Loading...
01/31/1989 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1989 - 1:30 PM Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, Hogan, and Schwob Also Present: M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to approve the minutes of the January 17, 1989 meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). Chairman Johnson outlined the procedures for conditional uses and advised that anyone adversely affected by a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, with regard to conditional uses, has two weeks from this date in which to file an appeal through the City Clerk's Office. Florida Law requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings to support the appeal. ITEMS ARE LISTED IN AGENDA ORDER THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DISCUSSED IN THAT ORDER. B. Conditional Uses:  1. M&Bs 13.04 & 13.07, Sec. 17-29S-16E (2800 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) Limited Properties, Inc./Hooters, Inc./Will Alexander, III CU 89-10 Request - 2-COP (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages in the General Commercial zoning district; the specific request is for expansion of an establishment currently approved for a 2-COP State license; the proposed expansion is for the addition of restrooms; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no comments; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated this request is in addition to a previously approved expansion approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on July 26, 1988 for on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages. She also stated that, even though the expansion is for bathrooms, there is no distinction in the Land Development Code about the type of expansion area requiring alcoholic beverage sales review and approval. Ms. Harvey also stated that due to the expansion, the applicant will be required to have a variance to the separation distance approved by the City Commission. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval to the above request subject to the following: 1) That an amended site plan be filed for staff review and approval; 2) That a variance to separation distance from a similarly licensed establishment be approved by the City Commission; and, 3) That the Building permit be procured within 6 months. Mr. Will Alexander, representative of applicant, stated this request and the previous request were made because of square footage that was lost by F.D.O.T. condemnation. He also stated that the Health Department has required certain upgrading of the men's restroom which necessitated some interior redesign. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Alexander advised as follows: There will be no change in the operation; the increased seating capacity as noted on the application is because the Fire Marshal recognized the possibility of using the additional square footage for seating; and, he does not know if there are outside speakers but other Hooters facilities have had outside speakers. Ms. Nixon stated there are outside speakers but the speakers cannot be heard from any distance. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That an amended site plan be filed for staff review and approval; 2) That a variance to separation distance from a similarly licensed establishment be approved by the City Commission; and, 3) That the Building permit be procured within 6 months. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). 2. M&B 14.03, Sec. 17-29S-16E (2898 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) Delaney/Thompson Partnership/Harjit Singh (The Ultimate Sports Bar & Grill, Inc.) CU 89-11 Request - 4-COP-SRX (On Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages) Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages in the General Commercial zoning district; the specific request is for a 4-COP-SRX State license, which requires 51% food sales; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the applicant proposes a restaurant and lounge; the Traffic Engineer had no comments; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated the subject property is the site of the former Mako's. She also stated no variance to separation distance will be required as the previously approved use of the property was for a 4-COP license. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the new alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months; and, 2) That the Occupational License be procured within 6 months. Mr. Harjit Singh, applicant, stated as follows: He is planning to remodel the establishment; the establishment will be a sports bar with a large-screen television; and there will be no pool table. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Singh advised as follows: He has had 5 years experience in this type of operation in Chicago and he is familiar with the food service business; there will be no live entertainment; there will be no outdoor speakers as they have been removed; he is familiar with the problems of the previous operation but intends an operation similar to Hooters; he anticipates large crowds for closed circuit television broadcasts; and, he will not come to this Board for approval of a 4-COP license in a few months. Ms. Harvey advised that two letters of objection were received, one being from Parkwood Estate Association, Inc., and one being from Glen Ellen Mobile Home Owners Association, Inc. In opposition to the above request, the following persons appeared to give their comments: Ms. Lois Cole-Hjelm, 2900 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Parkwood Estates, stated she is opposed to the idea that the operation would be similar to Hooters. After questioning by Ms. Cole-Hjelm, Ms. Harvey stated the standard rule regarding separation distance is that there must be a separation of 300 feet; however, one exception to that rule is that a 4-COP-SRX license may not be located any closer than 250 feet from a Church, school or residential zone. She added there may be no door or window within 65 feet of a residential zone. Ms. Harvey stated as long as the applicant maintains a 4-COP-SRX license he has met the requirement, but if the applicant does not meet the food requirement and seeks another alcoholic beverage license that does not have a food requirement, the applicant may be required to go before the City Commission for approval of a variance to the separation distance. Ms. Cole-Hjelm felt the outside service will not be quiet and she expressed concern about behavior on the deck. She stated she is concerned the same rowdiness will occur as had previously occurred. She expressed concern that the noise will contribute to lowering the value of property. Ms. Anna Mae Luettke, 2900 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, Parkwood Estates, stated her property is directly behind the parking lot of the subject establishment. She stated she has lost possible sales of her home after prospective buyers were apprised of the problems that have occurred at the subject property. She also stated she is not opposed to a restaurant but is opposed to a bar at the location. In rebuttal, Mr. Singh stated he is trying to establish a restaurant not a bar, the motif will be sports oriented, and the clientele will not be loud. He stated he does not plan to create noise. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Singh advised as follows: He is thinking of using two small televisions on the deck but that idea is not final; according to the Fire Marshal, 130 people can be seated on the deck; closing time will be 2:00 AM and the kitchen will remain open until closing; Mr. Singh will be supervising the operation and will be available at all times, though there will be more than one manager due to the hours of operation; during off-season of sports telecasts, he intends to show classic fights, tennis matches, etc.; and, he previously operated a pizza place and another operation catering to brokers. When Mr. Hogan questioned if applicant would object to closing the deck at midnight, Mr. Singh advised that one of the reasons the site was so attractive was because of the deck. He felt the deck was important to the business. Ms. Nixon expressed concern about outdoor sales and stated a request by another applicant was revised to enclose the deck because of opposition from a Church. Mr. Ferrell stated this Board did not request the other applicant to enclose the deck and this Board approved the other request for sales on an open deck. Ms. Nixon stated the other request was acceptable because it was not near residents and the Church that was located nearby did not have services at night. Ms. Nixon expressed concern that the applicant would not be able to meet the food sales requirement. Mr. Schwob felt this request was from a person with experience. He felt if there is a problem meeting the 51% food sales requirement that will be another matter. He expressed some concern about sales outside after midnight. Mr. Hamilton stated he would be against a bar at the location but the applicant is trying to run a restaurant. He felt if the request was approved for one year it would be possible to impose conditions if there are problems. Mr. Hogan agreed that a one year trial was appropriate but felt the outside deck should be closed at midnight. Motion was made by Mr. Hogan, seconded by Ms. Nixon, to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) That the new alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months; 2) That the Occupational License be procured within 6 months; 3) That there be no outside speakers; 4) That there be no service of alcoholic beverages or food on the outside deck after midnight; and 5) That the approval is granted for a period of one year only. After roll call, motion failed (1 to 6), with Mr. Hogan voting "aye" and Ms. Nixon, and Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, Johnson, and Schwob voting "nay." Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) That the new alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months; 2) That the Occupational License be procured within 6 months; 3) That there be no outside speakers and no outside service from 12:00 midnight to 2:00 AM; and 4) That the approval is granted for a period of one year only. After roll call, motion failed (2 to 5), with Ms. Nixon and Mr. Hogan voting "aye" and Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, Johnson, and Schwob voting "nay." Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) That the new alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months; 2) That the Occupational License be procured within 6 months; and, 3) That the approval is granted for a period of one year only. After roll call, motion passed (5 to 2), with Messrs. Ferrell, Green, Hamilton, Johnson, and Schwob voting "aye" and Ms. Nixon and Mr. Hogan voting "nay." 3. Lot 1, Loehman's Plaza (1730 U. S. Hwy. 19 North) Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co./Andrew Kunz/Absolute Elegance Limo Service CU 89-12 Request - Outdoor Retail Sales, Display and/or Storage (Limousine Service) Zoned - CC (Commercial Center) Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for outdoor retail sales, display and/or storage in the Commercial Center zoning district; the application states the specific request is to park two limousines at Loehman's Plaza; the drawing included with the application shows the location where the limousines are proposed to be parked and the location was noted on the drawing by City staff; and, the Traffic Engineer noted in his comments that he has no objection to parking of vehicles, but owner is on notice that this would be considered permanent parking for the vehicles and the advertising is prohibited. Ms. Harvey stated she hoped the applicant was able to address the specific use for which the limousines are intended, such as, if the limousines are for visitors at the plaza, etc. She stated parking vehicles with signs attached is considered advertising and this type of advertising is not permitted in the Code. She also stated there would be no objection to parking vehicles but applicant must be in compliance with the Code and the sign ordinance. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval subject to the following: 1) That the Occupational License be procured within six months; 2) That there be no advertising from the vehicles when they are not in use; and, 3) That there be a maximum of two limousines at a location designated by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Andrew Kunz, applicant, stated he intends to park two limousines in Loehman's parking lot. He plans to put magnetic signs on the vehicles that included the name of the business and the telephone number. He stated the specific purpose of the request was to advertise the business. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Kunz stated the vehicles would be parked near the Jiffy Lube location and the limousines are specifically parked at the location to show the name and telephone number of the business. He stated that when he filed his application he was told magnetic or painted signs would not be in violation. After further questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Kunz advised there would be no representative at the location and the business office is located across U. S. Hwy. 19. Ms. Harvey stated she felt the applicant was not advised properly. She stated what the applicant is describing for the limousines would advertise the business while they are parked in another location. She also stated that Section 134.009(4) of the Land Development Code specifically prohibits signs being used for this purpose. Ms. Harvey felt the application should be denied. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated she needed to check with staff to fully understand the circumstances under which the application was filed, but it may be possible to refund applicant's money. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to deny the request and recommend that money be refunded if it appears applicant acted in good faith based on misunderstood information. A citizen asked to speak in objection to the request and Ms. Harvey suggested the citizen be allowed his input, even though the requested use is prohibited, in order that the applicant know what concerns have been expressed if he intends to reapply. Mr. Schwob withdrew his motion. Mr. Phillip Johnson, 2400 Stag Run Boulevard, stated he felt residential property should be protected from commercial development. He expressed concern that development of property in to commercial operation was overtaking residential development. Chairman Johnson advised Mr. Phillip Johnson that his comments should be relevant to the subject request. After questioning by Mr. Phillip Johnson, Ms. Harvey stated the City Commission establishes zoning on all property in the City of Clearwater. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to deny the request and recommend that money be refunded if it appears applicant acted in good faith based on misunderstood information. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). Ms. Harvey advised Mr. Kunz that City staff would be contacting him regarding his application fee. C. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendments, and Local Planning Agency Review: 1. Portion of M&B 31.00, Sec. 21-28S-16E (Located on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road approximately 3,000 feet north of S.R. 580) (City of Clearwater) Z 88-18 LUP 88-17 Zoning Atlas: FROM: P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) TO: OS/R (Open Space/Recreational) Land Use Plan: FROM: Public/Semi-Public TO: Recreation/Open Space The above property is located on the east side of McMullen-Booth Road approximately 3,000 feet north of S.R. 580. Ms. Harvey advised this is a request for zoning atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) to OS/R (Open Space/Recreational) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Public/Semi-Public to Recreation/Open Space. She stated the property is designated to be a nature park as the result of an agreement between the City of Clearwater and the Semblers. She also stated that part of the agreement was that the City would change the Land Use Plan classification to Recreation/Open Space to mitigate a loss of wetlands area at Clearwater Collection Shopping Center. She advised that City-owned property under the Recreation/Open Space classification could not be changed except by referendum. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for zoning atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) to OS/R (Open Space/Recreational) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Public/Semi-Public to Recreation/Open Space. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated the City owns the land, the City of Safety Harbor is still trying to get ownership of adjacent property, and the required mitigation is a ratio of 2:1. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey advised she has no idea of any costs involved as the property would be under the jurisdiction of the Parks and Recreation Department. She added that the park would not be an active play area. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the request for zoning atlas amendment from P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) to OS/R (Open Space/Recreational) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Public/Semi-Public to Recreation/Open Space. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). 2. PARCEL #1 AND PARCEL #2 (Located east and west of 2299 Drew Street) (First Christian Church) A 88-31 LUP 88-21 PARCEL #1 M&B 22.02, Sec. 18-29S-16E Request - Annexation and Zoning, P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) Land Use Plan: FROM: Residential/Office TO: Public/Semi-Public PARCEL #2 Lot 1, Blk. A., Eastwood Terrace Request - Annexation and Zoning, P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) Land Use Plan: FROM: Low Density Residential TO: Public/Semi-Public The above property is located east and west of 2299 Drew Street. The applicant was not present. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation, P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Residential/Office to Public/Semi-Public for Parcel #1 and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public for Parcel #2; City water and sewer are available; and, the above request is made as part of a site plan review. Ms. Harvey stated that Public Works requests the abutting right-of-way of Drew Street be included in the annexation. She also stated annexation of this area of Drew Street will now require all of Drew Street to be maintained by the City. She stated the actual use of Parcel #1 is a parking lot and no development is planned at this time for Parcel #2. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation, P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Residential/Office to Public/Semi-Public for Parcel #1 and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public for Parcel #2. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to recommend approval of the request for annexation, P/SP (Public/Semi-Public) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Residential/Office to Public/Semi-Public for Parcel #1 and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public for Parcel #2. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). AGENDA ITEMS C(3) AND C(4) WERE HEARD TOGETHER. 3. M&B's 41.01 & 41.03, Sec. 18-29S-16E (Located at the southwest corner of the intersection of U. S. 19 and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard) (Angel Properties) Z 88-27 Zoning Atlas: FROM: CC (Commercial Center) TO: CH (Highway Commercial) The above property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of U. S. 19 and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. 4. Portion of M&B 41.12, Sec. 18-29S-16E (Located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bypass Drive and Druid Road (Sorota) Z 88-26 LUP 88-30 Zoning Atlas: FROM:OG (General Office) TO: CH (Highway Commercial) Land Use Plan: FROM: Residential/Office TO: Commercial/Tourist Facilities The above property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bypass Drive and Druid Road. Atty. W. Thompson Thorn, representative of applicants, stated the above properties consist of approximately 20 acres at S.R. 60 and U.S. 19, including the Jersey Jim Towers site and the property to the south. He stated the Angel Properties site has a current Land Use Plan classification of Commercial/Tourist Facilities and is zoned Commercial Center, for which applicant is requesting Highway Commercial. He stated the Sorota property is currently zoned General Office with a Land Use Plan classification of Residential/Office and applicant is requesting Highway Commercial zoning and a Land Use Plan classification of Commercial/Tourist Facilities. He stated these requests are made in order that all property have the same zoning and Land Use Plan classification. He advised the reason Highway Commercial zoning is requested is that the Land Development Code allows much more flexibility with setback requirements. He advised the proposed owners have developed properties in Florida for 25 to 30 years. Mr. Thorn advised the Sorota property is the collection area for all runoff water and if no development of this property is possible, arrangements will be made to use the property to handle storage and runoff of water. He further advised the wetland area is of a low-grade quality but it will be mitigated as required. Mr. Thorn stated the proposed center will contain approximately 210,000 square feet and have parking in excess of Code requirements since Wal-Mart, one of the tenants, requires more than minimum requirements for parking. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: Item C(3) is a request for zoning atlas amendment from CC (Commercial Center) to CH (Highway Commercial) and Item C(4) is a request for a zoning atlas amendment from OG (General Office) to CH (Highway Commercial) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Residential/Office to Commercial/Tourist Facilities; the requests are made for the development of a shopping center; Items C(3) and C(4) requests are being made to reduce the required setbacks and to have the same zoning on both parcels; mitigation of the wetland area on the south parcel will need to be addressed during site plan review; and applicant is aware of mitigation requirements. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of Item C(3) request for zoning atlas amendment from CC (Commercial Center) to CH (Highway Commercial) and Item C(4) request for a zoning atlas amendment from OG (General Office) to CH (Highway Commercial) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Residential/Office to Commercial/Tourist Facilities. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Ms. Harvey stated Clearwater Mall is zoned Commercial Center and does not meet the current Code requirements with regard to setbacks and the subject property has frontage on U. S. Hwy. 19 and S.R. 60. Ms. Nixon expressed concern that the subject property would be the only property on S.R. 60 that is zoned Highway Commercial. Ms. Harvey explained the category of Highway Commercial would be appropriate. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Thorn explained "Florida Land Trust" that is indicated on the Disclosure of Interest Statement submitted with the application for Item C(4). No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to recommend approval of Item C(3) request for zoning atlas amendment from CC (Commercial Center) to CH (Highway Commercial) and Item C(4) request for a zoning atlas amendment from OG (General Office) to CH (Highway Commercial) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Residential/Office to Commercial/Tourist Facilities. Motion carried (6 to 1) with Ms. Nixon voting "nay." Ms. Nixon stated she is not in favor of the request because she felt the impact fee was not sufficient for the City to change setbacks and she is concerned that the parcel to the south will be denuded. 5. M&B 42.01, Sec. 07-29S-16E (Located at 950 Old Coachman Road) (Daly) Z 88-25 LUP 88-29 Zoning Atlas: FROM: RM-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) TO: IL (Limited Industrial) Land Use Plan: FROM: Medium Density Residential TO: Industrial The above property is located a 950 Old Coachman Road. Atty. Timothy A. Johnson, representative of applicant, stated the request for zoning change and Land Use Plan amendment is being made in order that the property be zoned as it was previously and to reflect the current use. He felt there would be no adverse impact on the neighborhood, and he explained the surrounding uses. Mr. Johnson stated the property owner discovered that the property was not suitable for apartment use, as was his intention when he requested a rezoning several years ago from an industrial category to a residential category. He advised the traffic trips to the property will be reduced. He also advised it is a goal of the City to obtain more industrially zoned land in the City. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Johnson stated that ultimately the property owner wants to sell the property. He added that Limited Industrial zoning is a clean kind of industrial zoning. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for zoning atlas amendment from RM-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) to IL (Limited Industrial) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Industrial; the property was rezoned several years ago to residential at the property owner's request and the subject request is made to reflect the present use of the property; the surrounding uses are a mixture of uses; and the property lies within the 100-year flood plain and any redevelopment must be done in accordance with the Land Development Code. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for zoning atlas amendment from RM-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) to IL (Limited Industrial) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Industrial. In opposition to the above request the following person appeared to give his comments: Mr. John Bonner, representative of Mrs. Alfred Vasconi, property owner of Lot 45 of College Park Subdivision, stated Mrs. Vasconi is opposed to the request but recognizes there are problems with the property and that the property is currently used as industrial. In rebuttal, Mr. Johnson stated discussion is currently going on between the applicant and Mrs. Vasconi. He requested the zoning and Land Use Plan be changed to agree with the present use. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval of the request for zoning atlas amendment from RM-12 (Multiple-Family Residential) to IL (Limited Industrial) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Industrial. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). The Board recessed from 3:32 PM and reconvened at 3:44 PM. 6. M&B's 43.01 & 44.01, Sec. 08-29S-16E (Located on the north side of Drew Street immediately east of Eisenhower Elementary School) (Brown, Kennedy & Roberts) A 88-39 LUP 88-31 Request - Annexation and Zoning RM-16 (Multiple-Family Residential) Land Use Plan: FROM: Low Density Residential TO: Medium Density Residential The above property is located on the north side of Drew Street immediately east of Eisenhower Elementary School. Atty. Steve Seibert, representative of applicant, stated the request is being made to construct apartments on the property and an ACLF on the western portion of the property, though there are no firm plans for an ACLF at this time. He explained the surrounding uses and advised the 57 acres are essentially vacant. Mr. Seibert advised that the tax base will be significantly increased and the proposed use should be beneficial to the City. He also stated the water and sewer use will be higher but the Utilities Department indicated it can handle the increase. He felt there would be no degradation to the roads and the major impacts to the City of Clearwater are positive. After questioning by Mr. Hogan, Mr. Seibert advised applicant is contemplating, through an annexation agreement, placing an ACLF on a portion of the property. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation, RM-16 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; the property is currently vacant with the exception of a private sewage treatment plant which serves Island in the Sun; if the property is not annexed into the City, the property is approved to be developed in the County; an annexation agreement is in the process of being reviewed at staff level and some items of consideration are the time period of annexing all the property and possible waiver of sewer fees regarding Island in the Sun mobile home park; and, surrounding uses are Medium Density Residential as this is an area heavily developed in apartment use and to the west is Eisenhower Elementary School. Ms. Harvey stated she is not sure if the applicant is committed to constructing an ACLF but it is only an option in order that applicant not be precluded from the possibility of having an ACLF. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation, RM-16 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give his comments: Mr. James L. Sloan, 3025 Merrill Avenue, stated Kapok Mobile Home Park has flooded two times in the last year. He felt most of what is proposed will be concrete and felt no provision will be made for drainage. He also felt the density is too high. He stated the City never lowers density. He expressed concern regarding that quality of life is on the decrease. He stated he is strongly opposed to the subject request. In rebuttal, Mr. David Healey, consultant for applicant, stated the applicant recognizes a portion of the site is a wetland and recognizes the mobile home park to the north suffers drainage problems. He stated the standards of development will be required to be addressed and met. He also stated drainage requirements will need to be met and will be done with site plan approval. Mr. Hamilton agrees there are some drainage problems in the area but he felt site plan review will address the drainage problems. Mr. Hogan felt in regard to flooding there will be better control if property is in the City of Clearwater than in another jurisdiction. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to recommend approval of the request for annexation, RM-16 (Multiple-Family Residential) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Motion carried (6 to 1) with Ms. Nixon voting "nay." ITEMS C(7) AND C(8) WERE DISCUSSED TOGETHER. 7. Lot 15, Loveland Sub. (Located at 1149 Belleair Road) (Foley) A 88-44 LUP 88-33 Request - Annexation and Zoning, CC (Commercial Center) Land Use Plan: FROM: No current City designation TO: Commercial/Tourist Facilities The above property is located at 1149 Belleair Road. 8. Lot 14, Loveland Sub. and Part M&B 21.011, Sec. 27-29S-15E (Located on the south side of Belleair Road, west of South Missouri Avenue) (Barnett Bank) Z 88-28 LUP 88-34 Zoning Atlas: FROM: RM-12 (Multiple Family Residential) TO: CC (Commercial Center) Land Use Plan: FROM: Medium Density Residential TO: Commercial/Tourist Facilities The above property is located on the south side of Belleair Road, west of South Missouri Avenue. Atty. Timothy A. Johnson, representative of applicants, stated a new 74,000 square foot shopping center is proposed. He stated the reason the additional commercial zoning is needed is to allow development of the property in an economical way. He advised applicants have tried to keep the commercial portion as close as possible to Missouri Avenue. He stated a very low cost grocery outlet is proposed for the property. He felt the small shopping center would be ideal, particularly for this area of Clearwater. He stated the tax base will be enhanced more with a shopping center than with refurbishing the bank. He added that Barnett Bank owns the property to the west of the subject properties and it will remain residential. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: Item C(7) is a request for annexation, CC (Commercial Center) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment of Commercial/Tourist Facilities and Item C(8) is a request for a zoning atlas amendment from RM-12 (Multiple Family Residential) to CC (Commercial Center) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities; and, the Item C(7) property will have its water provided by the County and the City of Largo has agreed to the proposed annexation and provide its sewer services to the property. Ms. Harvey stated that, initially, she was not in favor of the request. She also stated that, after looking at the proposed site design even though it is not an approved site plan, the project appears to make sense. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the Item C(7) request for annexation, CC (Commercial Center) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment of Commercial/Tourist Facilities and the Item C(8) request for a zoning atlas amendment from RM-12 (Multiple Family Residential) to CC (Commercial Center) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hogan, to recommend approval of the Item C(7) request for annexation, CC (Commercial Center) zoning, and a Land Use Plan amendment of Commercial/Tourist Facilities and the Item C(8) request for a zoning atlas amendment from RM-12 (Multiple Family Residential) to CC (Commercial Center) and a Land Use Plan amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0). D. Master Site Plan Review, and Amendment to the Annexation Agreement Between the City of Clearwater and David Bilgore & Co., Inc. 1.To consider a request for a major amendment to the Master Site Plan known as South Oaks Fashion Square (Clearwater Marketplace) in the IPD (Industrial Planned Development) Zoning District as required by Section 135.076 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clearwater for the following described property: Lots 1 and 2, South Oaks Fashion Square (Located at the southwest intersection of McMullen-Booth Road and State Road 590) (Richland Properties, Inc./Booth Marketplace) Z 88-6 PSP 88-7 The above property is located at the southwest intersection of McMullen-Booth Road and State Road 590. Mr. David Healey, representative of property owner, stated the original request was for a shopping center oriented to McMullen Booth Road with approximately 10 acres to the west proposed to be used for office buildings. The property owners are now requesting to amend the western portion, now known as Lot 2, from office buildings to apartments. He stated 232 units are proposed in 4 buildings, 2 and 3 stories tall, and the density would be approximately 22 units per acre. He advised there will be less traffic generated, fewer parking spaces will be needed, there will be more open space, and there will be greater setbacks. Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for a major amendment to the Master Site Plan known as South Oaks Fashion Square (Clearwater Marketplace) in the IPD (Industrial Planned Development) Zoning District; one advantage will be those individuals who move into the development will be moving in with full knowledge of the adjacent shopping center; the subject amendment has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee, which recommended approval with conditions; and, an amendment to the Annexation Agreement between the City of Clearwater and David Bilgore and Co., Inc., is also requested, that request being the property owner is requesting allowance to build to 3 stories. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for a major amendment to the Master Site Plan known as South Oaks Fashion Square (Clearwater Marketplace) in the IPD (Industrial Planned Development) Zoning District and for an amendment to the Annexation Agreement between the City of Clearwater and David Bilgore and Co., Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1) That the conditions required by the Development Review Committee be complied with; and, 2) That the apartments to be located on Lot 2 be limited to 3 stories in height. Ms. Nixon expressed concern about a residential use and felt an office use would be better. Ms. Nixon also felt 22 units per acre were too many. Mr. Schwob stated the City previously approved an office use but the requested use will be less of an impact on the City. After questioning by Board members, Ms. Harvey advised that a planned development will allow up to 28 units per acre. Mr. Hogan stated he would oppose 28 units per acre. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to recommend approval of the request for a major amendment to the Master Site Plan known as South Oaks Fashion Square (Clearwater Marketplace) in the IPD (Industrial Planned Development) Zoning District and for an amendment to the Annexation Agreement between the City of Clearwater and David Bilgore and Co., Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1) That the conditions required by the Development Review Committee be complied with; and, 2) That the apartments to be located on Lot 2 be limited to 3 stories in height. Motion carried (6 to 1) with Ms. Nixon voting "nay." F. Director's Items Ms. Harvey stated the Goals, Objectives and Policies and Needs Summary for Future Land Use Element and Conservation Element have been distributed and will be discussed in a workshop at the conclusion of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting on February 14, 1989. Ms. Harvey advised that she has been named Acting Director of the Planning and Development Department until such time that a permanent Director is named. She added she will be in charge of Long Range Planning, Development Code Administration, Community Relations, Community Development, Building, and Occupational License. She added that in the next few months other staff members will be attending the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting in her place, specifically Jeff Pruitt. G. Board and Staff Comments After questioning by Mr. Hogan regarding stricter regulations for conditional use requests regarding alcoholic beverage sales, Mr. Galbraith suggested the only alternative is to create a zoning district for commercial property without alcoholic beverage sales and a zoning district for commercial property with alcoholic beverage sales. Meeting adjourned at 5:01 PM.