11/17/1987
:,,,:.'
- :' ,
, '
. "
, '. ' ~ ': ..' ~': ' _, . I ,.:.~
"';',;- .:,':
.,
"
" -
'. ~,
I .~ _ (
",
..:;"""
~'
'..
A
e
single family residences;
residences typical of RS-8.
the anneKation and RS-8 (Single
uses are single family
recommended approval of
"Eight") zoning.
and,
surrounding
Mr.
was
the
request
Road
that
resident, questioned
four single family
the use of
residences were
in opposition
RS-8 zoning and
proposed for
to the above
Motion was
Commission
Residential
made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by
to approve the above request for
"Eight") zoning. Motion carried
Mr. Green, to
annexation and
unanimously (6
recommend to the City
RS-8 (Single Family
to 0).
(C)
Zoning Atlas and Land Use Plan:
1 . PARCEL 1
M&B 33.02 and portion of M&B 33.01,
Sec. 17-29S-l6E
PARCEL 2
M&B 33.06, Section l7-29S-16E
(Located east of u.s.
Seville Boulevard)
(Clearwater
LUP 87-29
19 and south
Seville Ltd./City)
Z 87-20
.
Zoning
PARCEL
nCM:
(Limited Office)
(Highway Commercial)
Atlas
1.
OL
CH
1:0:
PARCEL 2
FK.(}M: RM-12
1:0: RM-28
(Multiple Family Residential
(Multiple Family Residential
"Twelve")
"Twenty-Eight")
Land 'Use Plan.
PARCEL 1
PiCM: Residential/Office
TO: Commercial Tourist Facility
PARCEL 2
PiCK: Medium Density Residential
TO: High Density Residential
The above property
Boulevard.
is
located east
of
U.S.
19 and
Hwy.
south of
Seville
.
this reques t
CH (Highway Commercial) for
from RM-12 (Kultiple Family Residential
Resident ial "Twenty-Eight") for PARCEL 2 as well
from Residential Office to Commercial/Tourist Facilities
1 and a Land Use Plan amendment from 11edium Density Residential
Density Residential for PARCEL Z. She stated the application was not
by Planning because 'it thought the change was a good idea but
Harvey stated
(Limited Office) to
amendment
Family
amendment
Ms.
is
for
zoning atlas
PARCEL 1 and
"Twelve")
as
a
amendment from OL
a zoning atlas
RM-28 (Multiple
Land Use Plan
for PARCEL
to High
initiated
because the
P & Z
3
11/17/87
j~
~: .' ,
"
" :::s' .,.. ,.". ,"
:,j"
r.;::"~
1.1
:f',
t:......
,.,
~
I
/
I
,I,
'., 'i
I'
f..
I:
.'., '
~.._~
!JIII...~..-.n..~~~......... ~
'~
......;....-~'Ci,'l;1l'd1~&!=,'
/'!rJ':\
~
request is the result of litigation with Clearwater Seville. Ms. Harvey
advised that in 1982, during areawide rezoning, the property was down zoned to
its present category. She added that representatives of applicant met with
City staff to consider settlement of a pending lawsuit and part of the settle-
ment is to change the zoning on the two subject parcels as above requested. In
regards to PARCEL 1, she stated: this parcel includes part of Seville
Boulevard which is a private drive and on which there are easements to provide
public access; the present zoning is OL (Limited Office); and, CH (Highway
Commercial) is requested which is the same as property immediately west of
PARCEL 1. In regards to PARCEL 2, she stated: the property is located on the
south side of Seville Condominiums; the property is presently zoned RM-12,
which became effective in 1982; prior to 1982, the property was zoned RM-28;
and, the request is to now rezone the property to RM-28 as it was previously.
