02/13/1990 MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1990
Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Mazur (arrived 1:42 p.m.), Schwob, Ferrell, Green, and Hamilton
Also Present: M. A. Galbraith, City Attorney; James M. Polatty, Jr., Director of Planning and Development; Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the minutes of the January 30, 1990 meeting as corrected. 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. Continued from January 30, 1990
Lot 12 less street, A. H. Duncan's Resub. (1448B S Missouri Ave.)
Cecelia S, Schwartz D.S. Pallet Service
CU 90-07
Request - 1. Outdoor retail sales, displays, and/or storage and
2. Wholesaling/Distributing
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. He advised that 4 letters and 2 petitions have been received in objection.
Mr. Peter Rollins, 1335 Tioga, representing the applicant stated Mr. DeVivo has cleaned up Lot 11 and is no longer using it and that he desires to be a good neighbor. Mr. Rollins stated
Mr. DeVivo intends to comply with all zoning regulations, and does not feel this operation has any negative effect on the neighborhood.
The following persons appeared in opposition to the above request:
Mr. John Jenkins, 1146 Alma Drive, stated his property joins the subject property and although some clean-up has been done, this operation is unacceptable in this neighborhood. Mr.
Jenkins strongly objects to giving the business 18 months to relocate because he has already been operating for 7 years. In response to a question by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Jenkins stated
the conditions recommended by staff would be helpful but he felt that the business should not be allowed at all, and that 18 months is too long.
Discussion ensued, in which Mr. Mazur asked staff what had been done to address the concern of mice and rats. In response Mr. Shuford replied the pallets will have to be moved off the
ground to the pavement. Mr. Hamilton added he has visited the site and found no evidence of rodents.
Mrs. Lois Cormier, 1525 McLennon St., stated she appeared 2 weeks ago to ask this Board to deny this request and since that time has done some research. She provided the following information:
Mrs. Schwartz only owns a portion of Lot 11, which is zoned residential and that there are 3 houses on another portion of Lot 11. Mrs. Cormier provided copies of minutes from the September
14, 1978 meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeal (BAA) where Mrs. Schwartz had applied for a special exception for an auto repair shop on Lot 12, and had stated she was in the
process of acquiring Lot 11 to be used as a buffer zone - that has not occurred. Mrs. Cormier added that in 1979 Mrs. Schwartz applied to BAA to pave Lot 11, this request was denied.
Mrs. Cormier also advised the Board that not too far from Mr. DeVivo's home there is a dump with a stack of pallets started. Mrs. Cormier felt it makes no difference how long the
pallets have been there it does not make it legal and asks the Board deny this request.
The applicant, Mr. Dominic DeVivo, 1360 Pomelo Avenue, stated that since he spoke to the Board on January 30, 1990 he has cleaned up Lot 11 considerably and presented pictures he had
taken to show how the lot looks on the morning of the hearing. He also presented a petition of support with 50 signatures and a letter of support (attached). Mr. DeVivo said that could
go along with most of the staff recommendations, except the restriction of hours of operation. In response to questions by the Board members, Mr. DeVivo advised the repair work
on the pallets is done inside. Mr. DeVivo stated that he wants to move his business as it has grown considerably and has to find another location and is in the process of looking and
will move as soon as possible.
Mrs. Shirley DeVivo, 1360 Pomelo Avenue, stated she wanted to clarify to the Board that they (Mr. & Mrs. DeVivo) do not live by a "dump", the pallets stacked by their home belong to
someone else, and that they have not had a pallet business for 7 years that they had previously had a garbage business at the same location, and the pallet business has only been in
operation for 3 years and they have never had a complaint.
In rebuttal, Mr. John Jenkins stated he objects to this business because Mr. DeVivo has been violating the law for 3 years and that the business is not acceptable in the neighborhood.
He stated has never objected to anyone making a living honestly and if the Board decides to approve a fence is to be put up and all the other staff recommendations, then that is the
law. Mr. Jenkins noted will be watching to be sure everything is done right.
In rebuttal, Mr. Peter Rollins stated Mr. DeVivo needs all the time he can get to find another location for his business and that making him move would probably put him out of business.
Mr. DeVivo's business provides a valuable service to the City and the County as it is a recycle type business in which he refurbishes old pallets and also employs people in drug rehabilitation
programs. He felt it is important for the Board to give him as much time as possible.
