Loading...
05/15/1990 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, May 15, 1990 Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Mazur, Schwob, Hamilton and Gans Members Excused: Mr. Ferrell Also Present: James M. Polatty, Director of Planning and Development Scott Shuford, Planning Manager Michael Wright, Assistant City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, and seconded by Ms. Nixon, to approve the minutes of the May 1, 1990 meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). 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. (DEFERRED FROM APRIL 17, 1990) M & B 23.05, Sec. 5-29-16 (1925 U.S. 19 North) Robert Rolf, Trustee/Clearwater Cinema n' Drafthouse CU 90-24 Request - To permit on premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor Zoned - CC (Commercial Center) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendations. Mr. Shane Bryant, General Manager of Clearwater Entertainment, Inc., representative of applicant, stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use to transfer business ownership. The business will be run as before with no changes made except for upgrading the food and equipment. Hard liquor has been dropped and only beer and wine will be served. He stated the policies and procedures followed by the establishment are in the franchising guidelines and offered them for review. He further stated there has been no adverse activity at the establishment. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, and seconded by Mr. Mazur, to approve the above request subject to the requisite occupational license being obtained within 6 months of this public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). 2. (REQUEST FOR EXTENSION) Lot 16, Grove Circle Subdivision (1706 North Highland Avenue) Jeffrey N. South, Louis F. Aguiar and Jules Bishara (Summer Place) CU 89-86 Request - Level I Group Care Facility with 10 cared-for residents Zoned - RS-8 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Shuford presented a letter from the applicant requesting an extension (see letter attached). He pointed out that staff has prepared an amendment to the Land Development Code addressing congregate living facilities which would take the Level I Group Care out of residential districts entirely allowing family care there. Since the City Commission has not had an opportunity to review it he did not want to hold up this request at this time. The staff recommended granting the extension. The applicant was not present. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. In discussion, the Board agreed it did not want to set a precedent of granting extensions without knowing the reason for the request. They felt the applicant should be present to be consulted. Upon advice from the City Attorney, the Board concurred the safest way to handle the matter would be to grant a one-month extension giving the applicant time to respond without causing further expense to the applicant. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Ms. Nixon to continue the above request to the June 19, 1990 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). 3. (REQUEST FOR EXTENSION) Lots 7-11 and part of Lot 12, Blk. L, Hibiscus Gardens (211 S. Missouri Ave.) YWCA of Greater Clw., Inc. (Community Pride Child Care)/Martha Skelton CU 89-82 Mr. Shuford presented a letter from the applicant requesting a six-month extension (letter attached). The letter advised the applicant is in the process of buying the building and will begin renovation in the near future. Staff recommended approval of the request for extension. The applicant was not present. No persons appeared in support or in opposition of the above request. The Board discussed the fact the applicant was not present, but were in consensus about granting the request since the reasons were well stated in the letter making the request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, and seconded by Ms. Nixon, to grant the request for the six-month extension from the date of this public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). 4. M & B 34.011, Sec. 19-29-15 (1590 Gulf Blvd.) Mido USA Inc. & Mido Development, Inc. (Belleview Biltmore Cabana Club) CU 90-30 Request - To permit on-premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford read a letter in opposition received from Joseph and Beverly Koutny, 1582 Gulf Blvd., #1302, Clearwater, FL. Mr. Tim Johnson, 911 Chestnut Street, applicant's attorney stated the Cabana Club is located on Clearwater Beach, the zoning is General Commercial District/Commercial Tourist Facility, and they are here because of a change in ownership. This property was formerly owned by Bernie Powell and his associates and was sold to Mido as a part of the transaction of the sale of the Belleview Biltmore and the Pelican Country Club. Mido is the new owner and it has every present intention to operate the club in the same manner it has in the past. The Cabana Club is a private club; it is available only for its members; and it does conduct some banquet business as well. There have been no problems at the club. The parking situation you heard about with members parking in the condominium parking spaces apparently cuts both ways. The access is throughout both the Cabana Club and the condominium so people will park wherever space is available. In response to an inquiry from the Board, Mr. Johnson stated the Cabana Club had been doing business for many years. No persons appeared in support or in opposition to the request. In discussion the Board felt that the Koutnys objections were unfounded. