Loading...
12/10/1998 DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER December 10, 1998 Present: William Schwob Chair William Johnson Vice-Chair Mark Jonnatti Board Member Ron Stuart Board Member - arrived 1:03 p.m. Shirley Moran Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Sandy Glatthorn Planning & Development Services Manager Ralph Stone Planning Director Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, review of meeting procedures, and explanation of appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #A - Time Extension Requests A1) (approved 11/13/97) Breezeway Inc. (Breezeway Motel, Inc.) for second time extension of six months for variance to parking requirement at 602 Poinsettia Avenue. Mandalay replat, unit 5, block A. V97-66 Member Jonnatti moved to approve a 6 month extension for Item #A1. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #B - Continued Variance Requests B1) (Cont’d from 11/12/98) Amaz D., Bakije F., Neim B. & Enverije Abdullaj (The Renaissance on Sand Key) for variances to allow construction of residential condominium building with zero setback and proposed height of 235 feet at 1370 Gulf Blvd., Sec 19-29-15, M&Bs 14.04, 14.05 & 14.06, zoned CG (General Commercial) & OS/R (Open Space/Recreational). V 98-78 The subject property is developed with a restaurant which will be razed. Property to the south is developed as a residential condominium while property to the north is vacant. The subject property originally was part of the development to the south. Following litigation, the subject property and property to the south were separated. The applicant proposes to construct a 235-foot, 27-unit residential condominium tower with integrated parking. The applicant has easements on the adjoining properties but setbacks must be measured from the property line. Since the November 12, 1998, meeting, the applicant has revised the development plan to provide additional setbacks. The applicant recognizes the request is for significant variances and has referenced higher structures on Sand Key which do not meet height or setback requirements. Staff found a number of buildings between 150-feet and 220-feet high. Several properties which do not meet height or side setback requirements were permitted due to court direction pursuant to litigation. The applicant contends the “urban context” of Sand Key development consists of irregular tall building heights consistent with the proposed height for this project. The applicant noted many buildings on Sand Key have separations consistent with the proposed side setbacks. After reviewing scaled aerial maps and past files, staff has found several circumstances supporting the applicant’s contention. Projects such as the Grande, the Meridian, the Crescent, and the approved site plan immediately to the north exhibit height and setback dimensions that exceed current code requirements. Staff also has found many structures that meet code requirements and are separated from other buildings by 150 to 300 feet. The proposed project is relatively small in terms of service impacts. The applicant proposes to mitigate the large setback variances by “stepping back” the building sides as the height increases. Proposed setbacks for the first 2 levels, second 3 levels, and first half of the tower closely address setback requirements if measured at ground level. Staff feels the requested height variance is not out of character with Sand Key buildings and the structure’s design meets all FEMA regulations. Other recent construction on Sand Key in excess of 200 feet does not meet code. Staff recommends approval as the development will be a high quality, small condominium project. Extensive landscaping off Gulf Boulevard will enhance the area’s beauty. The revised design opens view corridors, softens the project, and harmonizes with the area. Planning & Development Services Manager Sandy Glatthorn stated the revised plan steps back the building’s sides on higher floors to improve the view corridor. In response to a question, she reviewed code setback requirements. It was noted the code does not provide for a stepped back design. Concern was expressed approval would establish a precedent. Ms. Glatthorn said staff had evaluated the stepped back design as positive even though the code does not provide specifically for a stepped back effect. In response to a question, she said a swimming pool and outside amenities are not shown on the plan as they have not been proposed yet. The plan meets requirements for the rear setback based on the property line at mean high water. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn was unaware of another stepped back design on the beach. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said this item is being heard under quasi judicial hearing rules. Brian Battaglia, representative for the applicant, presented an aerial photographic display (Exhibit 1) of Sand Key and distributed pictorials representing the dimensions of the proposed setbacks (Exhibit 2). He said the 27 condominiums will average $1.6-million each and increase City tax revenues. He said the proposed building separation and height are consistent with Sand Key structures. He distributed Peter Gottschalk’s resume (Exhibit 3). Peter Gottschalk, architect, said stepped setbacks are common place in nearby cities and will provide adequate separation between the towers. He reviewed the development’s plans and stated staff photographs of Sand Key indicate 70-foot to 80-foot building separations are not unusual. It was noted the structure’s footprint is more compact than the Sand Key norm. In response to a question, Mr. Gottschalk said two Ultimar towers are 252 feet high, and taller than the subject project. He said the project will have fewer units per floor than most buildings and is well set back from the CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line). In response to a question, he said most complaints about the project relate to view obstruction. In response to a question, Anthony Battaglia said he hoped to be one of the project’s owners. He reviewed the property’s history, noting the parcel had been acquired from the Ed Wright estate trustee. In response to a question, Sam Codomo, consultant and director of proposed purchasers, said project representatives had met several times with the Sand Key Club board next door and had reviewed development plans. In response to questions from Timothy Johnson, representative for the Sand Key Club Condominium Association, Mr. Gottschalk said the proposed units will be between 3,500 and 10,000 square feet. No other documentation was presented in support of the project. Mr. Johnson said the property owners of the Sand Key Club, directly south of the proposed development, oppose the variances. After he called for a response from those opposed to the requested variances, more than 100 audience members raised their hands. He said the Sand Key Club will be most impacted by the project. He said the 133 foot height variance request is 57% greater than code permits. He said Sand Key Club residents know the lot will be developed but request the structure conform with code to minimize impacts. He said the code does not authorize stair-stepping as a way to address setback requirements. He said the front setback request is great and the side variance requests are 448% greater than allowed by code. The code allows the building’s height to be 92 feet. He said neighborhood condominiums are between 150- and 220-feet. He said the Ultimar towers are 231 feet high. Mr. Johnson displayed a photograph of the neighborhood (Exhibit 4) and distributed a table (Exhibit 5) of Sand Key buildings based on City records. He said all tall buildings are located on the island’s north end. With the average height of nearby buildings at 135 feet, he said the proposal is out of scale. He said the average separation between Sand Key buildings is 174 feet. He said the separation from the Sand Key Club should be 106 feet, the minimum necessary to maintain views from Sand Key Club units which face north/south. Other developments with the same view pattern, such as those built by U.S. Steel, have large separations. Mr. Johnson distributed a sketch (Exhibit 6) demonstrating a building constructed on the site without variances would have much less impact on Sand Key Club residents. He said the request does not meet the standards of approval. He said the variances are requested for economic gain. He said a search of County records indicate only 6 Sand Key condominiums have sold for more than $600,000 during the past 6 years. He said the proposed development is not in harmony with the neighborhood as variances would expand the footprint and impact additional Sand Key Club units. Judy Simmons distributed a handout (Exhibit 7). She said approval of the variances would be harmful to Sand Key Club residents as the proposed structure is too tall and too close. She said a review of 4,000 Sand Key units sold since January 1995, indicate the average Sand Key unit has less than 1,750 square feet, 8 foot ceilings, and sold for less than $200,000. She said the proposed development will block most north units in the Sand Key Club. Ms. Simmons submitted a petition (Exhibit 8) opposing the variances, indicating it has 538 signatures. Seven residents spoke against the variances stating the 0.96 acre lot is too small, no amenities such as a swimming pool, tennis court, etc. have been proposed yet, Sand Key Association representatives from 26 condominium projects oppose the development, the City Manager supports tightening requirements, the structure would inflict Sand Key Club residents with light deprivation, property values would be lowered, the narrow space between buildings could result in a fire hazard, the proposal does not meet front setback requirements, the development will undermine Sand Key’s integrity, and the building’s size is inappropriate. A photograph (Exhibit 9) was submitted demonstrating how the proposed development will impact the view from one Sand Key Club unit. Ten letters in opposition were submitted. Brian Battaglia said Mr. Johnson had provided no evidence to support his claims. In response to a question, Ms. Simmons said she had taken no measurements when she photographed a panorama of the island from the mainland shoreline for Exhibit 4, but had tried to remain equidistant from the Sand Key structures for each frame. Sonja Haught said she had used available data to prepare to scale the mylar overlay used in Exhibit 4 to demonstrate the impact of the proposed structure. Mr. Johnson said he had computed the calculations and percentages listed in the Exhibit 5 tables. Ms. Simmons said she had prepared the building footprint contained in Exhibit 7. In