Discussion ensued with Board members expressing concerns including the following: the property owner's responsibility for proper use of property, and a solution should be reached that
would allow Mr. DeVivo's business to survive and establish proper use for this property as soon as possible recognizing the rights and needs of the neighboring properties.
A motion was made by Mr. Mazur, and seconded by Mr. Schwob to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: A) This conditional use request does not comply with the
standards of approval listed in Section 137.011(d) of the Land Development Code except as conditioned as follows: 1) A 6 foot opaque wooden stockade fence be installed within 30 days
of this hearing with appropriate landscaping as required in the City's Land Development Code along the northern and western property lines of (Lot 11) currently zoned CG; 2) A building
permit must be procured within thirty (30) days of this hearing; 3) The height of the stacked wooden pallets are not to exceed eight (8) feet in height; 4) All objects currently stored
in the residential zoned (RS-8) district (Lot 11) be removed within ten (10) days of this hearing. 5) Pick-ups & deliveries shall be not be permitted from 10PM to 7AM Monday through
Saturday and not permitted at any time on Sunday; 6) The conditional use permit will expire on 2/13/91; 7) All pallets must be stored indoors within 12 months of this hearing; and
8) Applicant shall provide periodic pest control service to include rodent control not less frequently than monthly and provide evidence thereof. Motion carried 6 to 1 (Mr. Johnson
voting "nay").
2. Lots 1-10, Blk. C, Bayside Shores
(735 Bayway Blvd.)
William and Donna M. Kebort
Walt Rozanski (Sharky's of Clearwater, Inc.)
CU 90-09
Request - 4-COP-SRX (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) (EXISTING LICENSE/CHANGE OF HOURS OF OPERATION)
Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Mr. Walter P. Rozanski, 1215 Bolivar Ct., Palm Harbor, the applicant, stated that in August of 1989 when the conditional use was reviewed by this Board, they were burdened with all the
problems created by the Dock of the Bay. He said that the intention for Sharky's was a new format and different operation and felt they have done this. Mr. Rozanski stated one of the
conditions of approval in August of 1989 was the requirement for security guards, and due to economic ramifications they have only used security guards based on how busy it is, or when
problems arise and that there is always management personnel on the property. He felt they have complied with all requirements and have tried to be a good neighbor. Mr. Rozanski noted
that they maintain
a 55% food sales and presented a menu which does not advertise alcohol, just food. Mr. Rozanski asked the Board approve at least a trial period of 12 months of closing at 2:00 AM.
Mr. Noel B. Woods, 640 So. Bayway Blvd., stated he felt Sharky's should be allowed to stay open until 2AM, as there are no restaurants open past 12:00 midnight on the south end of the
beach. He advised the patrons
range in age from 20's to 60's and he eats there frequently and has never observed any problems with any patrons, there is no dance floor or loud music. He presented a petition of support
(attached).
Ms. Judy Armstrong, 724 So. Bayway Blvd., in support of the applicant stated she lives directly across the street from Sharky's and has lived there for almost 2 years and has never experienced
any problems with Sharky's and stated she does not understand why they were imposed with 12PM closing and felt they should be permitted to remain open until 2AM as requested.
Mr. Mazur explained that many residents of the area spoke in opposition to the request in August of 1989 which is why the Board imposed a trial period of 6 months of 12PM closing.
Ms. Kathleen Fitzgerald, 665 Poinsettia Avenue, stated she works until 11PM and there is no place else to go other than Sharky's that is relaxing and safe, and the Police Department
is right across the street. She felt Sharky's is completely different than the Dock of the Bay and that they should be allowed to stay open until 2AM as requested.
Mr. Timothy Tutt, 129 Overstreet Court, Palm Harbor, in support of the applicant stated he likes to bring his sales clients to Sharky's on the beach because it is a quiet place and there
is nothing open past 10PM where you can get something to eat. He noted there is a lot of family type patrons in Sharky's around 10 or 11 PM and if they have to close at 12PM, it is
too late to get anything to eat.
