10/15/1991
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
TUESDAY, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1991
Members Present: Chairman Schwob, Messrs. Bickerstaffe, Hamilton, Mazur, Merriam, Carassas and Savage.
Members Excused:
Also Present: James Polatty, Jr., Director Planning & Development
Scott Shuford, Planning Manager
Sandra Glatthorn, Senior Planner
Pat Fernandez, Recording Secretary
Chairperson Schwob 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.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was made by Mr.Bickerstaffe, and seconded by Mr. Carassas, to approve the minutes of October 1, 1991 with one correction. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
B. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION, DEFERRED AND CONTINUED ITEMS:
1. (Continued from 9/17/91) Lot 12, Blk D, Unit A and Lots 13 thru 15, Blk D, Unit C, Bayside Sub No 6, (850 Bayway Boulevard) Resolution Trust Corp. as Conservator for Hollywood Federal
Bank (Jeffrey Keierleber/850 Bayway), CU 91-71
Request - To permit on-premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor
Zoned - CR 28 (Resort Commercial)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. He further asked the representative to advise of any specifics he has on a proposed
restaurant.
Gary Welsh, applicant's representative, 250 N. Patrick Boulevard, Suite 140, Brookfield, WI. 53045, stated they have been unsuccessful in their search for a tenant for the restaurant
operation. The economy may be to blame. They have an accepted offer to purchase the property which has to be exercised by November 23, 1991. He stated chances are slim they will operate
a restaurant but envision a coffee shop/deli operation. That operation, scaled down to 4,000 square feet, would be on the first floor along with maintenance rooms and a motel office,
motel units on both the second and third floors and apartments on the fourth floor. Another use was utilizing the first floor as a health club, however real estate people indicated
that finding such a tenant would be unrealistic. Their present goal is to retain the liquor license that is in escrow. They need to work out the density to arrive at the number of
motel units allowable.
The Board asked questions about the type or style of operation and commented on the lack of a
definite plan.
Mr. Shuford stated that the property has been vacant and the recommendations are designed to attract an entity that is compatible with the neighbors and beach community. He advised
we were in receipt of a petition containing 143 signatures that were against a conditional use for a restaurant/lounge open until 2:00 A.M. seven days a week.
No one spoke in support of this request.
In opposition, Audrey Thomas, 830 S. Gulfview, stated her neighbors are children and working people whose peace would be damaged if the Board allowed a restaurant to close later than
10:00 PM. She foresees a problem with any traffic generating use as the noise would be detrimental to their quiet, would impact parking, and create even greater problems with finding
parking than now exists.
In opposition, Marentina DiNatale, 830 S. Gulfview Boulevard, stated the operational requirements as presented by staff should be considered. Among the conditions are no outdoor speakers,
no outdoor seating, and a 10:00 PM closing. She feels they reside there because it is a quiet, peaceful neighborhood and they do not know the name of or the type of restaurant the lessee
will open.
In opposition, Stan Frederico, 865 S. Gulfview Boulevard, expressed his concerns regarding parking. Recent construction and boat slips take up considerable parking. He does not feel
the amount of money which must be spent to refurbish and open a sandwich coffee shop would be recouped.
In opposition, Mary Riedel, 851 Bayway Boulevard South, Apt. 403, lives directly opposite the proposed restaurant. Originally, there was a bar as well as a restaurant. She questioned
the meaning of 10:00 PM closing; was it for both the restaurant and bar?
Mr. Schwob informed her there was a 10:00 PM closing recommended for the whole operation along with a 51% food sales requirement.
In opposition, John DiNatale, 830 S. Gulfview Boulevard, stated he was speaking as an individual but was the Vice President of the Clearwater Point #8 Association. Both the Sailmaster
and Shipmaster buildings were built after the subject building. Patrons used to park where these buildings are now located. He presented an additional petition sheet with 18 more signatures.
Parking is not available for residents and their guests eight or nine times a year during the off season. Walkers and bikers would be impacted by additional cars in the area. He feels
barricades would become necessary but believes the bar should close at 9:00 PM and the building at 10:00 PM. Parking is inadequate now without additional vehicles.
