Loading...
09/13/1988 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 - 1:00 PM Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Green, Hamilton, Hogan, and Schwob Members Absent: Mr. Ferrell DISCUSSION ITEM Development Process Study (Healey Consultant Group, Inc.) Mr. Healey handed out to the Board a summary of the interviews, questionnaires, and work sessions. He advised this Board is primarily involved in four processes, those being: annexations, land use plan amendments, and zoning amendments in an advisory capacity; and, conditional uses in a decision-making capacity. He added that this Board is exposed to other related procedures such as building permits, tree permits, site plan review, and inspection/enforcement measures. Mr. Healey summarized the Board's answers to the questionnaires as follows: The best aspect of the Board's role includes the mix and balance of all its members; the four main procedures of the Board work very well; key strengths include the opportunity for consideration by both this Board and the City Commission for annexations, land use plan amendments, and zoning amendments; and, the least productive aspect of the Board's role is its involvement with social issues and its inability to deal in greater depth with environmental issues. Mr. Healey stated that, in regard to this Board hearing variances directly related to a conditional use, the Development Code Adjustment Board felt if there is a way to streamline the review process they were in agreement. Mr. Healey stated that some weaknesses noted by the Board are as follows: The inability to deal with enclaves; the Board generally preferred the alcoholic beverage regulations before the most recent amendments; and, communication with staff to follow up on the inspection/enforcement process, particularly regarding conditions of approval of conditional approval. The City Manager thanked the Board for its input to the development review process study and advised it is a big concern of the City to better be able to serve its citizens. Mr. Healey stated some suggestions were made by the Board as follows: additional site information with conditional use applications; revamp the alcoholic beverage review process while keeping the provision for review of license transfer; give consideration to variances requiring action in conjunction with a conditional use; and to address perceived problems that staff is insensitive to the needs and objectives of the development community. Discussion followed regarding Impact Assessments and the need for objectivity on the part of those who prepare Impact Assessments. The Board felt, not unanimously, that preparation of Impact Assessments should be controlled by the City. Mr. Healey advised if the Board had further comment to contact Ms. Harvey who will direct any comments to him. A. Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to approve the minutes of the August 16, 1988 meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to continue approval of the minutes of the August 30, 1988 meeting until the meeting of October 4, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (6 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. ITEMS ARE LISTED IN AGENDA ORDER THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DISCUSSED IN THAT ORDER. B. Conditional Uses: 1. M&B 22.03, Sec. 32-28S-15E (2093 U. S. Hwy. 19 North) Marks & Gillis, Inc./ David Brandon CU 88-75 Request - 1. Temporary Building & 2. Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays and/or Storage Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial) & OG (General Office) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: These requests are for a temporary building and outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage in the Highway Commercial zoning district; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Section 136.017 regarding the request for the temporary building and Sections 136.025(b) and (c)(22) regarding the request for outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage; the requests are for an expansion area for Ken Marks Ford south of its existing site; the Traffic Engineer had no comment; a site plan has been reviewed by the City Commission and authorized for final staff review; and, a preliminary plat has also been submitted for review by the City Commission. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above requests subject to the following: 1) That the temporary building be authorized for one year; and, 2) That the Building permit be procured within six months. Mr. David Brandon, applicant of representative, stated a final site plan has been submitted. He also stated one year will be sufficient for use of the temporary sales trailer. He advised the temporary sales trailer has two offices and a reception area and is for the use of sales staff while work is done on the inside of the building. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Brandon stated the subject property is the former location of Sizzler's Restaurant. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above requests subject to the following: 1) That the temporary building be authorized for one year; and, 2) That the Building permit be procured within six months. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 2. Part M&B 11.05, Sec. 13-29S-15E (2171 Drew Street) Mark Todsen & James Wasenda CU 88-76 Request - 1. Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays and/or Storage 2. Vehicle Service Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: These requests are for outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage and vehicle service in the General Commercial zoning district; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b), (c)(22), and (c)(27); the Traffic Engineer had no comment; the property is currently occupied by some existing businesses; and, major renovation is proposed for car sales and service. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1) That the Building permit be procured within six months. Mr. Mark Todsen, applicant, stated the reason for the request is to try to conform to the new construction that is proposed for the area. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Todsen stated the auto repair portion is a separate business and has been in existence for four years. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Building permit be procured within six months. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 3. Lots 1 to 5, Blk. A, Hibiscus Gardens (1295 Cleveland Street) Raymond & Joyce Ealy CU 88-77 Request - Level I Group Care (10 Cared for Individuals & 0 Resident Supervisors) Zoned - UC[E] (Urban Center [Eastern Corridor]) Ms. Harvey advised a letter has been received from the applicant withdrawing the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to accept withdrawal of the above request. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 4. Part of M&B 14.052, Sec. 17-29S-16E (2950 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) Gertrude Nall (Georgios)/Martom Corp./ Michael Robertson CU 88-78 Request - 4-COP-SRX (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This request is for on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages in the General Commercial zoning district; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); this is the site of an existing restaurant and lounge located on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard; the restaurant was operating with a 4-COP State license and the specific State license now being applied for is a 4-COP-SRX license to another owner; the Traffic Engineer had no comment; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated no variance to the separation distance will be required. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the new occupational license be procured within six months. Mr. Michael Robertson, representative of applicant, stated the property has been the site of a restaurant for several years and because there is a change of owner, a new license must be requested. He advised the applicant is requesting a 4-COP-SRX state license to provide alcoholic beverages incidental to the food service. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Timothy Coustis, President of Martom Corp., applicant, advised as follows: The restaurant will be Italian Continental cuisine; there will be no live entertainment other than a piano bar; there will be no outside speakers; and, there is no change from what was previously at the subject location. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the new occupational license be procured within six months. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 5. M&B 13.01, Sec. 08,29S-15E (138, 144, and 146 Island Way) Helga Glaesel (Brassy's Restaurant & Lounge)/ Zaleski Enterprises, Inc./Shirley Zaleski CU 88-79 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 governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); this is the site of an existing restaurant, lounge, and liquor store located on Island Estates; there will be a change in license designation for Brassy's from a 4-COP-SRX to a 4-COP State license; a hallway is proposed to be constructed between the restaurant and package store to join the two operations and is intended for the benefit of employees; the Traffic Engineer had no comment; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey advised that the request will require that variances to the separation distance from a church, residential area, and a similarly licensed establishment be approved by the City Commission. Ms. Harvey advised the nearby licensed establishment is the Rose Tattoo, which is operating under a 2-COP license. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey advised the only change that occurred at the Rose Tattoo is a change of business ownership and, whether or not the change had been reviewed by the Board the establishment should not be ignored and the variance should be required. She added that two other variances are also required and if the City Commission denies the variances the Commission should be specific for its reasons. Mr. Schwob felt the City Commission should be aware that the Rose Tattoo may be selling alcoholic beverages in violation to City Code. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Ms. Harvey advised the City is in the process of citing the establishment to appear before the Code Enforcement Board to officially fine the establishment. She also advised State law does not require further zoning approval by any other entity and change of ownership approval is a unique requirement of the City of Clearwater. She added the City cannot revoke a State license. Ms. Harvey advised that staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1) That the new alcoholic beverage license be obtained within six months; 2) That variances to the separation distances be approved by the City Commission; and 3) That the kitchen serving Brassy's remain open until within one hour of closing. Mr. John Bozmoski, representative of applicant, stated no additional pedestrian or vehicular traffic is anticipated. He advised the hallway is for use by employees only. He also advised applicant has no objection to procuring the required variances. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Bozmoski advised as follows: The lounge had a 4-COP license and now the lounge, package store, and restaurant will operate under the 4-COP license; applicant sees no change in the clientele; there is no intent to change the character of the operation; the request is being made to have a more efficient operation; and, all operations will be under Zaleski Enterprises. Mr. Hamilton advised he had no objection to the above request but if the Board approves the request the applicant will not be required to sell food. After questioning by Ms. Harvey, Ms. Shirley Zaleski, applicant, advised as follows: There will be separate accounting for the operations; there would be no objection to showing the accounting books to the City; and, 51% food sales will be attempted to be maintained. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Zaleski advised food sales is currently in the approximate percentage range of the low 40s. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey advised she would not suggest this Board set a condition to maintain a certain percentage of food sales. She added that the questions she raised to applicant were questions that might possibly be raised by the City Commission when applicant seeks approval of the variances that are necessary. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Mr. Schwob felt the problems that this Board has seen in the past with this type of request is at establishments where there is not close supervision. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the new alcoholic beverage license be obtained within six months; 2) That variances to the separation distances be approved by the City Commission; and 3) That the kitchen serving Brassy's remain open until within one hour of closing. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). C. Annexation and Zoning: 1. 50 Foot Easement for R.R. and Part of Lot 15, Clearwater Industrial Park Part M&B 12.01, Sec. 12-29S-15E (Located on both sides of Sunshine Drive, adjacent to and north of the S.C.L. RR tracks) (Multiple/City) A 88-25 Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL (Limited Industrial) The above property is located on both sides of Sunshine Drive, adjacent to and north of the S.C.L. RR tracks. Mr. Pruitt advised as follows: This is a City-initiated request for annexation and IL (Limited Industrial) zoning which were subjects of previous Agreements to Annex; the properties are now contiguous to City limits and it is appropriate that they be annexed; City water and sewer and natural gas are available; and, the surrounding uses are industrial. Mr. Pruitt advised that staff recommended approval of the request for annexation and IL (Limited Industrial) zoning. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to recommend approval of the request for annexation and IL (Limited Industrial) zoning. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 2. M&B 14.02, Sec. 12-29S-15E (Located on the south side of Range Road, west of Belcher Road) (Zukowski) A 88-26 Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL (Limited Industrial) The above property is located on the south side of Range Road, west of Belcher Road. Mr. Jim Larson, representative of applicant, stated the applicant desires to build a facility to be rented for warehousing and small industrial uses. Mr. Pruitt advised as follows: This is a request for annexation and IL (Limited Industrial) zoning; the property is presently vacant but is being used for vehicle storage; City water and sewer and natural gas are available; and, the surrounding uses are industrial. Mr. Pruitt advised that staff recommended approval of the request for annexation and IL (Limited Industrial) zoning. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to recommend approval of the request for annexation and IL (Limited Industrial) zoning. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment AND Local Planning Agency Review: 1. Part Lot 8, Blackburn Sub. (Located on the east side of Lawson Road, north of Blackburn Street) (Cambas/City) A 88-24 LUP 88-19 Request - Annexation and Zoning, CH (Highway Commercial) Land Use Plan: FROM: Medium Density Residential TO: Commercial/Tourist Facilities The above property is located on the east side of Lawson Road, north of Blackburn Street. Mr. Pruitt advised as follows: This is a City-initiated request for annexation, CH (Highway Commercial) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities; the property was the subject of a previous Agreement to Annex; the property is now contiguous to City limits and it is appropriate that it be annexed; the property is currently developed as an office and maintenance facility for a cab company; City water and sewer are available; and, the surrounding uses are primarily vehicle storage and a mobile home park. Mr. Pruitt advised staff recommended approval of the above request for annexation, CH (Highway Commercial) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give his comments: Mr. John Ritchie, 939 Woodland Drive, stated he represented Tropical Breeze Home Owners Association. He advised there are large air compressors that are frequently running and the site was previously very rundown. He expressed concern that after the property is annexed into the City it will become more commercialized. Ms. Harvey advised that an Agreement to Annex was signed in order to provide services to the property. She added the only two choices available for zoning are industrial or commercial. She stated that if the Land Use Plan remained Medium Density Residential the property would be nonconforming and would cause difficulties. Mr. Ritchie stated he is not opposed to the annexation but he hoped that there would be no further expansion. Ms. Harvey advised that, if at any point in the future there is expansion on the property, the City will have more control. Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to recommend approval of the above request for annexation, CH (Highway Commercial) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). G. Board and Staff Comments Mrs. Lois Cormier stated that the Flagship Restaurant had a change of business ownership and an expansion, and she stated she doesn't know if the establishment came before this Board. She stated City staff told her too much time had passed to require this establishment to come before this Board for approval of a change of business ownership. She felt someone should look into the change of business ownership of Flagship Restaurant. Mr. Schwob stated three establishments were reported to Code Administration for possible changes in business ownership. He further stated that two of the changes have been before this Board. Mr. Hamilton felt the subject of change of business ownership should be looked into and possibly, if the only change is the name of the license holder, could be handled administratively. Mr. Hogan felt the Board did not have enough control. He stated the Rose Tattoo obtained their State license before coming to this Board and, regardless who was remiss in this happening, this Board should have some way of controlling places in this City that dispense alcoholic beverages. Mrs. Cormier stated several weeks ago she appeared before this Board to speak in regard to Isaiah's Inn. She stated that at that hearing she requested the Board continue the item because she discovered a congregate care facility within 1,200 feet which is in