Mr. Harry Cline, 400 Cleveland Street, attorney representing Mr. Herb Leonhardt, owner of the Bel Crest Hotel, stated there are two issues to be addressed at this hearing; whether or
not Sharky's hours should be extended and whether or not it should be closed. He stated he hired a private investigator to investigate Sharky's who will testify. Mr. Cline advised
this establishment was before this Board 6 months ago and was conditionally approved on the basis that this was going to be a family restaurant. He presented a copy of an advertisement
from the Clearwater Beach Reporter from October 26, 1989 to show how the business is being marketed (attached), that this advertisement is not selling a family restaurant. Mr. Cline
stated he agrees with staff except that it fails to meet criteria because it is incompatible and is not consistent with surrounding uses on the entire street, which is almost exclusively
residential condominium or motel uses. Mr. Cline presented a petition of opposition (attached) with approximately 40 signatures from neighbors, and 4 letters from former customers of
Mr. Leonhardt who stated they would not be back because they could not sleep due to noise from Sharky's. Mr. Cline asked on behalf of his client, and others in this predominantly residential
neighborhood on a secondary street with no other similar commercial establishments that the Board deny this request.
Mr. Jack Dowling, private investigator, reported that he visited Sharky's on 3 different dates at several different times and noted a total count of customers consuming food and on the
average only 15% of the customers were consuming food and that the consumption of alcoholic beverages seemed to be the most prominent activity. Mr. Dowling advised he did not observe
any security guards on the premises or any management personnel outside the establishment. Mr. Dowling presented a drawing of the interior of the establishment (attached) which shows
no designated restaurant area and the center of which is a bar. He also noted that on one occasion he observed customers move tables and chairs for dancing at which an employee of Sharky's
turned up the music quite loud and turned on a disco light. In response to a question by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Dowling stated that at no time while he was present did any "bikini contest"
such as was advertised take place.
Ms. Audrey Thomas, 830 South Gulfview Blvd., stated she has been a resident since 1978 and went through the Dock of the Bay experience and all the problems caused by that establishment.
She advised that a spokesperson for Sharky's
had made the statement that they expect to make a good percentage of their profit from midnight to 2AM, when other establishments close. She stated no matter what kind of security measures
they promise, the neighbors will still be subjected to obscenities being shouted, fights and other noises made by patrons at closing time and urges the Board deny the 2AM closing request.
Mr. Paul Scholz, 800 South Gulfview Blvd., stated he agreed with the concerns expressed by others speaking in opposition and added he is afraid if a 2AM closing is granted, all the problems
would start all over again. Mr. Scholz said he has walked around the building several times and never observed any security guards. He stated he felt that the 2AM closing creates too
many problems and requests denial.
Mrs. Marian DiNatale, 830 South Gulfview Blvd., stated she feels Sharky's is designed to be a bar and grille and not a restaurant, and has never seen a full house crowd and felt the
business does not warrant a 2AM closing. There is a new restaurant, The Gondolier, and this establishment is doing a great deal of business because it is designed to be a restaurant
and appeals to families and Sharky's does not.
Mrs. Doris K. Roane, 716 Bayway Blvd., stated her home is across the street from Sharky's and on February 6, 1990 she called the Police Department to file a noise complaint after be
awakened around midnight by Sharky's patrons in their parking lot. Mrs. Roane stated she does not want to be awakened at 2AM. She feels Sharky's is primarily a bar, not a restaurant
and requests denial of the extension of hours.
In discussion, the Board members addressed many concerns including the following: the 12 midnight closing maintaining better control over problems; the conditional use having been
approved for only 6 months; and the necessity of the condition requiring the applicant to provide 2 security guards.
A motion was made by Ms. Nixon to deny the request for extension of hours of operation, and to extend the approval of the conditional use subject to the following conditions: 1) A permanent
12:00 midnight closing time; 2) No outdoor speakers are permitted; and 3) the kitchen must remain open to within one hour of closing. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
3. M&B 32.04, Sec. 13-29S-15E (1825 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.)
George & Rita Cousin
Brian R. Keller and Mark Morell (Formerly Saucy's, new name not determined)
CU 90-10
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation, and advised that no correspondence has been received either in support of or in opposition
to this request.
In response to question by Ms. Nixon in regard Mr. Crawford's comment as to parking requirements, Mr. Polatty explained that there is some confusion as to interpretation of Code requirements
in regard to parking for alcoholic beverage establishments and this issue is being addressed. For this request, staff has determined that parking is acceptable.