response to a question from Mr. Battaglia, Phyllis Lamphier said she was a real estate agent who believed the project would have a negative impact on Sand Key Club property values although she had not performed an appraisal. Mr. Battaglia noted speakers who had addressed easements were not registered surveyors. He said the panorama and mylar overlay do not depict the project accurately. He said it is legitimate to consider the project in an urban context. He said the applicant has worked hard with staff to address special circumstances and comply with the intent of the law. He said the project represents a reasonable use of the property and is in harmony with nearby developments. He said no evidence was presented indicating the project will have an adverse effect on property values. Mr. Gottschalk said although codes do not indicate setbacks can be connected to the tier method, many cities routinely interpret them that way. He said concerns about the size of the front setback are not relevant as the Sand Key Club exceeds that setback by 300%. He submitted a sketch (Exhibit 10) comparing the proposal with a structure built in compliance with setback requirements, noting more Sand Key Club units would be blocked. It was noted the building in the sketch is 145 feet high when only 92 feet is allowed. Mr. Gottschalk indicated mechanical towers could be added to the top. Mr. Battaglia referred to staff’s support of the project. He said the board must weigh expert testimony. He said he had rebutted each issue addressed by the opposition. Mr. Johnson disagreed, stating property owner views of property values are admissible. It was noted while the building is attractive, the lot is too tiny. It was felt the proposed structure is too massive. It was stated the Sand Key Club had not been designed for construction of an abutting structure to the north although something will be built there eventually. It was felt it is critical developers work with Sand Key Club residents for the most desirable results. It was stated the proposal is out of scale with nearby development. Concern was expressed the applicant had omitted important measurements from the site plan. It was stated the standards for compliance had not been met as Exhibit 10 illustrates a reasonable use of the property exists. It was felt the setback variances requested are too great and height variance too drastic. It was stated the project is out of character with Sand Key and meets none of the standards for approval. Concern was expressed the applicant had not proven the development is in the best interest of Clearwater. It was felt the best judges of a development’s injurious impact are those who live nearby. Member Jonnatti moved to deny the variances requested in Item #B1 as the applicant has not met the criteria contained in Code Section 45.24(1) and (2). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. The meeting recessed from 3:23 to 3:31 p.m. B2) (Reconsideration from 09/24/98) Barbara L. Bennett for following variances (1) fence height; (2) fence setback from right-of-way; and (3) required landscaping at 1784 Thames St., Blackshire Estates, Lot 62, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-64 This property is developed with a single family residence and swimming pool on Thames Street. The County plans to widen Keene Road, the non-addressed street. The applicant had applied for variances to erect a 6-foot privacy fence in the street setback area from Keene Road. On September 24, 1998, DCAB (Development Code Adjustment Board) had approved the height variance but denied the requested setback and landscaping variances. Subsequently, City landscaping and forestry staff has visited the site and reported that existing trees and root systems would conflict with a fence installed 3 feet from the property line and that the trees provide adequate buffer. Staff recommends that DCAB reconsider the setback and landscaping variances and approve them as requested. Landscape Forestry Specialist Scott Kurleman had visited the site on October 8, 1998. He said the property’s live oak and Australian pine trees will be removed when Keene Road is extended. The fence cannot be installed in its proper location without harming the long leaf pine tree. It was noted the board had wanted to avoid an alley look along Keene Road. Don McFarland, representative, displayed an aerial photograph of the site, noting the fence line intersects with the pine tree. He said the applicant is willing to beautify the outside of the fence once road construction is complete. The applicant wants a buffer from the project. No documentation in support or opposition was presented. It was noted the applicant had provided proof of special circumstances. Concern was expressed a precedent not be established as the board had ordered another homeowner to jog a fence around an obstruction. Ms. Glatthorn reported pine trees have sensitive root systems. Member Moran moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant has substantially met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variances based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of these variances, will result in these variances being null and of no effect and 2) requisite building permit shall be obtained within 6 months. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #C - New Variance Requests C1) Lois Lear for variance to allow RV to be parked within right-of-way setback at 2908 Edenwood St., Woodvalley Unit 5, Blk 4, Lot 6, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-79 The applicant is requesting a variance to park a recreational vehicle in her driveway within the 25-foot front yard setback. The lot’s side yards are narrower than the 8.5-foot wide RV. Other Wood Valley subdivision lots are similarly sized. Staff feels the lack of parking area outside the setback is a self-imposed condition. The lot already contains a permitted use. The request does not reflect the Code’s purposes and intent to protect the City’s visual character and minimize adverse impacts by development on nearby property. Staff recommends the request be denied. Lois Lear, applicant, submitted photographs of her property. She said other neighborhood residents park RVs and boats in their front yards but claimed City inspectors do not enforce the law equally. She said only one neighbor has complained about her RV. In response to a question, Ms. Lear said she has owned her home for 2 ½ years and the RV for ½ year. It was stated residents are obligated to check with code restrictions before purchasing RVs or boats and parking them on their property. No documentation in support was presented. Monica Moir submitted photographs of the subject property, noting the RV is visible from her bedroom window. She said she has lived in her house for 26 years. She submitted a letter in opposition signed by 5 neighbors. Ms. Lear said the RV does not block the sidewalk. It was recommended the CRT (Community Response Team) make a thorough inspection of the whole neighborhood. It was requested staff follow-up on the house reported by Ms. Lear, that remains out of compliance. The code requirement for RVs was reviewed. Member Johnson moved to deny the variance requested in Item #C1 as the applicant has not met the criteria contained in Code Section 45.24. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C2) Wilton & Jennifer D. Lee, Jr. for variance to allow 15 foot structural setback to build double car garage where 25 ft is required at 1506 Linwood Dr., Highland Estates, Blk B, Lot 4, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-80 The applicant plans to add a double car garage and remodel the single car garage into a safe room for his handicapped son. The property is developed with a single family residence and additions that meet the needs of the applicant’s family. Staff feels the variance is a reasonable accommodation. Neighbors have signed a letter in support of the project. As part of this approval, the applicant cannot park any vehicle in the remaining length of the driveway and inhibit the sidewalk. Wilton Lee, applicant, submitted a petition, dated October 28, 1998, signed by 8 neighbors in support of the request. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn said the CRT would enforce the conditions. In response to a question, she said traffic engineering had opposed the request if the sidewalk is blocked. While 15 feet will remain between the addition and sidewalk, the average parking space is 19 feet long. Mr. Lee indicated he will park 2 vehicles in the garage and the other vehicle in the easement on the west side of the garage. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn indicated a variance to lay concrete for the parking space will not be necessary if the property’s minimum green space remains in ratio with code requirements. Member Johnson moved to grant the variances as requested because the applicant substantially has met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect 2) requisite building permit shall be obtained within 1 year; and 3) applicant shall not be permitted to park a vehicle in the driveway as the remaining length will be inadequate for a car without blocking the sidewalk. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3) James W. Soboleski & Deborah L. Groen for variance to allow a 10.5 foot structural setback for covered passageway where 25 feet is required at 191 Devon Dr., Bayside Sub, Lots 32-34, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-81 The applicant seeks a variance to add a porte cochere to a single family residence in the front yard setback. Staff recommends denial. Robert Heberich, representative, said he had not received a copy of the staff report, and incorrectly had thought staff supported the request. He requested the item be continued. Member Johnson moved to continue Item #C3 to January 14, 1999. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4) Community Service Foundation, Inc. (Foundation Village Neighborhood Family Center & Clearwater Police Substation) for variance to allow 15 foot building setback where 25 feet is required at 1498 S. Greenwood Ave., Sec 22-29-15, M&B 32.15, Fountain Oaks, Lots 1 & 2, zoned RM 8 (Multiple Family Residential). V 98-82 The applicant, CSF (Community Service Foundation, Inc.), is proposing to develop this site with 5,000-square foot building housing a Police substation and neighborhood family center. On August 11, 1998, the Future Land Use Designation was changed to Residential Medium. This lot is difficult to develop in accordance with setback requirements. Constructing the building in the setback will save 3 large oak trees in the center of the site. Staff has determined that proposed construction, as indicated on the