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, and seconded by Mr. Hamilton to approve the above request subject to the requisite occupational license being obtained within 6 months of the date of this public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). 5. Lots 14-16, Bayside Sub 2 (153 Brightwater Drive) W. Neuhaus Massivhaus Baugesell CU 90-31 Request - To construct a 6-slip marina Zoned - CR-28 (Resort Commercial) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/ Coastal Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Ms. Nixon expressed some concern that people across the waterway most affected by the increase in boat traffic were not notified of this request because measurements are taken 200' from the property line and not from the construction. Mr. Michael Murphy, 770 Island Way, #204, applicant's representative, stated that Neuhaus, et al owns the three lots on Brightwater Drive and plans to build condominiums there. The corporation plans to sell the slips with the condominiums and wanted to be sure the slips were in place. He stated the applicant is requesting to build three piers with six slips. There will only be 2 cat walks as the DNR and DER limitations are 10 sq. ft. of water to each linear foot of waterfront, which gives them 1800 sq.ft. He further pointed out that the adjacent property owners each have 180' of waterfront and have 10 and 12 slips. He further stated this is a private marina and will not be rented. In response to the Board's inquiry, Mr. Murphy stated the slips would take 3 to 5 working days to construct. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Discussion by the Board ensued with concern expressed over the slips being built before the condominiums were ready for occupancy. The Board did not wish to preapprove the slips. They wanted to be sure someone would be on the building site responsible for the slips to ensure they would not become a commercial marina with all the attending problems, and that the slips would be sold with the condominiums. Mr. Polatty advised the Board they could either deny this request, table it until they have approved the condominiums, or condition the request upon the construction of the condominiums. Mr. Shuford advised there are no requirements as far as resubmittal if the request were tabled, but if it were denied, there would be a waiting period for resubmittal. It was ascertained from Mr. Murphy that the applicant had approval from the DER and DNR and would obtain permits upon approval by the Planning & Zoning Board. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Schwob to table the above request until such time as a building permit for the condominium units has been secured. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). 6. M & B 13.31, Sec. 17-29-16 (2862 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.) James J. Orlando CU 90-32 Request - To permit animal grooming and/or boarding facilities Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford stated he had received two letters in support of this proposal from people who own neighboring businesses in the existing center. In answer to a question by the Board as to when landscaping would be put in, Mr. Shuford replied that as part of the recommendation it should be after the DOT does the widening, so the land can be used for parking until that time. Mr. James J. Orlando, 2280 Lagoon Drive, Dunedin, FL, applicant, stated he is the owner of a strip of stores located at 2862 Gulf-to-Bay from 2862B, C, D, and F, known as the Bayview Stores. B is occupied by a beauty parlor, D and E is occupied by a bar. The store in question is C between the beauty parlor and bar. He stated Ms. Pamela Cummings is the prospective tenant interested in grooming animals at this location and that she will not keep animals overnight even though the notice refers to boarding. He had contacted some of the tenants to get their input on this type of business in the strip, and found it very favorable. Ms. Cummings had accompanied Mr. Orlando and was available if the Board had any questions. Mr. Schwob asked Mr. Orlando if he had any problem with the required landscaping. At that point Mr. Shuford explained to Mr. Orlando exactly where the State right-of-way was on the map. Mr. Orlando advised that he has an agreement with the State whereby he is allowed to park on the State right-of-way. Mr. Shuford further advised him that the State's requirements may differ from the City's requirements and Mr. Orlando stated he would have his attorney, Charlie Stratton in Tallahassee, look into the matter. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Discussion by the Board ensued with regard to the landscaping. Concern was expressed that the Board was asking for more than the Code required. Mr. Shuford indicated that overall landscaping on the site would still be deficient. Mr. Shuford suggested that this condition should be enforced only at the time the State begins construction of its widening. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, and seconded by Ms. Nixon approving the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) There shall be no overnight boarding of animals; 2) The parking area along the front of the site that is not part of the FDOT right-of-way purchase (a nine to ten foot wide strip) shall be converted into landscaping within 60 days of initiation of the roadway improvement project by the FDOT, with the species and number of landscape materials being subject to review and approval of the City Division of Environmental Management; and 3) The requisite occupational license shall be obtained within six (6) months of this public hearing. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). C. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review: 1. (DEFERRED FROM APRIL 17, 1990) M & B 11.03, Sec. 16-29-15/Located on the N. side of Cleveland St., approximately 105 ft. E. of Garden Avenue (City of Clearwater) LUP 90-03, Z 90-02 Request - Land Use Plan & Zoning Amendments LAND USE PLAN: FROM: Downtown Development District/Regional Activity Center TO: Recreation ZONING: FROM: UC/C (Urban Center - Core District) TO: OS/R (Open Space/Recreation) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. He stated the request is to modify the land use plan as well as zoning to permit the City owned parking lot to be converted into a mini park. Mr. Shuford stated there was adequate downtown parking and the rezoning would fit in with the Comprehensive Plan. In opposition, Mr. Tom Brown of Brown Brothers, stated he owns 88 ft. of property directly across from the parking lot and has been doing business there for fifty years. He owns 4 stores and 26 offices. He stated he is opposed to literally giving the property away, and to eliminating the parking places needed for the downtown businesses. When this matter was first presented, he stated consideration was given to leaving some parking spaces. He further stated he is in favor of the building, but would like a compromise on the parking with 15 to 20 spaces retained for downtown shoppers. He opposed the fountains planned for the park as being a waste of water and would only attract birds and drunks. He then presented a site plan to the Board. Mr. Polatty came forward and explained this site plan was the adopted site plan for the MAS 1 project. The park would be on some City land and some private land and is designed to enhance the downtown area at the loss of a certain number of parking spaces. Mr. Polatty further explained there are not many places for pedestrians or office workers to go to have lunch in a nice clean area. The beach has many spaces, but downtown is lacking. He further advised that William Whyte has done some research across the nation to determine what attracts people downtown, and what amenities are needed to make a downtown successful. One amenity necessary to make a downtown successful is a place for office workers to go to eat lunch. As a result, the City wants to create a green environment or mini park. Part of the deal to get the high rise downtown was to create the park for all the office workers downtown. The office building will provide 400 parking spaces as opposed to the 40 which will be deleted. Mr. Polatty further pointed out that there is a good deal of parking in the various downtown garages. He also advised the park has not yet been designed. Discussion by the Board followed regarding City ownership and private ownership of the mini park. Mr. Gans questioned why the City desired to develop private property and what control the City would have. He thought it might be more feasible in consideration of the City building the park, for MAS 1 to donate their portion of the land and turn the title over to the City. Ms. Nixon stated she was not in favor of improving park land belonging to a private owner. Mr. Polatty advised that the City has a contract with MAS 1 which ties in this site plan and the City is just improving the park. Ms. Nixon further asked how the City could justify not needing this proposed park space for surface parking when the City had just finished discussing on-street parking on Cleveland. She pointed out the type of stores being left in downtown are not the kind you want to spend two to three hours browsing in, but rather are the kind in which you make 3 to 5 minute stops, and you do not want to park in a garage for that type of shopping. She thought this was giving away the store to the developer because he was not able to meet his own green space requirements. She further stated she couldn't believe the City Commission acting as