reality a drug and alcohol treatment facility. She stated that at the previous hearing she had no proof but since that time she discovered that the Fairwinds is advertising in the yellow pages of the telephone book under the drug and alcohol treatment facilities for their services. She advised that one year ago the owner of the property came before this Board and the recording and minutes of that meeting reflect the property owner got approval of a congregate care facility. She felt a drug and alcohol treatment facility of this size falls under the category of Level III Group Care. She stated it was her understanding there would be outpatient services and families coming in to the facility. She stated, as far as she is aware and understands, the City has no classification for an alcohol and drug treatment facility. She stated she is concerned; the facility is in her neighborhood, a neighborhood considered to be low income; and, putting too many social service agencies in a low income neighborhood is against Code. She stated that, as far as she knows, these kinds of facilities are usually affiliated with hospitals. She questioned what the Board would call this kind of facility. Ms. Harvey stated she went through all the records to try to resolve a problem that was brought to the City's attention by Mrs. Cormier. Ms. Harvey stated that anyone can advertise for anything in the yellow pages of the telephone book and the City had no control of such advertising. She also stated the Fairwinds has not begun operation and a letter has been sent to the Fairwinds, which has caused the Fairwinds to basically stop work at the location. She stated there is nothing going on at the location at this time and they cannot yet be cited because they haven't done anything wrong. She stated the Fairwinds has been advised that there may be a problem that needs to be clarified. She added that the Fairwinds has also been advised that it will be required to come before this Board to request approval of the use they intend for the property and until such time as this occurs no occupational license will be issued and no certificate of occupancy for the building will be issued. She advised she did as much as her authority will allow her to do. Mrs. Cormier stated she was not criticizing staff but she is asking this Board and the City Commission if a separate zoning classification is needed for drug and alcohol treatment facilities. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Harvey stated there is provision in the Code for facilities of less than 20 people for substance abuse to be classified as Level III Group Care and considered under two zoning categories. She stated the use, as explained by Fairwinds, is intended to be larger than the 20 residents. She added that, in order to get the situation resolved both for the benefit of the City and the property owner, the Fairwinds has been advised that the intended use is not a use specifically identified in the Land Development Code and, therefore, the Fairwinds will be required to come before this Board to make such a request. She stated it will then be this Board's decision whether the zoning on the property is appropriate and the location is appropriate for the use. After further questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Harvey stated any use not covered in the Code is required to come before this Board. After questioning by Mr. Schwob in regard to change of business ownership, Ms. Harvey stated procedures for Code enforcement are regulated by State law. She stated violators are cited, then go before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board who has authority, given by the State, to act as the enforcing agent when there are violations in the City Code. She added that fines can be imposed but the State does not get involved. She also stated the City can fine a violator but it cannot revoke an alcoholic beverage license. She added that revoking an Occupational License does not involve the State. She stated the process is very strictly regulated, it takes time to properly get through the process, and is much more formalized than is this Board. She also stated that even closing down a business that is a nuisance is a very complicated procedure. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Ms. Harvey advised she cannot give a specific time limit for the procedure since it is the City Clerk's Office who issues notices, conducts the hearings, and prepares the minutes. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated she does not know when the Flagship Restaurant changed business ownership and, unless she is specifically ordered to do so, she is not going to institute proceedings against the establishment. She added that the change may have occurred before adoption of the ordinances that would require the Flagship Restaurant to come before this Board. Ms. Harvey advised the Sandpiper appeal was heard by the Hearing Officer some time ago. She stated this is the item where the Board approved a change of business ownership and included in the approval several conditions, one of which was a midnight closing on the weekends. She stated the approval was appealed by the owner of the restaurant on the grounds of the midnight closing and by the surrounding neighborhood on the grounds that the request should not have been approved. She advised the Hearing Officer upheld the Board's decision to approve the request, denying the appeal of the surrounding neighborhood but upheld the appeal of the business owner who appealed the earlier closing. She also advised the Hearing Officer gave as a reason for upholding the business owner's appeal as not being normally required of other similar establishments. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated the City Commission would be the only appealing authority if it felt the City was an aggrieved party. She stated it is an important opinion for the Board to read and it will be mailed in the next few days. She stated that all other conditions of approval will remain on the establishment. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated the Board should read the opinion before a statement is directed to the City Commission from the Board. Meeting adjourned at 3:07 PM.