Mr. Steve Siebert, 911 Chestnut St., attorney representing the applicant, stated the applicant will take an existing vacant building (formerly Saucy's) remodel it, remove the bar and
reopen it with a restaurant. It will be called the Island Bay Cafe which will be a seafood grille. He advised that some asphalt will be removed and replaced with landscaping and the
parking lot configuration will remain the same and will be paved and restriped. Mr. Siebert provided an artist's rendition of the new restaurant and asked the Board approve this request.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob and seconded by Mr. Green to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) Additional landscaping be provided in area on north side
of a fenced service area to sidewalk (east end of building) and minimum 5 ft. landscape strip along Virginia Lane be provided; and 2) the alcoholic beverage license must be obtained
within six (6) months. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
4. M&B 23-11, Sec. 17-29S-15E (430 Park Place Blvd.)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (Hilarity's Restaurant/Comedy Scene)
Brett Fisher, President/S.B. Lee, Inc.
CU 90-11
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation, and advised that no correspondence has been received either in support of or in opposition
to this request.
Ms. Nixon felt the limitation of hours of operation should be deleted as a condition of approval so that applicant would not have to reapply to make changes for hours of operation.
Mr. Hamilton agreed this condition is not necessary and should be deleted.
Mr. Brett Fisher, 2330 Catalonia Way, St. Petersburg, the applicant, stated he would appreciate the limitation of hours not be a condition of approval since they do schedule banquets
on Mondays and would like the option of staying open later for special parties. He stated there are no variances required. Mr. Fisher advised the establishment is a Comedy Club/Restaurant
which is currently operating at 401 U.S. 19, at the Rodeway Inn, and are relocating to a larger facility with better conditions.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Ferrell and seconded by Mr. Hamilton to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) City Commission granting the alcoholic beverage separation
distance variance; 2) The applicant must procure an alcoholic beverage license; 3) The applicant must procure a building permit within six (6) months from date of City Commission
approval. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
5. Lot 41, Blk. A, Barbour Morrow Sub. (432 Poinsettia Ave.)
Frank and Maria Iocolano, Joseph and Lucy Caraco, Anthony and Louise Linares/Nancy E. Bock
CU 90-12
Request - Outdoor commercial recreation/entertainment (bicycle and roller skate rental)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation, and advised that one letter of objection was received.
Ms. Nancy Bock, 115 Ashley Lakes Drive, Norcross, Georgia, the applicant, stated the request is to operate a bicycle/roller skate/beach equipment rental business and will be marketed
as family fun, all equipment will be stored inside. There will be no mopeds, motor vehicles or skateboards rented. Ms. Bock added she inquired if there was any ordinance in the City
of Clearwater against roller skating on the Causeway and was told there is not. She feels that roller skate rental should be allowed. Ms. Bock stated complete instructions will be
given to anyone renting any equipment and return policy will be 1 hour before dark for safety. In response to a question by Mr. Mazur, Ms. Bock replied the intention is not to restrict,
but to recommend to people renting skates to use them on the Causeway only.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
In discussion the Board members addressed concerns including the following: the renters being unfamiliar with skates and the possibility of knocking people down on the sidewalks and
the inability to restrict and control where and how the renters will use the skates.
Motion was made by Mr. Mazur and seconded by Ms. Nixon to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) No skateboards or roller skates are permitted to be rented;
2) No bicycles are permitted to be stored or displayed on any City property; and 3) an occupation license must be obtained within 6 (six) months. Motion carried unanimously (6 to
0).
C. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment,
Land Development Code Text Amendment,
and Local Planning Agency Review:
1. Master Site Plan Review and Zoning Atlas Amendment:
(Continued from January 16, 1990)
Lots 1 and 2, Sec. 6-29-16 & Sec. 7-29-16
(Loehmann's Plaza) (Located at the NW corner of U.S. 19
& N.E. Coachman Rd.)
Principal Mutual Life Insurance/Brandon Nu-West Clearwater, Ltd.)
Z 90-01
ZONING ATLAS
FROM: CC (Commercial Center
TO: CPD (Commercial Planned Development)
Mr. Polatty gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation and added that this site was developed in the County under one zoning, annexed into the
City under another zoning, and rezoned in 1985 and is under a third zoning designation which has led to the 18 variances.
Mr. Keith Appenzeller, 3135 S.R. 580, representing the applicant, stated it is the desire to develop the outparcel that is the only undeveloped portion of Loehmann's Plaza. Mr. Appenzeller
reviewed the troubled history of this site and stated that due to the unique situation, the request is to rezone the entire Loehmann's Plaza area in order to bring it into conformance
so that the remaining outparcel may be developed as was the original intent and asked the Board approve this request.
