12/03/1996PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
December 3, 1996
Present:
Brenda Harris Nixon
Edward Mazur
Kemper Merriam
Robert D. Bickerstaffe
Bernie Baron
Frank Kunnen
Douglas Hilkert
Acting Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Scott Shuford
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Sandy Glatthorn
Lou Hilton
Gwen Legters
Central Permitting Director
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Manager
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
To provide continuity, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. The Acting Chair outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process.
Minutes Approval -- November 5 and November 19, 1996
To expedite future meetings, Member Nixon suggested amending board procedure to dispense with the vote regarding minutes approval. Consensus was to implement the suggestion.
Member Nixon requested clarification of the November 5 minutes, page 6, condition #5 regarding CU 96-46, St. Vincent de Paul (proposed CHIP shelter). She questioned whether the board
intended the effective date of the three year trial period to be begin on the date of the public hearing, or date of business opening. By a show of hands, six board members indicated
they understood the trial period was to begin on the date of the public hearing.
Hearing no additional comments, the board approved the minutes of November 5, 1996, as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter.
Member Merriam requested correction of the November 19 minutes on page 1, first paragraph, referring to the Acting Chair as “She”, instead of “He.” In the third paragraph of page 7,
Member Merriam questioned reference to the proposed Land Development Code revision as an amendment. Assistant City Attorney Dougall-Sides verified the changes will be brought forward
as a large set of code amendments.
Member Nixon questioned language in the first paragraph on page three, indicating no representative had arrived for the hearing. It was indicated Mr. Hunt had returned to the meeting
with authorization of representation, but had left the meeting again. As the affidavit had not been submitted on the record, and no representative was present when the item was called,
consensus was to accept the minutes as written.
Hearing no additional comments, the board approved the minutes of November 19, 1996, with correction of the typographical error on page 1.
C. Conditional Uses
C1. (cont. from 11/19/96) William D. & Kathryn A. McKnight/N&S Thomas Enterprises to permit package sales of beer and wine (change of business ownership) at 706 Drew St. E., H. Coachman,
Blk 8, Lots 1-4, part of Lots A, 10 & 11, zoned UC(C) (Urban center (Core) CU 96-61
Mr. Hilton presented written background information, stating this location has had a long history of beer sales and has changed ownership several times. The request seems appropriate
for the property, conditions appear to support the request and staff recommended approval with three conditions.
James Hunt, representing the applicant, said the request is a simple change of ownership for a property that has been in business for several years. No changes to the business are
proposed. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn verified staff received Mr. Hunt’s affidavit of authorization. A question was raised whether the property owner or business owner
is changing. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the transaction is a change of lease.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C1, CU 96-61. subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy
and occupational license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90º cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward
and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; and 3) The business owner shall keep the property well
maintained and free of debris on a daily basis. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. L.O.M., Inc. (Legends Steakhouse) to permit restaurant occupying more than 10% of gross floor area of a retail complex at 309 S Gulfview Blvd, Lloyd White Skinner Sub, Lots 60-62,
108, 109, and part of Lot 107, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial) CU 96 65
Mr. Hilton presented written background information, stating this exciting new project for a retail development on Clearwater beach has been reviewed by the City’s Design Review Board.
Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with four conditions.
Member Mazur declared a conflict of interest regarding this case.
Harry Cline, attorney representing the owner/applicants, displayed elevation drawings and explained the lot size and zoning, building configuration, land acquisition history, and the
mixed uses proposed in the retail complex. He said the proposal will be an asset for the south beach community. Mr. Cline objected to staff’s recommended condition to prohibit outdoor
seating, stating it is allowed at a majority of beach restaurants.
Steve Fowler, architect representing the applicant, reviewed the elevation drawings, pedestrian friendly features, and parking provision. He said the two story Legends Steak
House will be connected to the adjacent retail building with a pedestrian bridge. While he did not know the exact locations of proposed outdoor seating and a second floor deck, he felt
it is likely outdoor seating will be in front on the ground floor, similar to other restaurants. An overflow waiting area is proposed on the pedestrian bridge. He said the ADA requirements
are covered.
One member expressed concern the driveway between the buildings could create a traffic hazard by being used as a cut-through between Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado. He suggested working
with the City and the developer to close the drive, eliminate the 10 parking spaces in front, and create a fully landscaped courtyard to avoid traffic problems. It was indicated landscaping
requirements have been met and a small number of parking spaces in front are desirable to let people know onsite parking exists. Mr. Hilton indicated parking and the driveway are design
issues that staff did not feel will result in hazardous conditions.
Mr. Fowler responded to questions regarding stormwater retention. He has worked with the homeowners to the rear and determined they do not want a buffering wall between their lot and
the subject property. He said continuing the decorative exterior lighting scheme used at the Marina would be cost prohibitive and could interfere with sea turtles nesting. Regarding
building configuration, he said the restaurant will occupy all first and second floor of the larger building, with the majority of the seating upstairs. Discussion resumed regarding
the merits of having parking spaces in front. In response to a question, he said signs directing patrons to rear parking have been used with limited success at Pelican Walk. They are
restricted by sign area limitations. One member requested an angled accessway in the rear to avoid vehicles stacking into the street.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding how to condition a motion to limit outdoor music and allow outdoor seating. Other discussion regarding standardizing condition language and the
motion procedure is reported under Board and Staff Comments, below.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C2, CU 96-65, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational
license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90º cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from
adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) There shall be no outdoor entertainment or speakers past 10 p.m.;
and 4) The applicant shall submit an executed “restaurant affidavit,” agreeing to meet the requirements of the definition of a restaurant (minimum 51 percent food and non-alcoholic beverage
sales, maximum 15 percent non-food/alcoholic beverage sales areas.) Members Nixon, Bickerstaffe, Merriam, Baron, Kunnen, and Hilkert voted "Aye"; Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried.
