Loading...
12/13/1988 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1988 - 2:00 PM Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, Hogan, and Schwob Also Present: M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney A. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to approve the minutes of the November 15, 1988 meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to continue approval of the minutes of the November 29, 1988 meeting to the January 3, 1989 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (7 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. 1. Lots 5, 7, and 8, Countryside Village Square (2543 Countryside Boulevard) Countryside Village, Ltd. (Pelican Pete's Seafood House)/Haney M. Sweda CU 88-111 Request - 4-COP-SRX (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 request is for zoning approval of a new 4-COP-SRX State license, which license requires 51% food sales; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the applicant proposes the operation of a restaurant at Countryside Village Square to be known as Pelican Pete's; on March 1, 1988, this Board approved the same conditional use request subject to the Occupational License being obtained within 6 months and the outside speakers being turned off at 10:00 PM and since applicant was unable to complete the business transaction until this time, it is necessary to again obtain approval; 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 is required. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1) That the Occupational License be obtained within 6 months; and 2) That the outside speakers be turned off at 10:00 PM. Mr. Haney Sweda, representative of applicant, stated the applicant is requesting approval of alcoholic beverage sales in conjunction with a full-service restaurant. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Sweda advised as follows: The reason for the time delay was that the company was sold to a foreign company and closing was held up; the outside speakers are more for "mood music;" the applicant felt the speakers were necessary to the operation of the restaurant; the applicant currently has no plans to serve outside; and, the applicant understands that if the deck is expanded it will be necessary to come before this Board once again. Ms. Harvey advised one letter of objection was received from Vernon Dokken, 2595 Countryside Boulevard, No. 302, Clearwater. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Occupational License be obtained within 6 months; and 2) That the outside speakers be turned off at 10:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). 2. Lots 4 through 10, Replat of Blks. 80 and 81, Mandalay Unit #5 Sub. (54 Bay Esplanade) Clearwater Beach Community Church/Herbert Freitag CU 88-112 Request -Child Day Care Center Zoned -P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for a child day care center in the Public/Semi-Public zoning district; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b) and (c)(8); and, the Traffic Engineer had no objection. Ms. Harvey further advised as follows: There appears to be no screening proposed to buffer residential areas; there is no particular parking plan identifying pickup and drop off of children; and, specifically in regard to child day care, there should be a finding made that there is sufficient outdoor play area and would need to be clarified before the Board could take action. Ms. Harvey advised that staff recommended denial based on the impact of noise unreasonably diminishing the use, enjoyment and value of surrounding properties; there is insufficient landscaping and buffering to diminish noise; and there is insufficient outdoor play area. Rev. Herbert Freitag, Minister of Church by the Sea, advised as follows: He presides services for 600 to 800 people; the proposal to institute a day care center was unanimously approved by the Church Board; he felt there is a tremendous need for a day care facility on the beach as there are no such facilities currently on Clearwater Beach; couples who live and/or work on Clearwater Beach need some place to take children and it would be much better to have the children where they are closer to home or work; there will be a maximum of 49 young people, ages 2 to 5 years; there is a sufficiently large area for outside play and the area must be fenced if there is a day care center; the play area would be on the Cyprus Avenue side of the Church and would be fenced; only two people voice objection to him personally, one of which was withdrawn; he anticipates part of the fencing would buffer some sound; there would be no more than 13 children outside at one time; the Church will operate as a nonprofit day care center in partnership with Latchkey and will provide affordable day care; pickup and drop off of children will be from a circular drive, though all parents will not have cars as many of the parents would not be able to afford cars; he felt traffic would be minimized; the center will satisfy the needs of people predominantly who work in the hotel businesses; the hours of pickup and drop off will be staggered; and the Church seeks to meet the needs of the community and services would be provided regardless of whether or not the parents are members of the Church or attend the Church. After questioning by Board members, Rev. Freitag advised as follows: The Church has had some people express an interest in the proposed day care center, as well as some area hotels; he is not sure if the drawing is drawn to scale but people from the City said the area met all the laws; the vacant lot to the north of the Church property is not Church property and will not be used; and, the play area does not include the vacant land north of the Church. In support of the above request, the following persons appeared to give their comments: Ms. Jean Hand, Deputy Executive Director of Latchkey, advised as follows: Latchkey