In response to a question by the Board, he concurred that on-street parking is for anyone who gets there. With the difficulties they now experience, what are the residents supposed
to do. His contention is the bar should be kept to reasonable hours.
In opposition, Marvin Rubin, 851 S. Bayway Boulevard, Apt. 605, asked Mr. Welsh if Mr. Keierleber was present so he could ask him questions and was advised Mr. Welsh was authorized to
speak for the applicant. Mr. Rubin's concern is that any restaurant allowed should close at 10:00 PM and be emptied by 11:00 PM. Parking is important for him; he counted 41 total spaces
with 6 belong to the boats (and they need more), 8 for the motel units and believes any restaurant with only 27 spaces should be ruled out. Garbage and service trucks would need spaces
to enter. He believes another use should be developed.
In opposition, Warren J. Dirkin, 830 S. Gulfview Boulevard, stated they would like to recommend that the Board request the applicant meet with representatives of the condo associations
to discuss in detail their plans and who the operator is going to be so that both can come together on a program that would be acceptable for everyone. He feels a condition should contain
that requirement.
In rebuttal, Mr. Welsh, stated he still had some confusion about densities and the change of one item and its effect on another item. He does recognize parking is a problem and have
scaled their original recommendation down from 7,000 to 4,000 square feet. He reiterated that the license is for on-premise consumption only and not for package sales.
Discussion ensued with Board members expressing concerns including the following: If the license were denied, they asked when the applicant could reapply. It was noted the Code does
not define a deli. The petition was recognized, however, members felt people signing were frightened by the 2:00 AM closing. They would like some flexibility as they recognize the
building is in foreclosure, the license is in escrow, and a denial would result in a nine month wait before the applicant could reapply. A different application would allow them to
reapply. The Board would prefer a restaurant of Leverock's-type operation. With motel patrons upstairs, it is felt the applicant would be jeopardizing his investment if he allowed
an unruly restaurant operation on the ground floor of his building. If the property were sold, it would again appear before the Board. Some members feel the applicant will request,
in six months, that he be allowed to bolster his profits by allowing package sales. The limitations placed by the Board may have an effect on the price paid for this property due to
its limitations and are considering a trial period.
Mr. Shuford stated package sales would probably not be available due to the applicant not having the required number of rooms.
Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the required occupational
license within one (1) year of the date of this public hearing; 2) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit within six (6) months of the date of this public hearing;
3) The applicant shall obtain approval from the City Commission for the required minimum distance separation variance to permit the establishment to operate zero ft. from a residential
(CR-28) zoning district; 4) The applicant shall obtain approval by the Development Code Adjustment Board for a variance to the side setback, a variance to the clearspace requirement,
any necessary parking variances, and any other required variances; 5) The restaurant shall be restricted to consumption on premises of alcoholic beverages with no package sales; 6) The
applicant shall make available to the City of Clearwater any audits requested by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; 7) The applicant shall bring the existing parking lot
into compliance with all City codes including landscaping, striping and handicapped parking; 8) The applicant shall meet the 51% food and non-alcoholic beverage sales requirement and
shall provide evidence of meeting this requirement upon request from City staff; 9) The following operational requirements shall be observed: a. There shall be no outdoor speakers; b.
10:00 PM shall be the final time for seating with an 11:00 PM closing time; c. There shall be no outdoor seating; d. There shall be no live entertainment other than acoustical guitar
or piano; and 10) Alcoholic beverage sales shall be restricted to the first floor of the structure of approximately 4,000 square feet of gross floor area. Upon roll call, the vote was:
"Ayes": Bickerstaffe, Schwob, Hamilton, Merriam
"Nays": Carassas, Mazur, Savage
Those dissenting all stated the use is not reasonably compatible with the surrounding uses in the surrounding area. Motion carried (4 to 3).
2. Lots 1 and 2, Harrington's Sub, (500 N. Fort Harrison Avenue) Adriano Battaglini, CU 90-69
Request - Review of conditional use after one-year trial period to permit: 1) non-commercial parking, and 2) vehicle services
Zoning - CG (General Commercial) and RM 28 (multiple family residential)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Members expressed concerns that the applicant has not complied with all the conditions previously set forth by the Board.