."";"'
'. ~'I'
Ms. Harvey related that there were approximately 4 annexations that include
what is known as Clearwater Mall and the Seville property that includes the 2
subject properties. She advised: the first annexation was January, 1969 and
included property front ing on U. S. 19, the sub ject property or a portion of
the southern parcel and the zoning applied was Commercial on U.S. Hwy. 19 and
RM-28 on the remainder of the property; the next action was in 1970 in which
additional property was annexed and included 2 parcels presently zoned RM-28;
in 1972 property known as Clearwater Mall was annexed and was zoned "B"
Business and the last parcel was annexed with the back half of the property
being zoned Commercial Tourist Facilities. In 1972 portions of property zoned
RM were for multiple family use and limited business; in 1978, the City
changed the zoning on the property from RM to RM.-28 and the "B" Business
classification became CG (General Commercial); in 1982, the City took action
during its areawide rezoning in which the City rezoned PARCEL 2 from RM-28 to
RM-l2 and the property on Seville Boulevard and Seville Boulevard to PSi an
Office zoning category to provide buffer between residential development and
Clearwater Mall; the last action changed the zoning on the vacant property
along Seville Boulevard and to the south to OL (Limited Office).
Ms. Harvey advised the lawsuit stated the zoning was established at the time
of annexation and now applicant wants the original zoning on the property. She
stated the settlement would result in RM-12 zoning replacing the origtinal RM
zoning and the comme reial property would be zoned CH (Highway Commercial)
rather than OIB" (Business). Ms. Harvey stated that this is what is included in
the settlement and, as a matter of law, the subject request must be taken
through the official process. She stated this Board is requested to review the
subject request to see if it is a reasonable request for the change in zoning
and the land use. She added that if the City is not successful in the lawsuit
the zoning could be a ,higher ca tegory than what is proposed. Mr. Galbrai th
stated the zoning requested is consistent with the zoning that existed in 1969
when an Agreement to Annex was entered into.
.
After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Ms. Harvey stated the property to the south of
the RM-12 property became RMH (Mobile Home Park) with a Land Use Plan of
Medium Density Residential. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey stated
that, during the areawide rezonings, the PS zoning was done to serve as a
buffer between Seville and Clearwater Mall and zoning was changed on the
properties fronting on U.s. Hwy. 19 to PS. After questioning by Ms. N1.xonl Ms.
Harvey stated that, even though Seville Boulevard is a private road, there are
easements on the property to keep it open. She stated she understands
applicant wants to open small shops which would require commercial zoning but
any project could not be large because the parcel is not very large.
P & Z
4
11/17/87
;... ';"'~',
, '
'I,'
"
':1"',
,.;;":,
!.",), .,' ,
;:.""::T.::/J;..:,i~..,.
.";: :. ',;'
. ,I, ": ':":::, .<_""
"
.,':!'
" .
, ".:.,;,' ,
L..,/~, ..'
'. ... ~ \
J-:;''', .
.......,
..~
, I'
:1
'I'
.', '!
I,
. "'"
','
.\!':'[;:;."
"
..,..,...............,.-",:;"tt~:9'IfIll.....ilJ
.... t
~<,..
'), ,~ ... :
',1
The following persons appeared in opposition to the above request to give
their comments:
Mr. Robert E. Coleman, 1012 Pearce Drive, felt the people of Seville were
victims and felt hundreds of residents have been disregarded. He advised he
only received notice 2 days earlier. He felt the City has made its decision
before the public has had a chance to oppose the request. He stated it was his
understanding that RM-28 zoning will allow applicant to do almost whatever he
wants to do to the property. He advised he is opposed to changing the zoning
whether the change is to settle a lawsuit or not and the residents are going
to hire an attorney to represent them. He also felt his property has lost
value.
Mr. Ferrell pointed out that RM-28 zoning is a residential zoning and is the
identical zoning as what is on Mr. Coleman's property. Mr. Ferrell advised
that a commercial project would not be allowed in the RM-28 zoning district
and a congregate care facility could be allowed as a conditional use. Ms.