is extremely interested in working with the Church to provide a day care center on Clearwater Beach; several hotels have expressed an interest in a day care center on Clearwater Beach; the location of the day care center is perfect and would serve 49 children from 2 to 5 years of age; they have worked with Pinellas County licensing board and all inspections have taken place; the play ground area was determined to be more than adequate; there will be a planned, structured program from 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM; only one classroom at a time will be outside; Pinellas County licensing board would not require a playground for all 49 children since all will not be outside at one time; there would be a very low adult-to-child ratio of about 1 to 10; and she felt there was a tremendous need for the day care center. After questioning by Mr. Ferrell, Ms. Hand stated there would be no more than 13 children outside at one time; certain times of the day there would be one supervisor and other times there would be two adults; and, Latchkey is a nonprofit organization that provides child day care throughout Pinellas County. Ms. Ann Garris, 38 Acacia, advised as follows: the entire community has supported the Church since its beginning and the Church has attempted to support the community; McKay Field is across the street and the youth center is only one block; she knows of only one complaint since the field was built; there have been no complaints about the more than 40 Sunday school children arriving on Sunday mornings; she felt the problem with children is unhappy noises and that children's happy noises were not unpleasant; there has long been a need for such a facility on Clearwater Beach; and, she felt the Church was the least expensive place for a child day center on Clearwater Beach. Ms. Jeanette Benfield, 1651 Gulf Boulevard, representative of the Board of Directors of the Church, stated the Church has explored all areas of concern and it is the Church's way of giving back to the community something that is needed. Ms. Lorraine Freitag, member of Chapel by the Sea, stated this request is not being made for the Church to make a profit. She added the Church is trying to do something positive about this problem. Ms. Darlene Kolodziej, 1450 Cleveland Street, stated that establishing the day care center is an answer to the child day care problem on Clearwater Beach. She stated that retailers on the beach recognize the need for child day care. She also stated that a lot of the jobs available on Clearwater Beach are minimum wage and child day care is very costly. She further stated the Church is trying to service affordable child day care on Clearwater Beach. The following persons appeared in opposition to the above request to give their comments: Mrs. Ruth Skorjanc, 600 Cyprus Avenue, advised as follows: The size of the lot is about 35 feet by 70 feet; in 1970, there was a proposal for child day care and at no time were the neighbors contacted regarding child day care; though the project is nonprofit, the church will receive federal funds; some area hotels pay a portion of the child day care costs; the area is very well established as a senior citizen center; high taxes are paid and the residents live on their own property; the tourist trade is very important to the residents; traffic will be increased from attendance by 49 children; the Church has very little parking and it is not adequate; she objects to the noise and lack of parking; the building proposed to be used for the child day care is less than 1,800 square feet and there is no back exit; she felt there are enough child day care centers in Clearwater; and, the request was denied in 1970 and it should not be considered again. Mr. William Phillips, advised as follows: He owns the vacant lot immediately north of the Church plus a triplex; he expressed concern that there would be a lot of noise early in the morning and felt the permanent residents would be hurt; he suggested the needs of the working people of the beach should not be at the expense of the residents; he felt property values would decrease; and, the vacant lot is not Church property and should not be looked upon as a parking lot or a play area. Mr. Nick Didomenico, motel owner at 64 Bay Esplanade, advised he still doesn't know where all the children will be. He stated he purchased the motel two years ago and most of the people he caters to are senior citizens. He also stated the area is popular because there is no noise. Ms. Dominique Brongel, 557 Cyprus Avenue, stated she is opposed to the noise of the children and felt property values will be decreased. Ms. Mary Martin, 585 Cyprus Avenue, stated she would not like being awaken in the morning by the noise from the children. She stated she knows property values will fall. Ms. Harvey advised a letter and petition in opposition to the child day care center, primarily concerning noise to adjacent property owners, were received. She advised that a letter from Mrs. Skorjanc and additional documentation and minutes from 1970 when child day care was previously requested were received. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey stated she recognizes the need for child day care throughout the City of Clearwater and is in support of day care centers, especially on the beach, but she is concerned with the particular location. She stated the application did not provide information to enable the Board to make a decision that would stand on its own in terms of being approved. She stated her recommendation of denial was based on two areas in the Code: that which dealt with the impact of the noise of the child day care center reasonably diminishing the use, enjoyment and value of surrounding property; and, that which dealt with the issue of insufficient landscaping to buffer noise. She also felt there did not appear to be sufficient outdoor play area. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: the City does not inspect properties and does not issue licenses in regard to child day care centers and any inspection made would be on the construction of the building itself and any fencing that would be constructed; the City does not make a determination on the required square footage; and, the inspections for meeting requirements is done by Pinellas County and the State. She stated it is still not clear there is sufficient play area and staff's findings are based on what is contained in the application, of which there was nothing indicating whether there is sufficient play area. She also stated that fencing has not been addressed in that is it not known where the fencing will be located and/or whether variances will be necessary for the fencing. Mr. Hogan felt there was a need for day care centers but felt they should not be located in residential areas where residents cannot enjoy the peace and quiet of their area. In support rebuttal, Ms. Jean Hand, advised as follows: Latchkey is a center for subsidized child day care; area hotels have identified 11 individuals who live and work on the beach but need to leave the beach to get child day care; the required inspections obtained include Pinellas County license board, the Fire Department and the Health Department; the Church needs to have 25 square feet inside and 35 square feet outside for each child, both of which have been met; four classrooms will serve 12 children each and a lunch room; she felt loud noise will not exist; and all the staff have been fully trained. In support rebuttal, Ms. Darlene Kolodziej, stated the Church has looked into landscaping and fencing and it is part of the entire process. She stated the Church is currently looking at a wooden fence in terms of a buffer. In support rebuttal, Ms. Ann Garris, stated one of the problems is that mothers of children cannot be here because they are working. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Garris advised of the permanent residents on the beach she estimates that approximately 85% to 90% of the membership consists of residents of Clearwater Beach and Island Estates. She added there are a lot of residents who support the Church even though they are not members of the Church and there are a growing number of people with young families who support the Church. She stated it is the only Church on Clearwater Beach. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Ruth Skorjanc, stated the neighborhood cannot take care of the entire area and suggested the possibility of employers providing child day care for their employees. She felt the building was too small and questioned if the hall and the Church were insured. She also felt a wooden fence would not buffer noise. In opposition rebuttal, Mr. William Phillips, felt 11 permanent residents needing child day care is not a lot of people when there are 1,300 permanent residents who live on the beach. He felt the residents should not suffer for the needs of the innkeepers, workers, etc. He felt the Board should look at the immediate two-block area and its impact on the Church. In opposition rebuttal, Ms. Dominique Brongel, felt the residents already put up with a lot of activity from the Church. In opposition rebuttal, Mr. Nick Didomenico, stated he previously was a real estate agent and the child day care center would not attract investors to the area. He also felt parking would not be adequate and his parking has been used by people attending the Church. In final rebuttal, Rev. Herbert Freitag, stated the Church is looking at a 3-part day care center. He stated the Church is seeking to meet the needs of the residents of Clearwater Beach, the people who live and work on Clearwater Beach, and the people who work on Clearwater Beach. He felt some of the comments made did not pertain to the request for the day care center. He also stated there is an increasing number of couples with children on Clearwater Beach and the community is not just the neighbors. He stated there is noise from persons other than the children and there will be some noise from the day care center. He felt the needs of both older and younger residents should be met and not just a specific group. Rev. Freitag stated whether there is adequate parking on Sunday is not relevant to the request for the day care center. He stated that Ms. Harvey's staff told him he had supplied all the information he was required to supply. He stated he was not told he had to show the fenced-in play area or how the children would be picked up or dropped off. He also stated the vacant piece of property to the north has never been assumed to be owned by the Church. He felt some of the people who signed the petition in opposition lived too far away to hear noise from the child day care center. After questioning by Board members, Rev. Freitag advised as follows: The Church has many programs for senior citizens such as the ladies auxiliary and education programs; he does not know the square footage of the outdoor play area but Pinellas County has advised both the indoor and outdoor areas are adequate; and whatever is necessary to get the children to the classrooms safely without the parents parking will be done. He advised that the hours of operation the proposed day care center will establish are from about 6:30 AM to 5:30 PM and drop off of children will take place from about 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM. After further questioning by Mr. Hogan, Ms. Hand clarified the usual procedure for Latchkey children is to have the children signed in by a supervising adult. Mr. Hamilton felt day care is very expensive when a center is prepared and operated by a private concern and felt it is critical for day care centers to be affordable. He expressed concern regarding comments made by staff and suggested the possibility of continuing the above request to obtain more specific