the CRA would give away this land to the detriment of downtown businessmen for the purpose of having MAS 1, who would probably put in the park anyway. Mr. Polatty responded by stating our downtown, not unlike any other downtown, has become a financial administrative center now with some retail. Most of the employment force are people working in our financial administrative center and these people need a place to eat lunch and need park amenities. Coachman Park was mentioned as a beautiful amenity, but did not meet the downtown requirements of people with 30 minute lunch hours. Mr. Hamilton summarized the issue before them as going in two directions: 1) having a park available for downtown workers to have lunch in, and 2) long time downtown businesses being adversely affected by the park taking away needed surface parking. The Board then discussed the possibility of a compromise by cutting down the size of the park to leave 10 to 15 parking spaces. Mr. Michael Wright, Assistant City Manager, was called upon at this point to clarify for the Board 1) how much of the park would be on non-public property, 2) what would be on the remaining City property, and 3) whether some parking could be left on the City property. In referring to the site plan, Mr. Wright stated the City Commission made an agreement as an inducement to the development that a park would be put in this area and that this land would be sold to the company doing the development. Part of the tradeoff was the developer would put 300 to 400 parking spaces in the building. He further pointed out several municipally owned parking areas and stated it was the City Commission's decision there was sufficient parking available, together with the planned space, to make this a public park in the downtown area and to sell this land for the development of the building. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Wright advised that a referendum is not needed for the Redevelopment Agency to sell land if it is not zoned for open space/recreation. Mr. Wright further advised that the City will be responsible for the major plants and trees for the entire park area as part of its agreement, and the developer will be responsible for the day-to-day maintenance. Mr. Wright explained that the Redevelopment Agency sold the land as an inducement to build the office building in the downtown area and that it serves the dual purpose of complementing the building and being used as a downtown mini park. It is not unlike the inducement given to the folks building the condominium units by the Police Department. Rather than discounting land, we said we will build the entranceway to your building which will serve the dual purpose of being a public facility plus saving some land. The Board further discussed whether the City Commission considered the possibility of leaving some parking spaces available for Cleveland Street businesses. Mr. Wright assured them the removal of parking was fully considered by the Redevelopment Agency, that several plans were looked at, but a workable compromise could not be developed. Mr. Gans asked if the City was coming to the Board as a matter of form to get the zoning changed because the commitment had already been made. Mr. Wright replied that by changing the zoning designation to open space/recreation this property would fall under the referendum requirement, which was the purpose of locking it in as a park. Mr. Wright further advised that several public hearings had been held and this had been on both the City Commission and The CRA's agendas several times. In rebuttal, Mr. Brown stated they were indirectly told that if the businesses didn't go along with this, the City would not give them parking on Cleveland Street, which they have since decided against. He reiterated the need for a compromise of 15 to 20 parking spaces to be included in this area. In opposition, Mr. Alan Bitman of 646, 647 and 649 Cleveland Street, felt the decision had already been made by the City Commission and wondered why the Planning & Zoning Board was even hearing it. He was concerned about the City taking care of people working in the office building and forgetting about those who have been downtown for 10, 20 or 30 years. He mentioned the parking spaces eliminated by the Sun Bank building and now this parking would also be eliminated. He felt downtown business was definitely dropping because of lack of parking. He owns Park Jewelers, the Service Shoe Repair and the building which used to house Undersea Imports before they moved to the Bay Area Outlet Mall because of the lack of parking downtown. He further stated he just purchased a parking lot with 22 spaces on the corner of Park and East and has had to put up signs to keep people from parking there. The lot can be full without a customer in his store. He further stated this was the first meeting he was aware of as this matter had not been widely publicized. Mr. Wright then advised the Board the City is in the process of buying land adjacent to the Police Department which will free up the Park Avenue garage