site plan, will not impact the health of these trees. The police substation will face South Greenwood Avenue and provide the Police Department with optimum visibility of the street. The building’s west half, where most parking spaces are needed, will serve as a community neighborhood family center. The trees will shelter an outdoor play area for children in association with the family center. Staff feels the proposed setback will not impact negatively on surrounding properties nor be detrimental to the public welfare. The reduction will benefit the natural environment by allowing the trees to remain and provide the Police Department with a site to monitor neighborhood safety. The applicant has indicated a willingness to remove the concrete walkway within the 15-foot setback of the south property line and instead install landscaping to improve the building’s appearance. Woodlawn Street also will buffer the proposed development from area residential uses. The development will require a certified site plan. The proposed use requires conditional use approval by the Planning & Zoning Board. Gerry Spilatro, CSF Executive Director, reviewed the background of the project and CSF’s mission. He said CSF, working in partnership with 10 organizations, had applied for a safe neighborhood grant to reduce drug related crime. The approved grant will help build the police substation and cover police overtime pay. A CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) will be used to help build the family center. Lee Regulski, CSF Trustee and project planner, indicated the variances will save the trees and subsequently provide enjoyment for program participants. He said the setback on Woodlawn will not affect area aesthetics. The organization worked with staff to remove the proposed sidewalk. In response to a question, he reviewed the property’s history. CSF is donating the property to the City which will use Brownfields money to clean up contaminants. Duke Teiman said the neighborhood had organized a group patrol to fight drugs and prostitution. He said the Police Department needs visibility. He reviewed CSF efforts to upgrade the neighborhood. No documents were presented in support or opposition to the project. It was noted the project has been a great success story and all participants were congratulated. Member Jonnatti moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant substantially has met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect 2) requisite building permit shall be obtained within 6 months; 3) applicant shall obtain the requisite conditional use approval for this project; 4) applicant shall not locate a concrete walk area, or any other impervious material, within the 15-foot setback along the south property line. This setback area may be utilized only for landscape materials; and 5) applicant shall obtain requisite site plan certification prior to obtaining a building permit. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Glatthorn reported the item had been advertised correctly. C5) Jerry M. & Donna L. Kimball for variance to allow a 1 foot side setback where 5 feet is required at 1564 Toscola Rd., Gates Knoll 1st Addition, Lot 57, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). V 98-83 The applicant has requested a setback variance to build a carport for a covered parking space for his boat. While most surrounding residences have double car garages, this property has a single car garage. The house is in the lot’s center and extends to the front setback line. A side setback variance will be necessary to construct the carport. For many years, the boat has been parked on the side of the house with no objection; owners’ of abutting properties have signed a letter in support. Staff recommends approval. Letters of support from surrounding neighbors were submitted. Jerry Kimball, applicant, submitted a letter of support signed by 4 individuals. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant substantially has met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect and 2) requisite building permit shall be obtained within 1 year. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C6) L.O.M. Inc. (Legends Steakhouse) for variance to construct balcony with front and side setback of zero feet and variance to reduce parking to 29 spaces at 309 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White Skinner Sub, Lots 60-62, 108-109, & part of Lot 107, zoned CR 28 (Resort Commercial). V 98-84 The applicant, Legend Steakhouse, has applied for variances to parking and setback requirements to build a new deck which will increase the business’ parking requirement. Concern was expressed the board had not received copies of minutes from previous meetings covering actions related to this property nor the complete application. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the board must base decisions on current code. Reluctance to discuss this issue without reviewing the relevant minutes or application was expressed. A letter of support was received. Member Johnson moved to continue Item #C6 to January 14, 1999, and requested staff provide board members with copies of minutes covering previous actions related to this property and a complete application. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. It was requested staff provide the board with copies of the section in the draft code relative to this issue. C7) Information Management Resources for variance to allow 8 foot high wall/fence at 1180 Cleveland St., Gibsons Clearwater Heights, Lot 4-8, zoned UC(E) (Urban Center Eastern). V 98-85 The applicant plans to build a 8-foot high wall at the boundary between a residential and commercial district where the height will provide a more effective buffer to benefit the welfare of the owner, employees, and residents. The building’s location and existing parking make a 6-foot wall less effective for security reasons. Staff feels the project promotes downtown redevelopment and revitalization and addresses concerns for the welfare and safety of employees and neighbors. The planned improvements reflect the spirit and intent of revitalization. Ms. Glatthorn said the landscape plan staff had recommended is not appropriate for a wall in this location. Al Justice, representative, said IMR (Information Management Resources) had planned to raze the structure but now will move 40 computer programmers into the building in January 1999. IMR wants to build in wall out of concern for the safety of employees of the 24 hour a day operation. Dead trees have been removed. IMR has agreed to plant trees by neighboring houses to improve the buffer. The precast wall will feature attractive architectural characteristics on both sides. A wood fence will not be installed. IMR plans to raze the building next year. No documentation in support or opposition was presented. Member Johnson moved to grant the variance as requested because the applicant substantially has met all standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, subject to conditions: 1) variance based on the application, testimony, and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents in support of the request. Deviation from any of the documents beyond the scope expressly authorized by the Board in approval of this variance, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) applicant must obtain an approved landscape plan that meets or exceeds requirements set forth in Section 42.27 of current Land Development Code prior to the issuance of any permits; and 3) requisite building permit shall be obtained within 1 year. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #D - Land Development Code Amendments Planning Director Ralph Stone briefly reviewed Land Development Code amendments. City representatives have continued meeting with neighborhoods, community organizations, and the City Commission. Significant modifications have occurred. The granny flat and 6 foot walls in front yards have been eliminated. Single family residence neighbors now can appeal decisions related to abutting properties. Required setbacks for water front property may be modified. Lighting modifications have been added to protect sea turtle nesting. Sidewalk vendors will be permitted on the beach under the same guidelines as downtown. Duplexes can be built on corner lots in single family residential areas only if the lot is vacant when the new Land Development Code is adopted. Neon outlining windows and a building’s perimeter will count against the signage allowance. It was felt rearranging the code makes referencing easier. Approval of flexibility in commercial areas was noted. In response to questions related to resident concerns, Mr. Stone said adult theaters must be at least 450 feet from residential property and building heights on the beach will be flexible. Rules are tightened related to transferring densities. It was felt rules related to in-fill projects in commercial areas are too flexible as the 7 performance standards are subject to judgment calls. Concern was expressed that combining the boards will reduce citizen protections as only 4 votes will be necessary to approve a controversial project. It was felt the Planning & Zoning and Development Code Adjustment boards represent different points of view and philosophies. It was stated combining the boards will limit citizen input. It was said this issue could be amended later. Mr. Stone said if meetings become lengthy, changes can be made. He said staff decisions will limit board business. Concern was expressed staff will have the power to make substantive decisions. It was felt staff may relax requirements significantly, noting the board had denied unanimously a variance request supported by staff in Item #B1. Concern was expressed the code no longer regulates the sale of alcoholic beverages as conditional uses. It was felt it is essential the City can correct out of control situations. Mr. Stone said separations from schools and churches remain. The City will rely on licensing criteria for control. It was felt the code revisions give away the protection of citizen boards that have helped make Clearwater great. It was suggested amendments can be made once it is clear certain provisions do not work out. Member Jonnatti moved to recommend the City Commission adopt Chapters 40, 42, and 44 for the new Community Development Code. The motion was duly seconded. Members Johnson, Jonnatti, Stuart, and Moran voted “Aye”; Chair Schwob voted “Nay.” Motion carried. ITEM #E - Approval of Minutes Member Moran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 12, 1998, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #F - Board & Staff Comments Happy Holidays! Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.