information such has how the noise will be handled. Mr. Hogan stated he appreciates the need for a child day care center but felt the residents should not have the burden in a residential community. Ms. Nixon stated she lives 1/2 mile from a day care center and she can hear the noise of the children. She stated children will be outside for 8 hours a day. She felt the configuration of the Church and play area would not buffer the noise. She felt that approving the use of a day care center next to a residential area would be an irresponsible action on the part of this Board and she would not be in favor of the request. Mr. Ferrell stated the residents' properties are not zoned residential even though residents live in the Resort Commercial zoning district. He also stated, though he is sympathetic to the noise, he felt the area was buffered on three sides of the property by buildings. He stated he may be looking at the request differently because it is not a "for profit" operation and the rates would accommodate the working class. He also felt the Church was trying to fill needs for both older and younger residents. Mr. Ferrell stated he would consider approving the above request but felt the application should show landscaping, buffering, and a parking plan. He felt staff's concerns should be answered. Mr. Green stated he would like an organization such as this to care for his children but it is this Board's responsibility to decide how this new use would effect the surrounding property owners regardless of whether or not the area is zoned for residential use. Mr. Schwob stated he is a senior citizen and does not mind the children's noise and he stated a nearby school has not caused his property value to decrease. He expressed concern that necessary information was not provided to staff, but he felt the use serves a need of the community. He stated he would like to see staff's concerns satisfied and still approve the request. Mr. Green stated one of the criteria this Board is specifically required to look at is noise and its effect on the surrounding area. Ms. Nixon expressed concern that the residents will experience noise for hours a day. Mr. Hamilton stated this location is one of the best locations for the day care center and he doesn't see where else it could be located on the beach. He stated people on the beach need such a place and many may not have cars. He advised his only concern is addressing the questions of staff. Mr. Johnson stated he is in favor of day care centers but felt the subject location was not a good location because of noise and parking. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to continue the above request to obtain more information to answer staff's questions. After questioning by Mr. Ferrell, Ms. Harvey advised because the site is an existing building there is not a process for site plan review and the Church may not want to spend money for an architect to draw a site plan. Ms. Harvey also advised as follows: There was nothing in the application identifying the number of necessary parking spaces; it was not until today that it was learned how many employees there would be and she guessed there would be five employees by the adult-to-child ratio; there was nothing on the application indicating that landscaping or fencing would be installed; and, there was nothing in the application indicating how pickup and drop off of children would take place. Ms. Harvey stated that, when filling out an application, it is a matter of reading the Code and staff cannot be responsible for being the instructors of how to fill out an application. Mr. Hamilton stated that since there were questions raised he felt the continuance was appropriate. After roll call, motion failed (3 to 4) with Messrs. Ferrell, Hamilton, and Schwob voting "aye" and Ms. Nixon and Messrs. Green, Hogan, and Johnson voting "nay." Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to deny the above request. Motion carried (4 to 3) with Ms. Nixon and Messrs. Green, Hogan, and Johnson voting "aye" and Messrs. Ferrell, Hamilton, and Schwob voting "nay." 3. Lots 5, 6, 15, and 16, Blk. 3, Overbrook Sub. (1351 Cleveland Street) Donald Russell (Idle Spur Saloon)/Clark Hubbard CU 88-113 Request - 4-COP (On Premise Consumption AND Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on premise consumption and package sales of alcoholic beverages in the General Commercial zoning district; the specific request is for a change of license designation from a 2-COP State license to a 4-COP State license; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no objection; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated no variances to separation distance are required. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the new alcoholic beverage license be obtained within six months. Mr. Clark Hubbard, applicant, stated he has been owner of the subject establishment for 2 1/2 years and managed the establishment the previous two years. He added he is requesting on premise consumption and package sales. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Hubbard stated he caters mostly to blue collar working class clientele and tourists and on only rare occasions is there live entertainment because his operation is on 1,200 or 1,400 square feet. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, 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. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). 4. M&Bs 41.01, 41.02, 41.03, 41.04, 42.01, and 42.04, Sec. 30-28S-16E (2601 U.S. Hwy. 19 N., Suite 523, Countryside Mall) Bellwether Properties of FL/(Italian Bistro Ristorante) Mario Longo, President/Samuel Marshall CU 88-114 Request - 4-COP-SRX (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 request is for a new 4-COP-SRX State license for a proposed new restaurant in Countryside Mall; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no objection; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated no variances to separation distance are required. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Occupational License be procured within six months. Mr. Samuel Marshall, representative of applicant, stated applicant operates 14 restaurants and applicant will primarily have a restaurant which serves cocktails. Mr. Marshall stated the evening entertainment is in the form of piano music, a female with a guitar , or a comedian. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Marshall stated there will be a separate entrance on the upper level to the restaurant. 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: 1) That the Occupational License be procured within six months. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). 5. Lots 1 and 2, Haas Sub. AND Portion of Lot 3, Blackburn Sub. (1950 U.S. Hwy 19 N.) Ridge Haven Associates, Ltd/Steven M. Seibert CU 88-115 Request - 1. Vehicle Service AND 2. Outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for vehicle service and outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage in the Highway Commercial zoning district; the specific request is for automobile service and sales on property recently annexed into the City and adjacent to Ridge Haven Mobile Home Park; the governing Sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b), (c)(22), and (c)(27); the City Commission reviewed the site plan and authorized staff review of the final site plan subject to conditions, one of which is conditional use approval; and, the Traffic Engineer commented the site plan has problems and he was concerned that the business will not be contained on the site. Ms. Harvey stated the Traffic Engineer might be referring to the testing of automobiles in nearby residential areas. Ms. Harvey advised that if the above request is approved the Board must specify the type of service allowed on site. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1) That the Building Permit be procured within the time limitations of the certified site plan; 2) That there be no major vehicle repair on the property; and, 3) That there be appropriate closing hours set by the Board for the vehicle service and sales use. After questioning by Mr. Green, Ms. Harvey advised major vehicle repair include engine or transmission dismantling, painting, body, fender, muffler, top and upholstery work. Attorney Steve Seibert, representative of applicant, stated the service area is proposed to be along the line of a "Jiffy Lube." He advised that the site plan submitted with the application also shows a pizza shop on the site because the City wanted to see all the uses proposed for the site before it would approve the site plan. He stated applicant felt an automobile sales and automobile repair operation is the best use for the location. He also stated a buffer will be provided for the mobile home park. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Seibert advised as follows: There has been no interest in doing body work or engine repair at the location; applicant would have no objection if body work was prohibited at the location; applicant would have no objection to a 10:00 PM closing; and, he does not know how many used cars would be on site. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Ms. Harvey advised that the site plan has not gone through final review and the site plan will not be completed until the Development Review Committee has reviewed the plan and the plan is certified. Ms. Harvey requested the Board to be specific if it authorizes engine repairs as a specific condition is much easier for staff to monitor. She added if the applicant wants more than is authorized the applicant should come back before this Board with another request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Building Permit be procured within the time limitations of the certified site plan; 2) That there be no major vehicle repair on the property as defined in Section 136.025(c)(27)d of the Land Development Code; and, 3) That the closing time be set for 10:00 PM. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). 6. Lot 2, Studebaker's (2516 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) Mickey Pattemore/Blackpool Palace, Ltd. (Pattemore's Night Club)/Robert E. Gregg CU 88-116 Request - 4-COP-SRX (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages in the General Commercial zoning district; the specific request is for an expansion of the operation currently holding a 4-COP-SRX State license; this 4-COP-SRX license was issued many years ago and was not subject to the 51% food sales requirement; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the request is for a proposed 2,000 square foot expansion; the Traffic Engineer expressed concern that not enough parking is being provided though current Code requirements are being met; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicants. Ms. Harvey stated a variance to the separation distance from a Church zone will be required to be approved by the City Commission. She also stated that on November 15, 1988, this Board approved the same request for an open deck subject to the following conditions: That the Building permit for the expansion be procured within 6 months; that a variance to the separation distance be approved by City Commission; and that the approval of alcoholic beverage sales in the expanded area is for a period of one year. Ms. Harvey further stated that on November 17, 1988, the City Commission denied the request for a variance. She advised that the applicants amended the application from an open deck concept to a fully enclosed expansion area. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Certificate of Occupancy for the expansion be procured within 6 months; and, 2) That a variance to the separation distance be approved by City Commission. Atty. William Kimpton, representative of applicants, passed around pictures of the subject establishment (see attached copies) and advised as follows: On November 15, 1988 applicants requested approval of an expansion to sell alcoholic beverages on an open deck; applicants are in compliance with the Code; applicants actually have more parking than other establishments; in regards to noise, the expansion will be on the side of the building that is opposite to the Church; applicants felt there would be no problems with parking; allegations presented before this Board previously and before the City Commission regarding breakins seems to have been from former owners of the establishment; the opposition at the previous meeting was regarding control of patrons; the windows of the enclosed expansion do not open and the applicants tried to remodel in a style compatible with Clearwater; applicants have tried to make every reasonable concession to the Church, such as security, parking, noise, etc; the Church has not responded to requests by applicants for suggestions on how to make operation more agreeable; and, applicants has 30 years experience here and in Europe. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Kimpton advised as follows: There will be no outside speakers; and, people will enter the establishment through the expansion area. Mr. Robert E. Gregg, architect for applicants, advised that enclosing the deck has been done at considerable cost to the applicants, such as the installation of air conditioning, insulation, etc. After questioning by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Gregg clarified that the main entrance to the establishment will be through the expansion area. In support of the above request, the following person appeared to give her comments: Ms. Janice Pattemore, applicant, stated $1.5 million has been invested in the building. She stated they have done everything to go along with the Church and have been good neighbors. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Pattemore stated the club in the back portion of the building is open but is not doing a good business; music from the 50s, 60s, and 70s is played; there is both live entertainment and music played by a DJ; and, the area contains about 6,000 square feet. In opposition to the above request, the following persons appeared to give their comments: Atty. James Felos, representative of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity, advised as follows: The Church Council voted unanimously to oppose the subject application; the Church has been at its location for 20 years; there are a Church, an education building, and a meeting hall on the Church property; the Church has 900 members with 300 children; the Church is concerned that Mako's image has been adopted at Pattemore's; the Church is concerned about intrusion unto its property by drinks; and, the Church has had problems with breakins. When Mr. Felos began speaking about requirements in the Code regarding variances, Ms. Harvey clarified that Development Code Adjustment Board requirements were not relevant before the Planning and Zoning Board. She also advised that the use is not a nonconforming use. Mr. Felos stated the Church felt the more people at the establishment the more problems there will be. He stated the Church felt it should be protected. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Felos advised as follows: The Church is still opposed to the application even though the open deck, which was the basis of the Church's opposition at the last hearing, was enclosed; and, the Church would be opposed to a fence being installed between properties because the Church would want to avoid a prison look. Ms. Nixon felt the objections by the Church cannot be to drinking because the Church sponsors a festival where alcoholic beverages are served. Mr. Green felt it appeared the Church was opposed to the establishment being successful and he felt this was an unreasonable objection. Mr. Felos stated the Church does not want the establishment to go out of business. He added the objection was to more people drinking and the Church was not opposed to the expansion being used for only eating. Mr. Hogan stated the subject property is commercial property. Mr. Hogan felt that no matter what the owners do the Church would still feel the use is not compatible. He felt the applicants have tried to comply and have made an honest effort to operate without being obtrusive to the Church. Mr. Green stated he could not see what effect an increase in the size of the building would have on the Church. After questioning by Mr. Green, Mr. Felos felt the Church's main objection to any increase is because the larger the crowd the more problems there will be. Father Theo Anastas, Pastor of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity, stated that up until this afternoon he thought the applicants would be a good neighbor. He stated he was invited to the establishment this morning to be assured that the expanded area being enclosed would take care of the noise factor. Father Anastas stated he was threatened by the attorney, the architect, and the applicants, previous to this item being heard, who stated they would turn the operation into a strip joint if necessary. He stated the Church's objection was not to the applicants but to the concept of Mako's and the outside deck. He also stated the Church objection is that the more people in the building the more potential there will be for trouble. He further stated there is no guarantee the applicants will be the owners and new owners may change the concept of the operation. He felt it appears that, if the Church doesn't do what the applicants want them to do, the threats begin. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Father Anastas stated it is his personal opinion that a fence would diminish some problems and he felt the Church was concerned with protecting its property and possibly the Church was concerned with the aesthetics of a fence. He felt the applicants would do what they say they will do but he was concerned that the Church will be dealing with a different owner in the future. Mr. Johnson advised if there is a new owner the new owner would be required to come before this Board for approval of a change of business ownership. Mr. Hogan stated he did not like to hear that the Church was threatened. Mr. Hogan stated it appears that the type of establishment, regardless of who operated it, would be objectionable. He felt applicants have tried to do everything they can. He stated Mako's was objectionable for different reasons as it had an outside deck, inadequate parking, and was in a residential area. Father Anastas stated he does not want to see applicants out of business and the Church does not have the right to put them out of business. Father Anastas requested that, if the Board approves the request, the Board require applicants to come before this Board again in one year. In final rebuttal, Mr. Kimpton stated he felt the questions regarding the Code were addressed. He stated it is good there are no children around alcoholic beverage sales. He stated applicants are offended about what has happened. He also stated applicants have had no incidents against them. He advised the threat that took place previous to this item being heard was that Mr. Pattemore stated he was approached at one time by a topless operation with an offer to purchase the establishment. He felt there should be some reasonableness to objections made and the Church sells alcoholic beverages when children are present. Mr. Hogan advised that this Board will not base its decision on the possibility of the establishment being sold to a nude club. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Kimpton stated the applicants have offered to hire 5 guards to make sure there are no problems, and the applicants even agreed to place a guard in the Church parking lot for protection. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey stated she personally felt that if the request was denied applicants could still sell alcoholic beverages on premises but the applicants could not sell or carry alcoholic beverages into the expanded area. She added it would then be the City's responsibility to monitor the restriction. Mr. Hamilton felt that everything that has been asked of the applicants has been done. Ms. Nixon felt the hours of operation of the nightclub will not be the same as the main hours of operation of the Church. Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Certificate of Occupancy be procured within 6 months; 2) That a variance to the separation distance be approved by City Commission; and, 3) That approval of alcoholic beverage sales in the expanded area be approved for a period of one year; and 4) That there be no outside speakers. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). 7. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Sunset Square (1863 North Highland Avenue) Stuart S. Golding, Trustee/Peter Georgantas/Athena Liquor, Inc. (Highland Liquor Depot) CU 88-117 Request - 3-PS (Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CC (Commercial Center) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for package sales of alcoholic beverages in the Commercial Center zoning district; the specific request is for approval of a change of business ownership of an existing package liquor store in the Sunset Square Shopping Center which operates under a 3-PS State license; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no comments; and, the Police Department advised that it had one complaint of petty theft involving the owner of the license. Ms. Harvey advised only if the complaint resulted in conviction would approval of the conditional use be invalidated. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the new Occupational License be obtained within six months. Mr. Peter Georgantas, applicant, stated he is buying the subject package store and the request is merely a change of business ownership. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Georgantas stated there will be no change in the type of operation. 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 obtained within six months. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). C. Zoning Atlas Amendment: 1. Portion of M&B 22.02 Sec. 33-28S-16E (Located on the south side of Enterprise Road on the east side of proposed Landmark Drive Extension) (Vogel) Z 88-24 Zoning Atlas: FROM: OL (Limited Office) TO: AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior) The above property is located on the south side of Enterprise Road on the east side of proposed Landmark Drive Extension. The applicant was not present. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for a zoning atlas amendment from OL (Limited Office) to AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior); and, the request for the zoning atlas amendment was prompted by a conditional of approval required by the City Commission and the Development Review Committee that an application to rezone the wetlands area on the property to AL/I be submitted to the City prior to certification of the final site plan and preliminary plat. Ms. Harvey stated the applicant is not particularly in favor of the change but the change is required. She stated the rezoning will preserve the area that is under D.E.R. jurisdiction. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for a zoning atlas amendment from OL (Limited Office) to AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior). After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised she felt the City's rezoning of the property will have no influence on what will happen to similar property in Safety Harbor. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend approval of the request for a zoning atlas amendment from OL (Limited Office) to AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior). Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment and Local Planning Agency Review 1. M&B 23.06, Sec. 04-29S-16E (Located at the southwest corner of Main Street and McMullen-Booth Road) (Florida Power Corp.) A 88-37 LUP 88-27 Request - Annexation and Zoning, CG (General Commercial) Land Use Plan: FROM: Low Density Residential TO: Commercial/Tourist Facilities The above property is located at the southwest corner of Main Street and McMullen-Booth Road. Mr. Ferrell declared a conflict of interest (form attached) in regard to the above request and stated he would not vote on the above request. Atty. Timothy A. Johnson, representative of applicant, advised as follows: The subject property is a small piece of property and has no purpose other than a service station; the property has frontage on a proposed 6-lane divided arterial and C.R. 576; the property is 130 feet from a residential subdivision; to act as a buffer, 26 Oak trees will remain on site; and, a service station will actually generate less new trips per day than a doctor's office because most people getting gasoline are already on the road. He felt the property would not be a proper place for a residential use. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation, CG (General Commercial) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities; City water and sewer are available; and, Public Works requested the abutting right-of-way of Main Street be included in the annexation. Ms. Harvey stated staff was concerned for the residents to the west and she encouraged the applicant to provide as much space as possible between the construction of the building and residences. She stated if the City doesn't approve the request the property may annex into the City of Safety Harbor. Ms. Harvey advised that, in order to provide as much protection as possible to the surrounding property, staff recommended approval of the request for annexation, CG (General Commercial) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated the City has recently gotten requests from residential subdivisions on McMullen-Booth Road to close roads to the subdivisions and many residents want to sell their homes. She stated this is because of the widening of McMullen-Booth Road and the concept of what McMullen-Booth Road will be like in the future. Ms. Harvey advised one letter of objection was received from Robert and Virginia Mullins, 1891 Oak Forest Drive East. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give his comments: Mr. Christian Petersen, 1887 Oak Forest Drive East, stated the interstate is not approved as yet. He also stated there are 7 convenience stores/gas stations within a one-mile radius. He expressed concern about pollution and odor. Mr. Petersen also expressed concern that, if the request is approved, the gas station will operate 24 hours a day. In rebuttal, Mr. Johnson stated the issues raised are issues that will be addressed during site plan review. He advised that the applicant will work with the City and the surrounding neighbors to minimize the impact. He stated that McMullen-Booth Road will be a 6-lane highway. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the request for annexation, CG (General Commercial) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities. Motion passed (5 to 1) with Ms. Nixon voting "nay" and Mr. Ferrell abstaining. 2. Lot 1, Blk. B, Robinwood Sub. and an unplatted parcel lying west of Lot 1, Blk. B, Robinwood Sub. (Located at the northwest corner of the intersection at Soule Road and Main Street) (Ackley) A 88-38 LUP 88-28 Request - Annexation and Zoning, OL (Limited Office) Land Use Plan: FROM: Low Density Residential TO: Residential/Office The above property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection at Soule Road and Main Street. Mr. Larry Crow, representative of applicant, stated the property was recently rezoned by the County to P-1 and was previously residential. He stated applicant is seeking annexation to receive City sewer service. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation, OL (Limited Office) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Residential/Office; City water is available; and, Public Works will determine in what manner City sewer can be provided. She stated the westerly 60 feet is maintained under the County as preservation, and, though the City does not have a preservation category, the City will maintain the property as preservation. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation, OL (Limited Office) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Residential/Office. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to recommend approval of the request for annexation, OL (Limited Office) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Residential/Office. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). E. Chairman's Items Mr. Johnson advised that it is time to nominate a new Chairman and new Vice Chairman for 1989. Mr. Schwob nominated John B. Johnson for Chairman and Edwin Hogan as Vice Chairman for 1989. G. Board and Staff Comments After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Harvey stated she felt that individual Board member's concerns about conditional use requests that also go before the City Commission should be personally addressed to the Commissioners. Mr. Hamilton expressed concern about Traffic Engineering issuing comments on City law that are not in the City Code of Ordinances at the time an item is presented to the Board. He stated the Board must make its decisions on the current Code and Traffic Engineering should do the same. The Board generally disagreed stating that, as long as it is made clear what applies to current Code and what applies to proposed changes, they felt Traffic Engineering is only giving its opinion. Meeting adjourned at 5:52 PM.