Loading...
05/16/1989 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1989 - 1:30 PM Members Present: Vice Chairman Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, and Schwob Members Absent: Chairman Johnson; one member position vacant A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the minutes of the May 2, 1989 meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). Vice Chairman Nixon 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. (CONTINUED FROM 5/2/89) Lot 3 and part of Lot 4, Blk. 84, Mandalay Replat Unit 5 (647 Mandalay Avenue) Laura H. Wagner (The Ship Wreck)/Larry H. Wagner CU 89-27 Request - 4-COP-SRX (On-Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised the applicant has submitted a letter requesting the above item be continued to the Planning and Zoning Meeting of May 30, 1989. Motion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to continue the above request to the Planning and Zoning Meeting of May 30, 1989. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 2. M&B 44.18, Sec. 21-29S-15E (1569 South Ft. Harrison Avenue) Fairwinds Properties, Inc./Sugar Creek Properties, Inc./Veltman & Moore CU 89-32 Request - Use Not Specifically Identified In The Code (Residential Treatment Facility - Increase from 28 to 36 Adults) Zoned - CN (Neighborhood Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for an expanded use of a residential treatment facility from 28 to 36 beds in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district; the governing section of the Land Development Code is Section 136.025(b); conditional use approval was granted by this Board October 18, 1988 for a 28 bed operation and applicant intends to convert 8 private rooms to semi-private rooms increasing the population to 36; and, the Traffic Engineer had no objection. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That there be no detoxification carried out in the facility and no lock-up; and 2) That a site plan be submitted within 30 days showing the capacity and parking requirements. Mr. Jeff Moore, applicant, stated Fairwinds opened its facility in January, 1989. He stated proposed clients prefer semi-private rooms to cut down on the cost and Fairwinds wants to convert the private rooms to semi-private for this purpose. He stated no construction changes will be required and no increase in staff will be required. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Moore stated there will be no changes in procedures as previously stated. After questioning by Mr. Green, Ms. Harvey stated staff anticipates no increase in parking requirements but the applicant needs to clarify the figures within the body of the site plan. 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 there be no detoxification carried out in the facility and no lock-up; and 2) That a site plan be submitted within 30 days showing capacity and parking requirements. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 3. Lot 2, Gulf-To-Bay Shopping Center Sub., (1675 Gulf-To-Bay Boulevard) Waldrest Associates Limited Partnership (Allie's Restaurant)/Marriott Family Restaurants, Inc./James Shimberg CU 89-33 Request - 2-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 2-COP State license; the subject property is the site of the existing Wag's Restaurant which is proposed to be expanded by 580 square feet and changed to Allie's Restaurant; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer noted that a variance is required for 15 parking spaces because there are not enough parking spaces on site to meet the new COP parking requirements; and, the Police Department found no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated the new parking requirements apply only to the expanded portion of the facility. She also stated a variance to the separation requirement from a similarly licensed facility will be required to be approved by the City Commission. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That a parking variance be approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board; 2) That a variance to the separation requirement from a similarly licensed facility be approved by the City Commission; and, 3) That the Building Permit for the expansion be obtained within six months. Atty. Jim Shimberg, Jr., representative of Marriott Family Restaurants, stated applicant intends to expand the Wag's Restaurant by 580 square feet and convert to the restaurant to a new concept. He stated Allie's Restaurants, which are being developed throughout the State, are contemporary, family-style restaurants featuring moderate prices and a food buffet. He noted the percentage of alcoholic beverage sales of the existing Wag's Restaurant is less than one percent of total sales. He advised the Wag's Restaurants were purchased from Walgreen's last year. Mr. Shimberg stated applicant has no objection to the recommended conditions. 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 conditions: 1) That a parking variance be approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board; 2) That a variance to the separation requirement from a similarly licensed facility be approved by the City Commission; and, 3) That the Building Permit for the expansion be obtained within six months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 4. Lots 7 through 13 and 15 through 20, Blk. B, Bayside Sub. No. 5 E & G Investors, Inc. (Gondolier Pizza)/Bill Sioutis/Calvin Samuel CU 89-34 Request - 2-COP (On-Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised the applicant requests the above subject be continued because the applicant is changing the alcoholic beverage license designation. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to continue the above request to the Planning and Zoning Meeting of May 30, 1989. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 5. M&B 31.01, Sec. 30-28S-16E (2696 U.S. Hwy. 19 North) Mobil Oil Corp. (Mobil Oil Service Station #02-483)/Angela Adams CU 89-35 Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for package sales of alcoholic beverages in the Highway Commercial zoning district; the specific request is for a new 2-APS State license for use in the proposed convenience store addition in conjunction with gasoline sales and a car wash at the subject location; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no comment; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated staff received notice this date that the actual holder of the State license will be Station Operators, Inc., not Mobil Oil. Ms. Harvey also stated that no variances will be required as the applicant agrees to no deliveries between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That there be a successful background check completed by the Police Department; and, 2) That the Building Permit be obtained within six months. Atty. Angela Adams, representative of applicant, stated Mobil Oil will be rebuilding the site. She advised two variances will be required, one for setback requirements and one for green space. Ms. Adams explained the surrounding uses and felt there would be no problem with package sales at the subject location. She felt the use would be compatible with the surrounding area and there would be no hardships to the surrounding uses. After questioning by Mr. Green, Ms. Adams stated there will be two accesses, one on the south end of the property on to U.S. 19 and one on S.R. 580 as far as possible from the intersection. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Ms. Harvey stated, since variances are required for redeveloping the site, a condition of approval should be added that approval is granted subject to approval of necessary variances. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That there be a successful background check completed by the Police Department; 2) That the Building Permit be obtained within six months; and, 3) That the necessary variances be approved by the Development Code Adjustment Board. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated the applicant must discontinue sale at midnight according to existing City ordinance. Ms. Nixon expressed concern about traffic. Motion carried (4 to 1) with Ms. Nixon voting "nay." 6. M&B 32.06, Sec. 02-29S-15E (1425 Sunset Point Road) Stephen Ballis, Trustee (Rosemaries Garden Cafe)/George & Rosemarie Smith/K. Paul McGuire CU 89-36 Request - 2-COP (On-Premise Consumption and Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - OL (Limited Office) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on-premise consumption and package sales of alcoholic beverages in the Limited Office zoning district; the specific request is for a 2-COP State license; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); applicant intends reopening a restaurant now to be called Rosemaries Garden Cafe; the Traffic Engineer commented a parking variance would be required; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated no parking variance would be required because the property is grandfathered for a restaurant use as the restaurant is being reestablished within the time specified in the Land Development Code. Ms. Harvey stated the property was rezoned to Limited Office during the areawide rezonings in the early 1980s, the restaurant existed at the time of the rezonings and was recognized as a nonconforming use. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That approval is granted for on-premise consumption only; and, 2) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within six months. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated that a condition may be included that a new Occupational License be obtained within six months but whether fees for the last three years should be paid would need to be deferred to the Occupational License office. Atty. K. Paul McGuire, representative of current and prospective owners, stated the new use will be a great improvement over the old use. The applicant intends a family restaurant in which the alcoholic beverage sales will be incidental to food sales. He stated package sales was requested because of anticipated carry-out food orders. He advised no liquor store is intended for the site. He stated applicant is requesting a closing time of 11:00 PM. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. McGuire stated applicant would prefer to have package sales but would have no objection to approval of on-premise consumption only. Ms. Harvey clarified the reason staff recommendation did not include package sales was that package sales reinforces the commercial/retail activity that the City was trying to not have in the area. Ms. Harvey advised one letter of objection was received in opposition to the above request. In opposition to the above request, Ms. Helen Chapman, 1432 Sunset Point Road, stated she lives directly across the street. She stated 5 restaurants have been at the location, 2 of which were bars. She expressed concern about package sales. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Chapman stated she does not want beer and wine at the subject location. In rebuttal, Atty. McGuire stated this restaurant will not be like previous establishments as the applicant intends a family restaurant operation. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. McGuire stated he would have no objection to a condition that limited alcoholic beverage sales to no later than 11:00 PM. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That approval is granted for on-premise consumption only; 2) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within six months; 3) That there be no alcoholic beverage sales after 11:00 PM; and, 4) That an Occupational License be obtained within six months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 7. Lots 8 through 11, Blk. 8, Clearwater Beach Sub. Rev. (32 Bay Esplanade) Nostimo, Inc. (Pick Kwik Food Stores, Inc.)/Harry D. Hasty CU 89-37 Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial) Mr. Hamilton declared a conflict of interest and advised he will excuse himself from the Board for the subject item (see form attached). Ms. Harvey advised since there will be no quorum the above item must be continued. Motion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to continue the above request to the Planning and Zoning Meeting scheduled for May 30, 1989. Motion carried (4 to 0) with Mr. Hamilton abstaining. C. Annexations and Zonings: 1. Lot 5, Blk. A, Clearwater Highlands, Unit A (Located at 1857 East Drive) (Collins) A 89-06 Request - Annexation and Zoning RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") The above property is located at 1857 East Drive. The applicant was not present. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation and RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning; the request is consistent with the Low Density Residential Land Use Plan classification; the lot is developed with a single family residence; all required fees have been paid; and City water and sewer are available. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation and RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the annexation and RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 2. M&B 13.11, Sec. 12-29S-15E (Located at 1151 Kapp Drive) (NUS Corp.) A 89-07 Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL (Limited Industrial) The above property is located at 1151 Kapp Drive. The applicant was not present. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Hamilton, to continue the above request to the Planning and Zoning Meeting of May 30, 1989. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 3. M&Bs 34.26, 34.27, and 34.35, Sec. 01-29S-15E; M&B 21.01, Sec. 12-29S-15E (Located on the west side of Hercules Avenue, north of S.C.L. Railroad) (Clearwater Concrete Industries, Inc.) A 89-09 Request - Annexation and Zoning, IL (Light Industrial) The above property is located on the west side of Hercules Avenue, north of S.C.L. Railroad. Mr. Bruce McLaughlin, representative of property owner and prospective purchaser, stated applicant is requesting annexation and zoning. He stated the applicant is actually requesting a heavy industrial stipulation even though the City has no heavy industrial. He felt the request could be accomplished by either a development agreement or some kind of conditional use under the Light Industrial zoning. He stated the applicant wishes to annex primarily for City sewer and water services. He stated the existing use is a defunct concrete plant. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. McLaughlin stated the proposed use would probably be more intensive than the concrete plant. He stated proposed use would be similar but the level of activity of the excavating contractor and the variety of equipment would probably be more intense than that of the concrete plant. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation and IL (Light Industrial) zoning; the petition for annexation provided for a stipulation for the allowability of heavy industrial use; presently, the Land Development Code does not recognize what is generally known as heavy industrial uses; Clearwater Concrete would be in that category and their use and continuance of use through resale of the property is grandfathered in and may continue; the City felt the industrial area would be primarily developed with lighter industrial-type uses and heavy industrial uses were not considered to be welcome at the time the Land Use Plan in 1979 was adopted; an amendment to the Land Development Code would be required to allow heavy industrial uses, either in the Industrial zoning district itself or by the incorporation of some heavy industrial uses as conditional uses; and, the City currently has no enabling legislation for development agreements. Ms. Harvey expressed concern about the heavy asphalt use and consideration of heavy industrial uses changes the context of what the City thinks of as allowable industrial uses in Clearwater. Ms. Harvey stated as follows: The property is currently classified on the Land Use Plan as Industrial and no amendment to the City's plan is necessary; the applicant would need to obtain an easement of the adjacent parcel in order for City sewer to be extended to the property; City water can be extended to serve the property; natural gas is available; and, Sanitation notes that the City would not take over the refuse service on the subject property until the expiration of the current contract existing on the property and at the expiration the dumpster would need to be relocated as required by the City's Sanitation Division. She stated there are no staff nor departmental objections to the petition for annexation for Light Industrial with continuation of the existing use. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation and IL (Light Industrial) zoning. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Harvey stated applicant can continue the present operation if annexed, but a heavier use or expansion of the use would not be permitted under the current Land Development Code. Ms. Harvey stated, it was her understanding that the heavy industrial use would be permitted in the County on that portion of property that is zoned for heavy industrial uses but if a heavier use was intended for the portion current zoned for light industrial use, an amendment to the County Plan would be required. After questioning by Mr. Green, Ms. Harvey advised her recommendation for approval is based upon the plan as it exists. She clarified that if the subject request is approved, the approval is based upon the current use at the subject property. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Mr. McLaughlin clarified which portions of the property are currently zoned in the County as Light Industrial and which portions of the property are currently zoned in the County as Heavy Industrial. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised that to her knowledge, if the request is approved, it would be the first approval for a new heavy industrial use in the City since the early 1970s. Mr. Hamilton stated he is opposed to heavy industrial but is in favor of light industrial. Following Board discussion on heavy versus light industrial uses, Ms. Harvey felt it would be important for the Board to clarify if they are opposed to heavy industrial uses because the applicant provided the heavy industrial use as a condition on the petition for annexation filed with the City. She added that the City Commission has discussed the possibility of amending the Code to allow for the use but it was done in consideration of Clearwater Concrete being an important industry to Clearwater. She stated there was no discussion regarding asphalt processing. She also clarified that the Countywide Plan having a large majority of the property shown as heavy industrial does not extend entitlement to heavy industrial under the jurisdiction of the City. She added that the Special Act that governs the Countywide Plan specifically states that if there is a conflicting Land Use Plan classification between the County and a municipality, the lesser intensity is the classification that will prevail. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey advised it is the applicant's option to develop the property under the County's regulations but if development is done in the City, it must be in accordance with the City's Code and Land Use Plan. Mr. Green expressed concern that if an exception is made for the subject property, other exceptions will also have to be made. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend approval of the annexation and IL (Light Industrial) zoning, but the Board would be opposed to an amendment to the Land Development Code to allow heavy industrial use for the property. Mr. Hamilton felt the Board would see an amendment before it went to the City Commission which could be addressed at that time, but he felt the Board's comment that it is opposed to the heavy industrial use proposed should be reflected in the minutes. Ms. Nixon expressed concern about the impact on surrounding industrial uses. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated it would not be possible at this time to add a conditional use section to the Light Industrial zoning district because of the provisions of the Special Act that govern the Countywide Plan. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). D. Zoning Atlas Amendment: 1. Portions M&B 32.00, Sec. 21-28S-16E and Portions M&B 41.01, Sec. 20-28S-16E (Eight Parcels) (Located at 3030 McMullen-Booth Road) (City of Clearwater) Z 89-06 Zoning Atlas: FROM: P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) AND OS/R (Recreation/Open Space) TO:AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior) The above property is located at 3030 McMullen-Booth Road. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for a Zoning Atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) and OS/R (Recreation/Open Space) to AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior) for eight pieces of property located east of Landmark Drive, west of McMullen-Booth Road and north of S.R. 580; the property in question is the property to be developed at the Chi Chi Rodriguez Golf Course; the areas requested for rezoning have been classified as being under D.E.R. jurisdiction; and, a condition of site plan approval was that the subject parcels be rezoned to AL/I in order to have zoning protection on the parcels. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for a Zoning Atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) and OS/R (Recreation/Open Space) to AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior). No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the request for a Zoning Atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) and OS/R (Recreation/Open Space) to AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior). Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). E. Land Development Code Text Amendment and Local Planning Agency Review: 1. Chapter 136, Section 136.024(d) (PROPOSED ORDINANCE) To establish minimum distance requirements between alcoholic beverage establishments licensed for package sales (off-premise consumption) LDCA 89-07 Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for amendment to the Land Development Code, Section 136.024(d), relating to the separation requirements of establishments selling alcoholic beverages; this request was initiated by former Commissioner Jim Berfield who requested the City Commission look at the fact that there is currently a separation requirement for establishments licensed for on-premise consumption but there is no separation requirement for establishments selling for off-premise consumption; in consideration of the construction of the existing separation requirements and the types of licenses it applies to, as issued by the State, the City Attorney drafted an ordinance to provide for separation requirement for the 1-APS, 2-APS, and 3-PS licensed facilities, which licenses allow for the sale of beer, beer and wine, and beer, wine and liquor, respectively, for off-premise consumption; the specific separation requirement proposed is 200 feet as is the separation requirement for on-premise consumption for licensed establishments that are similarly licensed; the result of this change, for the most part, is going to affect new package sale operations; all establishments that are currently licensed to sell alcoholic beverages are grandfathered in in the same sense that other applications are grandfathered in, that is business ownership may change and the business may be resold; a variance to the separation requirement would not be required for business ownership change; and, only new licenses would be required to seek variances to the separation distance before the City Commission. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey advised the grandfathering would apply to those establishments closed for less than one year. In support of the above request, Ms. Anne Garris, 38 Acacia Street, stated the Clearwater Beach Association requested this subject be clarified in the Land Development Code. She stated the Association voted to support the change. She stated there are 53 various types of alcoholic beverage establishments on a 2 1/2 mile section of Clearwater Beach. She felt this Code amendment was desperately needed. She stated the license to sell alcoholic beverages is a privilege, not a right. In opposition to the above request, Atty. John Blakely, representative of Pick Kwik, questioned whether the ordinance would affect current businesses. Ms. Harvey advised Mr. Blakely the ordinance would not affect a change of business ownership of a State license but the specific request with which Mr. Blakely is concerned would be affected because it is dealing with a change of license designation from a 2-COP to a 2-APS. She advised the separation distance requirement would apply. She clarified that the separation distance would apply if the ordinance is approved and in effect at the time Mr. Blakely's specific request is made. Mr. Blakely advised that Pick Kwik opposes the ordinance and, though not retained by other similar operation, he felt other similar enterprises would oppose the ordinance. He felt the effect of the ordinance would be anti-competitive and would give a monopoly to the first business at an intersection. He felt there is no public purpose to sustain the ordinance. He stated the responsibility for regulating these operations lies with the State and felt restrictive zoning is improper. He felt the only reason the ordinance is being considered is because there is a similar requirement for on-premise consumption. He felt there was no public detriment by two convenience stores across the street from each other selling package sales of alcoholic beverages. Ms. Harvey stated the City regulates the location of alcoholic beverage sales each time this Board reviews a conditional use application. She stated this Board reviews whether it is proper for sales to occur, either package sales or for on-premise consumption. She stated the City Commission has done so for years under a different procedure. She felt it is a valid purpose to be able to do so. She stated the City Commission and this Board have always had concerns about the number of establishments providing package sales throughout the City. Ms. Harvey stated this regulation, in her opinion, is a public purpose. Mr. Schwob felt APS sales seem to have a negative impact on the City. He stated the applicant does have the opportunity to seek a variance to the separation distance requirement. The Board was in agreement with the proposed ordinance. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as written. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). F. Director's Items Ms. Harvey advised that Board Member John Ehrig resigned from the Board because he will be relocating to the east coast of Florida. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised the earliest the proposed ordinance regarding separation requirements of package sales establishments could be adopted would be June 15, 1989. She clarified that those applicants already filed for package sales would be exempt from the separation requirement. The Board expressed concern that there may not be a quorum for the Pick Kwik item on May 30, 1989. Ms. Harvey stated it is a hardship when there is a missing Board member but there must be five for a quorum. Meeting adjourned at 3:06 PM.