Adriano Battaglini, applicant, 406 Venetian Drive, Clearwater, stated he had planted shade trees on two occasions and they were stolen within days. Cars are stored due to people not
having the money, some just leave their cars and do not pick them up promptly while others are waiting for parts to be received. Vandalism has been a problem. He put up a six-foot
fence which the City, because of the Code, had him change to a four-foot fence.
On a query about selling cars, he stated customers bringing an auto in for repair sometimes have a sale price on their own auto which the individual hopes to sell. The outdoor sales
request was turned down one year ago. The back lot contains hard shell, is not paved, and the striping was not approved. Consensus is the Board wants the landscaping accomplished and
"For Sale" signs eliminated on any cars on the lot.
In support, Robert Casagrande, 31 Paradise Lane, Treasure Island, stated the applicant has started a fairly good business but has problems with the restrictions and time frames being
unrealistic. At this time the money is not there. The applicant put up a four-foot fence and now the City wants a six-foot fence. As a service customer Mr. Casagrande was outraged
because his vehicle had to be put in front and his auto was smashed in. He reported he had seen the trees when they were planted and subsequently were stolen. Costs of the conditions
set forth by the Board are difficult for a business in its infancy to afford.
In opposition, Bruce Silton, 500 N. Osceola, Apt. 307, stated he represents the Harbor Bluffs Condominium Association. He recognizes the applicant wants his business to survive, and
he does as well, but is concerned about the neighborhood. Photos were submitted showing a sales price in a car window, an auto in the back of the lot being taken apart, and a photo
of a large pile of stone and concrete slab. They do not want to put the applicant out of business, but want the conditions met. The 92 families living nearby believes that if the intention
to enforce is there that the applicant will comply.
Mr. Schwob mentioned that the site is considerably better than it was a year ago when it was like a junkyard.
In rebuttal, Mr. Battaglini, stated the pile of rubble was put there when he was doing landscaping. It was arranged that the rubble would be picked up but it was never removed. It
is too heavy for him to move so he will have to hire someone. Black topping the back lot is too costly and he would like to leave hard gravel and shell. He still would like to sell
cars outside. The applicant has two bays and usually works by himself and needs spaces where he can park vehicles waiting for parts.
In response to questions by the Board he stated cars remain on the lot until a customer has paid for the repairs, others are waiting for parts.
The Board noted one year ago that a conditional use permit for outdoor sales and display was denied and the RM-28 zoning does not allow cars to be parked overnight on the back part of
the property. It is a difficult location. The landscaping was to shield the site from the surrounding condominiums. The same is true for the six foot fence which could create the
potential for more vagrant activity. If it was secured it would provide greater security. The front of the lot is zoned neighborhood commercial and the rear is RM-28. The combination
effectively ties the Board's hands.
It was noted the Public Works Director could waive asphalt if he deemed it not necessary. This would curtail costs. He has had one year to comply. Wrecks and junk have largely been
removed. The Board should be able to make the site more useable with a zoning change allowing parking at the rear, however that appears slim. A Land Use Plan Change was also suggested.
The downtown CRA area being expanded may assist the applicant.
