requirement; the conditional use is being reviewed on the basis of compatibility and Garden Avenue is considered a residential street, and one of the best ways of keeping an area residential where noncommercial parking is allowed is to not allow access by commercial vehicles. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Mr. Hamilton felt a condition of approval by this Board regarding no access on Garden Avenue was not necessary since the City Commission already made it a condition. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: l) That the lot be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Motion carried unanimously (S to 0). C. Annexation and Zoning: 1. (CONTINUED FROM 5/31/88) Lot 20, Clearwater Industrial Park (Located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hercules Avenue and Calumet Street) (Square D Co.) A 88-12 Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL (Limited Industrial) The above property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hercules Avenue and Calumet Street. The applicant was not present. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation and Limited Industrial zoning; City water, sewer, and natural gas are available, and, the Land Use Plan is now Industrial. Ms. Harvey advised this Board may make a recommendation to the City Commission even though the applicant is not present. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the annexation and Limited Industrial zoning. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to recommend approval of the annexation and Limited Industrial zoning. Motion carried unanimously (S to 0). E. Director's Items Ms. Harvey advised that the next Planning and Zoning Meeting is scheduled for July 26, 1988. She stated that the most important items to be heard at that meeting are the Land Use Plan amendments which must be heard at that time in order to meet State deadlines for the semiannual review. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised the Rose Tattoo has been cited for failure to obtain conditional use approval for alcoholic beverage sales but she does not know the date the item will go before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Harvey advised that when there is a change of business ownership the State does not require zoning approval but the City of Clearwater does. She added that staff has attempted to communicate by telephone, in person, and in writing to try to clarify the City requirements with the State. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Harvey advised the appeal hearing on the Sandpiper was scheduled to be heard June 15, 1988 but the applicant has requested a continuance. Mr. Lance stated he has not received formal notice but he felt the hearing officer would grant the continuance. Land Use Element Task Force: Mr. Pruitt advised that the Planning and Zoning Meeting on July 26, 1988 will be too late to have further discussion regarding the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the if the Members have any comments they should either be mailed to him or the Members should stop in to see him. He advised that a draft of the plan must be submitted to the State by August, 1988 and any input the Members may have should be submitted as soon as possible. Chairman Johnson left the meeting at 3:15 PM. Mr. Pruitt distributed a questionnaire regarding Clearwater's assets, its future, improvements, etc. He added that Commissioner Regulski brought up what are incompatible or uncharacteristic uses. He also distributed a Comprehensive Plan Status Report. Ms. Harvey advised that the City Commission discussed the idea of diversifying the economy as opposed to concentrating on tourism only. She stated the City is proposing, primarily through the Community Redevelopment Agency, a new staff member who will specialize in economic development in Clearwater. She also stated it will probably be necessary to make an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding economic development since an Economic Development Officer will not have time to formulate ideas before the Comprehensive Plan is due with the State. Ms. Nixon stated she read that Tampa aggressively seeks industry that has made inquiry into the Bay Area. She felt such industry may not be aware of Clearwater. Ms. Harvey advised that one problem has been getting a group to work together. Mr. Hamilton felt one problem has been that there have been so many different groups working on City projects and the citizens don't seem to know who is doing what. Ms. Harvey felt the City Commission must set the stage for what its goals are going to be. Ms. Nixon suggested the new Economic Development Officer do a survey regarding what the citizens of Clearwater want. Discussion followed regarding restrictions in Clearwater, the tax base, annexation, and other similar ideas to be considered in regard to updating the Comprehensive Plan. Meeting adjourned at 3:35 PM.