D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review
D1. (cont. from October 15, 1996) Ordinance 6091-96 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; creating Section 42.36, Code of Ordinances, to establish
site lighting restrictions for residential and nonresidential properties; providing an effective date.
Ms. Glatthorn stated this item is being tabled pending Land Development Code review and revision.
Board and Staff Comments -- Discussion
Member Nixon submitted a memo outlining her concerns regarding site lighting, in response to the board’s request at a previous meeting,. She cited safety concerns and listed numerous
locations where high intensity lighting is directed toward areas other than the subject properties. Discussion ensued regarding the hazards and discomfort of glare projecting into roadways
and residential areas, compared to benefits of shared lighting among contiguous commercial properties. It was indicated some businesses direct blinding lights into traffic to attract
attention to their businesses. It was stressed the intent of the ordinance should be to control excessive glare or light spillage onto adjacent properties, regardless of how such control
is achieved.
Ms. Glatthorn submitted a memo from Environmental Specialist Supervisor Miles Ballogg responding to a report by Member Baron regarding apparent petroleum contamination on the ground
at 309 S. Gulfview Boulevard. It was indicated the report has been forwarded to the appropriate authorities for investigation.
Ms. Glatthorn distributed copies of an appeal protesting the board’s November 19 approval of CU 96 63, Karabaic/ Clearwater Parasail. The appeal was filed by the owners of Sun West
Beach Motel, on behalf of 13 business owners who signed a petition in opposition. Ms. Glatthorn noted the Sun West owners had expressed concern their letter of opposition had not been
read into the record, but was copied to the board along with a lengthy petition from business owners in opposition. Ms. Dougall-Sides verified the Sun West letter had been entered into
the record correctly. Mr. Bickerstaffe commented the water is available for all to use, and preventing that use does not make sense, as long as everyone follows the rules.
In earlier discussion, Member Hilkert requested language standardization in staff’s recommended conditions of approval.
Member Mazur expressed several concerns regarding conduct of Planning and Zoning Board meetings, as follows: 1) interrupting each other while speaking; 2) the appropriate time for
a motion and second in relation to public input and board discussion; 3) compliance with site lighting issues should not be limited to those seeking a conditional use; and 4) continually
nitpicking site plans is not appropriate. He did not feel it was appropriate to bring up board and staff procedural issues during public hearings. He felt the board is annihilating
streamlining the City is trying to achieve in the public hearing process. He said the board should discuss details of an item with each applicant to ensure the board understands the
request, but should not debate or argue with applicants. He requested staff to agenda a future discussion item to standardize language in conditions and rules, eliminate standards for
approval that are not within board authority, and establish the board’s authority, according to code.
Board members responded to Member Mazur’s concerns. One member felt the requested procedure review should be made after the City finishes streamlining the code and making it more user
friendly. One member indicated board crossfire during televised public hearings embarrasses him. One member apologized for interrupting earlier discussion, stated he tends to enjoy
brainstorming sessions with everyone talking at once. He suggested asking a speaker
to yield the floor when a point needs to be made. Discussion ensued regarding waiting to be recognized and pros and cons of yielding, or not yielding the floor. Acting Chair Nixon
summarized the discussion. She requested members to list items they want to bring to the table during the board’s annual procedure review in January. One member felt it is appropriate
to bring up the issues before January, so no one will be surprised.
Member Hilkert suggested for applicants with legal representation present to be given agenda priority, to avoid incurring excessive legal fees. It was indicated many people have reasons
why it is difficult to wait an excessive length of time, but the agenda is set in the order the applications or continuance requests are received, to be fair to all. Member Hilkert
referred to a newspaper article reporting the City of Tampa has attracted business by being more development friendly and Clearwater should follow suit.
Member Nixon raised the issue of when discussion is and is not appropriate in relation to a motion. She felt having a motion, second, then board discussion is not practical, and wastes
time when motions are frequently amended to achieve consensus. She advocated having board discussion and achieving consensus before every motion to save time, allow all members to get
their issues on the table, and enable the board reporter to write one motion. Consensus was to iron out all the details before a motion is made.
Discussion ensued regarding when to close the public input portion of the public hearing, and at what point to allow no further conversation between board and applicants. Ms. Dougall-Sides
said it is not a part of the board’s rules, but City boards typically close the public discussion portion of each public hearing, allowing board members to ask specific questions of
applicants, when necessary, for clarification. She cautioned, by not allowing questions, the board may not have all necessary information, while allowing further questioning could require
allowing rebuttal. Majority consensus was to continue the board’s policy of allowing members to ask specific questions after closing the public hearing, for the purpose of getting specific
answers. Two members who did not agree asked Ms. Dougall-Sides to come back with a legal opinion prior to review of the board’s rules in January.
Acting Chair Nixon summarized the discussion, adding members are requested not to refer to each other by first names. Members will raise their hands to be recognized. Each speaker
will be recognized by name, in the order the Chair perceives hands were raised. After a public hearing is closed, discussion will continue until it appears consensus is reached, after
which the Chair will call for a motion. At the end of the meeting during Board and Staff Comments, each member will announce the number of items they wish to bring up, and whether or
not they will agree to yield the floor when asked. She felt adhering to the above procedure will ensure an orderly meeting. She indicated board members are volunteers, chosen based
on their interest settling the issues. Anyone not willing to read the packets and put in the necessary time to do a thorough job should not be on the board. While acknowledging the
importance of keeping discussion flowing, she wished to allow every member ample opportunity to speak.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:06 p.m.
Chair
Planning and Zoning Board
Attest:
Board Reporter