In opposition, Mr. Don Allen, 1633 Coachman Acres Lane, president of and spokesman for the Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association stated he feels further development of this property
is an outrage and expressed concerned about the traffic impact and the preservation of the trees. He stated he feels an auto service center development would be detrimental to the neighborhood
and asked that the Board deny this request.
Mr. Mazur explained that the approval of the auto service center use is not the subject of the request before the Board this date. If the rezoning is approved, the applicant would have
to come back before this Board at a later date to obtain conditional use approval for the auto service center.
In rebuttal, Mr. Appenzeller, explained in regard to the traffic situation, they have been working with staff to determine uses for that parcel that would have minimal impact, with the
10% rule in mind, this use would generate less than 1/2% degradation of the level of service.
Mr. Phillip Saia, 8740 Cardinal Road, an employee of Brandon Nu-West stated they did not sell the parcel, but in 1984 the 2 parcels were released from the mortgage and 4 years later
foreclosure took place, and because those parcels had been released they were not involved in the foreclosure. The foreclosure left 3 outparcels owned by Brandon Nu-West. The rest of
the Loehmann's Plaza property is owned by Principal Mutual Life Insurance Company. Mr. Saia stated because of financial difficulties created by this situation, they sold the Jiffy Lube
parcel. He advised these parcels were always designated to be developed, but they are not necessarily limited to the auto center use, and that if this use is objectionable, they will
find a lesser use that would be acceptable.
In response to a question by Mr. Polatty, Mr. Saia stated that the shopping center had not been sold that he is aware of.
Discussion ensued with concerns being expressed in regard to the auto service use, preservation of the trees, open space requirements for the larger site, the traffic impact, the property
being undevelopable status of the property if this request were denied.
Motion was made by Mr. Green and seconded by Mr. Mazur to approve the rezoning to CPD with related Master Site Plan and Subdivision Plat as it supports the standards for approval of
Section 137.016 of the Land Development Code subject to: 1) a Unity of Title being recorded in concert with the plat to maintain the site as one unified development; 2) a tree survey
of all trees with a min. 4" DBH for proposed Lot 4 shall be submitted prior to review of the Master Site
Plan/Subdivision Plat by the Development Review Committee; 3) design of Lot 4 shall consider preservation of the maximum number of trees possible, as found to be acceptable by the Environmental
Management Division; 4) any future auto service or repair requires conditional use approval; 5) trees shall be provided in the exterior landscaped buffers adjacent to the streets in
accordance with current perimeter landscaping requirements; and 6) signage shall be restricted by considering the site as one unified development. Motion carried 4 to 2, with Ms. Nixon
and Mr. Johnson voting "nay".
2. Chapter 136, Section 136.028, to require a traffic impact study
for certain developments within the City; providing an effective date.
(Continued from January 30, 1990)
Mr. Polatty explained that this is basically an emergency ordinance to alleviate the burden that has been placed on staff to do the work for the applicant in regard to traffic impact
study.
Discussion ensued in which concern was expressed as to small property/business owners being required to provide a traffic impact study. Mr. Polatty responded this Board could recommend
an amendment so that properties that meet certain requirements be exempt. He explained the Comprehensive Plan mandates that when a development is on a backlogged road, that before a
development can be approved it must be shown how traffic will be mitigated, and the purpose of this ordinance is to make it the responsibility of the developers/property owners to provide
this evidence until June 1, 1990 when the City's Concurrency Management System will be in place.
A motion was made by Ms. Nixon and seconded by Mr. Mazur to approve as presented with addition that properties that meet the minimis as defined by Pinellas County are exempt. Motion
was carried 4 to 1 with Mr. Hamilton voting "nay".
3. An ordinance of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code;
amending Section 135.134, Code of Ordinances, to allow television and radio broadcast
studios as permitted uses in the Commercial Center (CC) district.
Mr. Polatty advised the applicant is not present and this item will be continued to the February 27, 1990 meeting.
E. Chairman's Items - None
F. Director's Items - None
G. Board & Staff Comments - Mr. Hamilton commented in regard to Sharky's, he felt the comment by Lt. Palombo supports letting them stay open until 2:00AM, in that the midnight closing
time at this location has been very effective in eliminating the numerous complaints from the neighborhood, that the reduction of complaints could also be due to good management and
proper handling of the business itself and not just because they are closing at midnight.
H. WORKSHOP - Alcoholic Beverage Sales - Not discussed.
Meeting adjourned 6:00PM.
____________________________________________________
James M. Polatty, Jr., AICP, Director
Planning and Development Department