Nixon advised that both RM-12 and RM-28 zoning districts would allow
congregate care facilities. Mr. Green stated a person would be required to
come before the Planning and Zoning Board to have a conditional use approved
for a congregate care facility. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Coleman
stated he is opposed to the commercial zoning but stated he would prefer to
have his attorney speak on that point.
.
Ms. Dorothy Dossey, 2635 Seville Boulevard, No. 3l2, stated the residents of
Seville had only 3 days to collect information regarding the above request.
She advised there was no opportunity to read the Seville case. She stated the
residents have had no legal advice while the City of Clearwater and Clearwater
Seville have had months to prepare. She stated she opposes the zoning.
After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated if the above request is
continued the item scheduled before the City Commission on December 3 will
also need to be continued. Mr. Galbraith stated there is no set timetable as
far as litigation is concerned except that the parties agreed to move as
reasonably as possible.
After questioning by Board members, Mr. Coleman stated some residents did not
receive notice and Ms. Dossey stated the residents only had 3 working days to
prepare for their opposition.
Ms. Nixon felt she could not vote on a recommendation until all information
was received from residents. Mr. Green stated if the Board votes to continue
the above request that persons not able to attend the hearing on December 15,
1987 be given an opportunity to speak today. Mr. Hogan stated it appears that
not enough notice was given.
Ms. Harvey requested that, if this item is continued, any person who cannot
appear at a continued hearing should speak today so that when this item goes
before the City Commission it is not implied that any person did not get an
opportunity to speak before this Board.
.
Mr. Galbraith advised that the notice sent regarding this request was sent
using the same procedure as is followed for all advertised public hearings.
P & Z
11/17/87
5
~:i\t~ftt;;.. '" 1~::;,(.~":1~~"r;',&'~: ::~ ft;it,;*:~:~~':';l?!~~/~;~,I~.> ' .'... " '
'J~ v.~ l\~..~~,t I,~ ,',. L 'e ," \ ' . ,.(:.,,,1' ~"''''.t'' ,.,,0" j" ,'. '
~Y"~'";:T!~!'?'./~-iJ''(f';4,.''';'o''' ,,, ,~; ., ....,'.:..~.~~::.'o_' ,~..t... .,
~~?TTrrp' . .
. ';~:;~~';';:' "': : ,;~',~,!7';:::~,:~~~~,~,'~;.,,:
..~ . "
, .
",., .
'r' .'
P & z
6
11/17/87
,;::/.:~, '
1.<':
, ,t~ ,
........
,';: \','"'" ,,>~..,:,; r', "
';,1 .
!,',
','. j
,~.
. . . . ~'
" 'I
I
.1.
, .i '
'I,
,
I
.1
"
, '
, .
':" '.
'" ),'.
,"~I ,
Mr. Schwob felt this Board should do all it can to hear from citizens who have
had ample opportunity to prepare for the above request.
Mr. Hogan requested that, if the Board continues the above item to December
15, 1987, any person not able to appear should speak at this time.
Ms. Nixon left the meeting at 2:25 PM.
Hs. Barbara Carroll, 2623 Seville Boulevard, Apt. 304, felt that RM-28 zoning
is not an unreasonable request. Ms. Carroll questioned that according to a map
she received it appears the change in zoning on Seville Boulevard would go to
Pearce Drive. Ms. Harvey advised that Seville Boulevard is a private road with
easements for public access and the Ci ty must apply a zoning category on
private property but since there are easements over the property the private
property may not be developed. Ms. Carroll felt that Parcell should protect
the residents from commercial property. She also stated she would not like to
see storage on the vacant propert ies. She added she would not like to see
zoning that could add to traffic congestion and she would like to see the
parcels down zoned.
Mr. Hamilton questioned if the opposition is against zoning or intended uses.
He stated that both types of facilities previously discussed by the opposition
would be required to go before this Board for conditional use approval.
Mr. Green stated part of the lawsuit is based on what was previously acted on
by this Board and the City Comndssion in 1982 in its areawide rezoning.