presently being used for police cars. This would bring total garage spaces available to between 500 and 600. He also stated the issue was more complex than parking, and mentioned the changing dynamics of the downtown area and the creation of malls. The Board felt the mall situation was directly connected to parking in that you were assured of parking when you went there regardless of how far away it was. The Board then discussed the fact that there is a good deal of parking downtown, but its whereabouts is not highly visible. It was felt some education and publicity should be done to make people more aware of downtown parking. In support, Mr. William C. Cravis, 620 Cleveland Street, advised the Board that he owns a parking lot with 75 spaces immediately behind his building on Cleveland. He understood these properties would be contiguous and there would be walking access between his parking lot and the proposed park area. In support, Mr. Tim Johnson, 911 Chestnut Street, stated he was surprised at Ms. Nixon's opposition to the park based on protecting a businessman who relied on the City for parking. He felt businesses should provide their own parking or be at risk. He has had to supply parking for his office building located in the downtown development area and feels that is the way it should be. You either provide your own parking or get it in writing from the City as MAS 1 has done. Motion was made by Mr. Mazur, and seconded by Mr. Johnson, to approve the above request. Motion carried 5-1 with Ms. Nixon voting "nay". D. Public Hearing for Concurrency Management System Ordinances 1. Ordinance No. 4980-90 - Relating to Traffic Impact Studies Required for Certain Developments 2. Ordinance No. 4981-90 - Relating to the Land Development Code, creating sections for Development Agreements 3. Ordinance No. 4982-90 - Relating to the Land Development Code, creating sections to provide for a Concurrency Management System 4. Ordinance No. 4983-90 - Relating to the Comprehensive Plan of the City, to establish administrative procedures and standards for determining vested rights to develop property Mr. Shuford presented the above ordinances to the Board and submitted, in writing, the preliminary recommendations given by the Board to the City Commission in their May 1, 1990 meeting. The board members discussed each of the items on the attached list. The Board had previously accepted item Nos. 3, 4, 7, 11 and opposed item Nos. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15. It was noted the City Commission had revised No. 4 to include a 90 day review period rather than a 60 day review period. Item No. 16 was reviewed during the meeting and included with those being accepted. Mr. Mazur inquired why item No. 6 was not included in the comments to be accepted and Mr. Shuford explained this was one of several (2, 6, 8, and 14) which needed further study. Mr. Mazur then asked for an explanation as to why No. 6 would not automatically be grandfathered in. Mr. Shuford replied they are grandfathered in unless there is a deviation from the plan. He further explained that it can be a substantial deviation in other areas but not for the affected level of service. He gave the situation where it is not meeting some wetland retention or preservation requirement that puts it in substantial deviation but has no affect on level of service. Mr. Polatty directed the Board's attention to item No. 2, which is related to No. 6, on the handling of a vested DRI with substantial deviations in concurrency. He referred to Mr. Shuford's example which had a substantial deviation for water, but not for traffic, sewer, recreation, etc. In this case the one area of substantial deviation would be addressed, namely water consumption, and the others would be left alone. Mr. Polatty stated that at this time the City Attorney is questioning the need for this. The Board asked the question of how can you have a substantial deviation to the DRI that doesn't relate to one of the adopted level of service standards. Mr. Mazur related that Park Place, which is an office complex and one of the City's two DRIs, is floundering and the possibility exists for someone to develope an apartment complex on that site. He stated the DRI in the development order did not address residential. As a result schools will be considered a substantial deviation because the DRI did not address it initially because it was irrelevant. Mr. Mr Mazur asked why should the fact there is going to be some impact on schools in the area have anything to do with eliminating the possibility of grandfathering the project because it doesn't relate to schools. Mr. Galbraith replied the possibility to grandfather a project had not been eliminated and a vested rights determination can be applied for and obtained. Mr. Galbraith stated the developer must go through the process of filing out the application and showing the City what his intentions are and what affects they will have so that a vested rights determination can be made. In answer to a request from the Board, Mr. Polatty stated that a substantial deviation as defined in the Florida Administrative Statutes is a DRI that has a certain percentage change in its impact changes. The Board concurred that a substantial deviation should be based on the state procedure. Motion was made by Mr. Mazer, and seconded by Mr. Hamilton to approve Agenda Item D with the inclusion of items Nos. 2 and 6. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). E. City Attorney to address consideration of separation distance variances in relation to conditional use applications. Mr. Schwob stated the Board had been told not to factor in distance when they consider a conditional use that concerns alcoholic beverages. They were to apply Conditional Use Standard No. 136.025 (compatible use), subject to a variance granted by the City Commission. He further stated that Commissioner Regulski assumed they were considering distance when hearing a conditional use request. Ms. Nixon added that Mayor Rita Garvey was also of that opinion. Mr. Galbraith stated the way the ordinance is worded you cannot establish an alcoholic beverage establishment within the minimum distance unless you get a variance from the City Commission. The City Commission is supposed to consider the factors and the DCAB considers when it hears a variance. He advised at present Conditional Use standard No. 136.024 sets forth the sequence of events to be followed in the process of a conditional use application for alcoholic beverages as: 1) Planning & Zoning Board, 2) DCAB, and 3) the City Commission, in that order. He further stated that perhaps the time had come for the ordinance to be reexamined to prevent confusion in this area. Mr. Hamilton stated the difficulty comes from the compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, which is one of their considerations, and which is a close function of the distance requirement. He felt the issue was how to judge compatibility without including distance. Ms. Nixon stated that at one point the Board did have the distance separation consideration, but it had been taken away and given to the City Commission. The public wanted it appealed to the City Commission, but in order to do that the rules were dropped from approximately 300' to 50' or so, with certain qualifications. At this point Mr. Polatty advised the Planning & Development Department is in the process of drafting amendments to the Land Development Code with regard to the Comprehensive Plan and to top community priorities. He encouraged the Board to let them know if they wished them to address this issue. Mr. Galbraith suggested the Board request the distance limitation factor be brought back to them and to create a two-tier distance requirement, with one tier giving a certain minimum requirement with no variance, and a second tier with another minimum but with certain other built in requirements. He further suggested having it go to a hearing officer on appeal and not to the City Commission. Mr. Galbraith stated specific footage requirements would be better than the general term of reasonable distance. However, the Board liked the democratic process of having seven independent citizens hearing each request with regard to a reasonable distance and coming to a majority opinion. Mr. Polatty urged the Board not to make the motion too specific as the Department would like the opportunity to research the ordinance law and come back with an ordinance meeting their intent. Mr. Schwob asked Mr. Galbraith to advise the Commissioners that under the present procedure when the Board passes a liquor vote on to the City Commission that distance has not been considered according to his instructions. Motion was made by Mr. Gans, and seconded by Ms. Nixon to direct the Planning and Zoning Staff to make recommendations to them on a priority basis in connection with the Conditional Use Standards for alcoholic beverages. Motion carried unanimously (6-0). F. Chairman's Items - none G. Director's Items - none H. Board & Staff Comments Ms. Nixon reported that in the Sand Key Shopping area on Clearwater Beach there is a sign two doors down from the Pick Kwick announcing Sand Key Liquors & Wine will be coming soon. She felt this should be checked on. Mr. Johnson reported that the Board had approved Lokey Motors on Gulf-to-Bay for storage and parking with certain recommendations on landscaping. He stated there is now a building on the property with no landscaping. They have moved their entire used car operation to the south side of the street. Mr. Hamilton advised there was a new name hanging on the Sand Piper. It was also mentioned that Britts has moved and have not come before the Board. Mr. Hamilton advised they are scheduled to come before the DCAB Board. When Britts lost its lease they convinced the motel across the street to tear out units and they moved in there. Since they are selling alcohol they should be checked on. Mr. Schwob mentioned there is a new place in Northwood Plaza called Munchies, which sells beer and wine which should come before the Board. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.