Motion was made by Mr. Mazur, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) The direction of glare of lights from both motor
vehicles and illuminating fixtures on the site shall be oriented away from surrounding properties; 2) Perimeter and interior landscaping for Lot 2 shall be provided in conformance with
City Code Sections 136.023(c) through (j) subject to approval of the City's Environmental Management Division within 1 month of this public hearing; 3) The applicant shall provide a
five-foot wide perimeter planting strip on Lot 1 along N. Ft. Harrison Ave. to include a hedge, two shade trees and low-volume irrigation; such landscaping shall be installed in accordance
with the National Nursery Standards (a shade tree shall be a minimum of 8 feet overall in height with 1.5 inches caliper measured 6 inches above grade and the shrubs shall be a minimum
24 inches high, 1.5 feet apart (3 feet at center); both standards to apply at time of planting) subject to the approval of the City's Environmental Management Division within 1 month
of this public hearing; 4) All used tires, parts, and similar objects shall be stored in the building or other enclosed structure; 5) All service facilities shall be indoors; major repairs,
including engine or transmission dismantling, painting, body, fender, and muffler work shall not be allowed; 6) Vehicle service work shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday, with no service work done on Sundays; 7) All parts shall be stored indoors; 8) The street side of the fence shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 136.016(h)
subject to the approval of the City's Environmental Management Division within 3 months of this public hearing; 9) There shall be no outdoor sales, display and/or storage of vehicles;
For Sale signs on vehicles parked on the property shall be prohibited; 10) The site design shall be approved by the Planning and Development Director within 2 months of the date of this
public hearing shall include the parking design meeting all City requirements; and 11) This approval shall be for a three (3) months trial period from the date of this hearing at which
time the Board shall review to see if conditions are met. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
C. CONDITIONAL USES:
1. Boat Slip 89, Island Yacht Club Condo, (200 Windward Passage), James B. McCullough, CU 91-74
Request - To permit marina boat life
Zoning - CG (General Commercial) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
James B. McCullough, applicant, 3160 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater, stated he wanted a lift installed in the condominium slip he owns. He has it in writing that his neighbors do not
object.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Carassas, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building
permit within six months of this public hearing; and 2) Liveaboards are prohibited from using the subject slip. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
2. Lots 1 thru 7, part of Lot 8, Blk 6, Milton Park Sub, and vacated alley lying south of Lots 1 thru 4 (1219 S. Fort Harrison Avenue) O'Keefe's Inc/G. Anthony DuQuesnay (O'Keefe's Tavern
& Restaurant) CU 91-75
Request - To permit on-premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor
Zoning - IL (Limited Industrial)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Bob Herbrich, applicant's representative, 216 Prescott Avenue, stated he is the architect and that the kitchen and bathrooms are being expanded. The renovation gives them 30 additional
seats and the operation will remain the same.
Motion was made by Mr. Carassas, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) The requisite occupational license shall be obtained
within six (6) months from the date of this hearing; and 2) Approval is limited to alcoholic beverage sales for consumption on premises only, with no package sales. Motion carried unanimously
(6 to 0).
3. Lot 5, Blk B, Bayside Sub No 5, (645 Bayway Boulevard), James L. Doran, Trustee (Transportation Station) CU 91-76
Request - To permit outdoor commercial recreation/entertainment of motor scooter and bicycle rentals
Zoning - CB (Beach Commercial)
Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. He distributed two copies of letters of support.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Scott Suits, applicant's representative, 8 Cambria, Apt. 301, Clearwater Beach, stated they found this new site for their scooter/bike rental business. They generate little need for
parking and the hours are such parking does not constitute a problem. Users must be licensed, guardians are necessary for those between the ages 16-18, and closing is usually at 6:00
PM; the customer rents the bikes for several days.
The applicant queried his, rather than the owner, having to bear the burden of landscaping. Mr.
Shuford advised a new application gives the City the chance to make some improvements to a barren site.
Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Savage, to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) Requisite occupational license shall be obtained within
six (6) months from the date of this public hearing; 2) The hours of operation shall be limited to a 9:00 p.m. closing time; 3) Landscaping along Bayway Boulevard shall be provided in
accordance with the plant material requirements of Sec. 136.023 for street yard perimeter landscaping; and 4) There shall be no outdoor storage of bicycles or motor scooters within parking
area or within the street setback area. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
D. ANNEXATION, ZONING, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW:
1. To consider an interlocal agreement between Pinellas County and the City of Clearwater to exercise comprehensive planning authority pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, as set forth in Part II of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes, and
enforce land development regulations to regulate the development of land within the respective areas of jurisdiction of each party to the agreement.
Ms. Glatthorn gave the background of the case.
Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, for recommendation of approval of the above request to the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
1. Update on Pinellas Planning Council Local Government Consistency Program.
Mr. Shuford gave a brief summary of the program and its impact on Clearwater due to changes in Land Use Plan classifications. He indicated that a more detailed presentation would be
provided to the Board at its next meeting. Ms. Glatthorn gave a handout for members to read and digest before the next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:33 PM.
James M. Polatty, Jr., Director, Planning & Development