.
Motion was made by Mr.
item until its meeting
prepare its case on the
Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to continue the above
of December 15, 1987 to allow time for opposition to
above request. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
Ms. Harvey advised that the hearing on December 15, 1987 will not begin until
2:00 PM. She also gave notice that public hearing notices will not be mailed
for the December 15, 1987 meeting. Mr. Hogan also advised that this Board will
act on this item as any advisory Board only. He also stated ,though this item
will not be heard by the City Commdssion until this Board makes disposition,
this Board will only make a recommendation to the City Commission.
(D) Annexation. Zoning. and Land Use Plan:
1. Lots 18 and 19, B I k. D,
Temple Terrace 1st Addition
(Located on the north side of Drew
Street, west of Terrace Drive East)
(Sanford, Jr.)
A 87-40 LUP 87-28
Request - Annexation and Zoning, OL
(Limited Office)
Laud Use Plan
FROH: Commercial/Tourist Facility
T(}: Residential Office
.
The above property is located on the north side of Drew St reet, west of
Terrace Drive East.
',. .
.' ~ ..:' \.., ~. "',:
"- . ; ~ .1,. , :1'
,.' '~.~'< ~~';-:',~~~. ~;.;:;: :.:~, ':.
~,. ,
" ,',
,','.
, "
";" ,
\~
_1._
~:[ ~'Y:"!~':.<' ;:'JI,~".',.I',':': 'J.") ,I
,::L{ j,"': :' ':.. '
, '\~~i~ ;"'':,, '.", , '
":;'.',",!::V,\:;:".'.", '
~. < :;(; \':::"::>;j':',;:,,','
I! ',1,';, ',' ,:. '" ""
.. "":h." "
,(\' .':'...
;"',' ",;",;.,:' .",i'"
:\;',., . ,.. i
\,;.;\' ,. :;",':' ,'>:,','
';';-::""'.'
: ..".,';:" ,':',\ ,.,' :,'.' '
..,;,'/,."",'1 ....,:;:',:,';",,, ;"',""
, ", :....:,... ,-,: ' "
::-'\" :, '~i<:";' :',':, , ,: ...' ,", ,"
, > ;I;; :".<."\ ~:,\:<' 'I",."',
~o'. ' . "
j,:;";":' ';/', ',':;'" .,'
,'" ", "" "
:,,\ 1,.::"./.;,::-,,', ::"'., ,". "~: .." '
..;,;'., X:, ""'.',' ...: ,,'
::,L,'" ,'~:,; "
>Y,,: \ \, ,<::;:;' ,i. , '
,','i, ::' "':~ ,:'.,' '" ."i ' "
;!j~S;;,'i,;\,:: '\. ',Y";:', :r';::, ""
,I;,:,:'" """::::;:," ",::;. ',...:,:,';', ': '.;. .' .' "
,::":::,:i;:"i,,':" li;:i,,/, ;,':-C'J' ':.;' "" ',':, ": ' ::'.
:''C '...., ,":",'i':.'''' ,;, : 'i',,': :.", "'.,.,; ",',',,"j:<' .,"
, ".' '. '~;':; . ," ';' ..~,:, .,.;,..'. ,;', ", " ,'. ' ',,'
:,': ':;"';",,~>,,:>.f.', 'Jc ',;":,,.' ," ,',' ,,:', :'
, '~;;>'i'" (,<C':c;':,\,;':" ~r':h"j" ,,'i,'.";::, "
':'':', ,->, ',': "I,.'; '::',: '
;;'>~'J: 1;:,,':>>":':::'\' '", ':,\ ,";' {",.., ".: ;,:; :,' \>::' ...~'
..:',!":/" ",',',:,:'" ':,"., :':':<':;:"'>";"~,,::':; ';', "'., "
.':, (,-':" ", t,'::",::.:, :,',,','," , ',:L>,", ",
';;- !~'. "':" :,>', !';,,' .,\ ..':;~ ,';iU:/,,:::,' "":',-, ';:.....L~_..;..:._ __
f :;~;';
: ',i
,':';>;i
;t{fi\l~~
" ':"',,',::J,;:'
".1.:" ,
" ," ':,"j ,"':.: ,'I
",:
.
'.',':..:
",;,'
, ",
;':/ '
"
',,'; '.'.
,",:;(;':';
..,>::'},:;:
,,'::
~
1::"',::', "";":,. ,.,:
::'~'1~11
\ "~,:\;~;
I
"~I ,\;
:,;'
1(1,
to,.
~
~t/i,:'
~.;\,. ,1
"
f;:;':,:,
~6'.:
1/
'~; .,:':.
'I' .;.
.. '~,
1i' <:
.-
r;,
t'>
i,.::"
:':"
'I"
',~: '
;,.
',:
','. '
~ . " :: . .
'I"~
'"
;.
}i;~
''';/
o
Mr. Pruit t advised as follows: This request is for annexat ion, OL (Limited
Office) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Commercial/~ourist
Facili ties to Resident ial/Of flee; the surrounding uses are Limited Office
zoning to the eas t and west, Public /Semi-Public zoning to the south, and
duplexes to the north; City sewer will need to be extended to serve the above
property; City water is available; the property is presently vacant; an office
building is proposed for the site; and, the request for Limited Office zoning
and a Land Use Plan classification of Residential/Office is consistent with
the Pinellas County Land Use Plan classification and is in conf orma nce with
eKisting uses. Mr. Pruitt stated staff recommended approval of the annexation,
OL (Limi ted Office) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from
Commercial/Tourist Facilities to Residential/Office.
1rt~~:.
ly,(i
. ~'f\1..,
''';'
,",'.'
::..
Mr. Julian Hartzog, applicant) stated a contract to purchase the above
property is pending and applicant would like to build an office building which
will include applicant's insurance office. He stated the building will contain
an additional 3,000 square feet of space that will be rented. He advised that
the request is annex is so that applicant may receive City services. Mr.
Hartzog requested if tt is necessary to cbange the Land Use Plan from
Commercial/Tourist Facilities to Residential/Office, he stated he would prefer
to have commercial zoning on the property since the property is on a
commercial highway and the commercial zoning would allow a larger sign. He
stated the size of signs allowed is very limited in the Limited Office zoning
district.
.
Mr. Pruitt stated the Limited Office for the property is appropriate since the
surrounding uses and the proposed use of the property would be compatible.
Mr. Pruit t felt the size of signs is not a valid criteria to consider
commercial zoning at this time. Mr. Schwob stated it appears that the sign
requirements would be adequate with the Limited Office zoning. After
questioning by Mr. Schwab, Mr. Hartzog stated Limited Office allows only a 24
square foot sign and applicant would want to have as large a sign as possible.
He stated he did not believe that the signs on adjacent property conformed to
sign regulations. Ms. Harvey stated that nonconforming signs will be required
to be replaced by 1992. She stated this Board is not a sign review Board and
it would not be appropriate to place a zoning category according to the size
of signs allowed. She also stated applicant has the opportunity to make a
request for additional signage to the Development Code Adjustment Board.
Ms. Harvey stated staff has tried to lessen development intensity along this
section of Drew Street and restrict the zoning to office zoning and she felt
that wanting a larger sign for the property is not an appropriate reason to
zone the property commercial.
Mr. Hartzog felt Drew Street was not a residential street and felt
Residential/Office was not appropriate for Drew Street.
Mr. Green felt commercial zoning would not be appropriate and he felt signs
are not enough reason to change zoning on the property.
.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend that the
City Commission approve the annexation) OL (Limited Office) zoning, and a Land
Use Plan amendment from Commercial/Tourist Facilities to Residential/Office.
Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
P & Z
7
11/17/87
M'~.i,.t~' . _ ~~ ..;....!~.<'~l... ,.....\-'.:,....~~;-~.,..,;-:;>:~...{~'':.f~... ~ol. _..~'- \~ .>
~\t~l~~~~;(~t~~:r1<::.;:. ,~ ;~t~i;t\:v\:::~~~~it~~f=?g~~4~.:c- ".
i~J-~'::~~t;~:~;~~~11:;";:' ~.~ <.' ~ ,~:~.:~~ . ~, ':2:~.~~:wr: I,: ,:,~~~...~ ~.~:..
:~.I'.
, "
~\;
I" ~1:~~' ." ~~ . ..: :..... ~l. . 0 .
'",.,'1<i!;>", ,l,....~<,,' t",;,\' "..
l...i.i~,~":" ,"'~.'f ,j'.:( "
1.,/"'"
,,' ~ '
\'
~
."
;1';- " ,'... .....',
'..:.i -;,'.'.. .:' ':.. 1 :.'
", .,
,', .. , ", ,.. ",""''/Y; ,
",1
" ..
.< "
," ,.
',':' I'
,.~
' '
',' , "',
;':.
.
'" ~..~, ~t
'--,~ ,"".
'.I "
,..l....
........
.
,
I'
I
: ..,.. " ,
t
'> '\;':'.,;
!.';
",
,"'.,' ,
,': : ',.', I>, ,'"
. :,::, , ,
,,,,,:'X,~':::':/:"{':',;;';:</;,,,~:. ~:;'"
: """:'~ :};~:' (;)~',',
,:::" ~",,' {,;":
" ' ::.
",;: ' , ,J'
"":;.'" :>
',J ',:
"
I'i.>';..;.:;/ ":-;,',;,,,
1'-':';' "/(;:)~:' ';;
.:,;',>:/,,.' ">., ":"
"':"".' ";,,' . '.'
.<:""" ..:::::'"
:.". ..' ::c..
',. '!:~:;'~;;,t'
, ,,'" ',' , ,.
, "",:"
:':,.'...' " :",
I,,: :;'::< ..:;':~;:>';
1')"'-': ':""~;:;':,i
'; ',' ,"" :,{
,,",:" ....",'"
;'~c,:,... '>i::~':::
'~riiJ
~~i~t
if' ,
",'
,,:
t;',c >':T';
,.:, [;rfJ;~i:t,'
'.'..::' ,':",
",,: ',"', ",
.:',:: ."', :',',
':'.,:~~::' :~;'::fF;~(~\:~
Ii> :.;" :.:j~:.;~~:;
,,': '"
!;
,',
" :-
" :\~}~{~rrr:-~
:;,~
-)"
:",
~ ,~~'-
(,;, ;
~....
::' ,,:,'::,":"
", '''I
>
of:,:.
i
!:, .i
"
:.:V'"1
i~~:
,S
"
;.,:t
~
\~;}
'( ...i
" ,
\,
;~:
;;.~..
';1.
.~~
',~,\'...i.
,
t'
.~ :i
,~
, .;
';r
~~,~
.t~(
~1~~1~
\'~it
"f:.,.
.t~ir
~'~'.i
1
I
:.:; !
, i
';.I
'!
, I
, '~~
.f
..,I.
"."
,!
':"~" .:
~\f "
;i,
'.t.::, ~
"
:,..
,~' ',:
\
/,
I
I,
i
;..
:,(:
ri~
t
f,
" i
II. {
"
;;,'i>:
",
':,. ;,,:".;!<:,:f,
""""".', ,., ','
.. ",'j
f
}
." \
--
..... ...........-
,.: ,,'
G
.
.
(~
'., i
,~, , .
, ;:
, !'
(E) Chairman's Items
Mr. Hogan welcomed new Board member Kenneth Hamilton.
(P) Director's Items
Ms. Harvey advised that the City Commission has made a decision that on
December 1, 1987 there will be a public hearing on the second reading of the
Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance in the Commission Chambers at 6:30 PM. It will be
the only item on the agenda.
Ms. Harvey advised that in regard to CU 87-90, on November 3, 1987, the
Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a request for conditional use of outdoor
retail sales, display and storage and vehicle service for a proposed, boat
dealership at 1260 U.S. Hwy. 19 South. She stated Board approved the request
subject to several conditions which included a requirement for formal site
plan review. She also stated this particular condition of cpproval was
requested by staff as it was anticipated that immediate changes would be made
to the structure and parking areas on the property to accommodate the boat
dealership. Ms. Harvey advised that Mr. Robert Veurink, applicant, stated
there are to be no changes to the site. Ms. Harvey requested that the Board
consider eliminating this particular condition or in the alternative, to amend
the language of the condition of approval to state that a site plan will be
required to be submitted to the City at such time that changes are proposed to
the property that necessitate site plan review in accordance with Section
137.010 of the Code. She advised since this particular condition of approval
does not constitute significant alteration to the approval action of the
Board on November 3, 1987 it is not required to be heard as a public hearing
item.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr.
stating "S) That the applicant submit a site
processing by the City" placed on CU 87-90 and
eliminated. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
Ferrell, that condition lIS
plan for formal review and
heard on November 3, 1987 be
Ms. Harvey stated a memo was sent to this Board regarding Ordinance No. 4375-
87, which ordinance was passed on first reading by the Commission in March,
1987. She advised that at that time Commissioner Moore expressed concern that
develol>Ulent on the parking lot at downtown Maas Brothers was proposed. She
stated at the previous hearings that she felt the City was harming itself by
not allowing any parking that was in a City-owned or leased lot and being used
by another property owner from ever being removed. She stated specific amended
language has been submitted by Commissioner Regulski to the effect that if a
piece of property has parking on it, it cannot be taken away or sold or
rendered unavailable to that property unless it is approved by the City. She
stated what is being offered is something in writing that is in practice now
to the effect that assurances would be made that parking is available. Ms.
Ha rvey felt this change is not an amendment to Ordinance No. 4375-87 but
should be considered an entire new ordinance. She stated the title would need
to be changed in order for this change to come about.
After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Ms. Harvey stated Ordinance No. 4375-87 was
an effort on the part of the Commission to give some assurance to: individuals
who are concerned about what might happen to parking lots that are in areas
the City would like to see remain open; individuals who are concerned that
there is not enough parking in downtown or on the beach; and to the Commission
P & Z
8
11/17/87
" ; ~ '. ": ,'", "'
'.I' ;, , '
,:..',,', I
"
,
"',' ,I
Sl,":"
..:', t' ' '
t:YJ
I,
;,t....,
..~...u,
~.
I
\
'.
J
" ,.. ....; , .~'
" <".:'~::~~:":":'IJ;:" ":,-,,,1.\
. ,: :::~.f ' "".1~' ,,'"o.';::'j,f' ~ .\ ':. '? .:\. " N~ '-:".f' L\ (" '~_,j~;.} :~ I~',
.~ " ':i~ ~ ': \ :'::"1 I
';: .~..
."~ \
. " ,~: -.'~ ~
lr;~
.1.
!".
. "
-\,
".4,
.' : ."~' .t.';~'~':';1~~},,',":,,~'j ,,'
',.,",,\-:
." < r r' ~.
,,'.
" r',
". '~"--"" ~.- ~..~..._~ ....--. ,...._~
.t:..::)"':1
",,~.:'f . ~f .
.1.1.......,
"',
. .1~~,"',~~~<I:
;;,?\':~'-
,"':.;"~F!..~ij~i"..~:; :";'~ ~'...~r't; j.':',~', . ';t</';~~::/ ,:~:. '(
. .'.. ::' :~ ~~,; :1',
.:',',1'.
":.-"'\
:-.:,;;.
{...t"