09/05/1989 MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 - 1:30 PM
Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green (arrived at 1:40 PM), Hamilton, Mazur, and Schwob
A. Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Mazur, to delay approval of the minutes of the July 18, 1989 meeting to the end of the meeting. Motion carried unanimously (6 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. (CONTINUED FROM 6/27/89 and 7/16/89)
Lot 1 less south 385 feet, Sever Park (880 U.S. Hwy. 19 South)
South Gate Park, Inc./Tondelli Engineering
CU 89-42
Request - Outdoor Commercial Recreation/Entertainment
Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial)
Mr. Hilton presented the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Atty. Timothy Johnson, representative of applicant, stated applicant requests the request be continued to the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 19, 1989, in order for applicant
to meet with the neighboring residents of South Gate Mobile Home Park. He advised the applicant wishes to attempt to work out differences with the residents concerning the proposed project.
Mr. Schwob felt it is an excellent idea for the applicant to meet with neighboring residents to work out any difficulties with the proposed project.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to continue the above request to its meeting of September 19, 1989. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
Mr. Green arrived at 1:40 PM.
2. Bayway Shores Condominium, Slip #8, (640 Bayway Boulevard)
Robert E. Scott
CU 89-59
Request - Boat Lift in Existing Slip
Zoned - CR-28 (Resort Commercial) AND AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal)
Mr. Richter presented the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Mr. Robert E. Scott, applicant, stated Bayway Shores Condominium Association and the developer of the property previously approved the installation of a boat lift. After questioning
by Board members, Mr. Scott advised as follows: The slip was previously rented before he bought a condominium at the location; Mr. Scott does not plan to rent the slip; and, Mr. Scott
has a boat to hang in the lift.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the requisite building permit be obtained within six (6) months. Mr. Mazur suggested a condition
be added that the slip only be for the use of the condominium owner. Amended Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Mazur to approve the above request subject to the following:
1) That the requisite building permit be obtained within six (6) months; and 2) That the approval is granted to the owner of the condominium unit and neither the slip nor the boat lift
shall be rented. It was suggested that the motion be further amended to mean the occupant of the condominium in the event the condominium is rented.
After questioning by Board members, Mr. Scott advised that the boat slips may be owned independently of the condominiums. Discussion followed regarding ownership of boat slips and condominium
units. Mr. Scott was advised that it has been Board policy to approve marinas/boat slips with the condition that slips be for the sole use of the condominiums. Mr. Scott advised that
if he sells the condominium in the future he will also sell the boat slip.
Amended Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the requisite building permit be obtained within six (6)
months; and, 2) That the dock space and lift be for the sole use of the condominium occupant. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
3. Lots 1-10, Blk. A, Belleair Highlands AND Lots 1-12, Belleair Highlands 1st Addition (1465 South Ft. Harrison Avenue)
Ted P. Wittner (La Petit Cafe)
CU 89-60
Request - 2-COP (On Premise Consumption of Beer and Wine)
Zoned - CG (General Commercial) AND RM-8 (Multiple Family Residential)
Mr. Pruitt presented the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Mr. George Alexander Imbert, owner of business, stated he would like to serve beer and wine to complement his meals (see menu attached). After questioning by Board members, Mr. Imbert
advised as follows: There will be outside seating; there will be no speakers in the outdoor area; the limited space and number of staff people make it difficult to expand the proposed
hours of operation; and, he has had a very small operation in Madeira Beach for 2 1/2 years but, due to the small size of that operation, it would have been too expensive to obtain an
alcoholic beverage license.
In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give her comments:
Mrs. Lois Cormier, 625 McLennan Street, stated she expressed concern about the subject building 3 years ago. She expressed concern that the request would be a detriment to the neighborhood,
particularly with the outside seating. She felt alcoholic beverages would not be compatible with the neighborhood, noise could damage the value of the surrounding properties, and the
request might impose an unnecessary burden on residents. She expressed concern about increased traffic. Mrs. Cormier suggested, if the request is approved, that the Board require a 6-month
review of the operation. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mrs. Cormier stated she has not been to the restaurant and did not know it was open for business.
In rebuttal, Mr. Imbert stated he only wants to sell beer and wine and he is not opening a bar. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Imbert advised as follows: There are 36 seats
inside and 10 seats outside; anticipated clientele is usually middle-income couples over 21 years of age; and, he personally supervises the operation 7 days a week.
Ms. Nixon stated she visited the establishment and felt it was not the kind of place primarily used for drinking alcoholic beverages. She stated the establishment is not currently selling
alcoholic beverages and felt it was a very upscale-type operation.
Mr. Schwob felt this type of operation with the proposed hours of operation does not appear to be a detriment to the neighborhood.
Discussion followed regarding a review of the request in 6 months or one year. The Board felt a review was not necessary except for those places that have created problems in the past.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That appropriate interior floor area and seating variances be obtained
from the Development Code Adjustment Board; 2)
That a variance to the separation requirement from residential zones be obtained from the City Commission; 3) That hours of operation be restricted to 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM; 4) That light
from signs and other illuminating fixtures be directed toward South Fort Harrison Avenue and/or away from the residential zones located to the east and southeast; and 5) That the requisite
occupational license be procured within six (6) months. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
4. Lot 1, Sub. of Radisson Bayside Hotel (1261 Gulf Boulevard, Suite 125)
Anthony A. Petrarca (Sand Key Market)
CU 89-61
Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of Beer & Wine)
Zoned - B (Business)
Mr. Hamilton declared a possible conflict of interest (see attached) and advised he will not participate in the discussion or vote on the above request.
Mr. Pruitt presented the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Atty. Claire Carraway, representative of applicant, stated the applicant is requesting approval of a 2-APS license for package sales of beer and wine. She stated no variance to separation
distance will be required because applicant has agreed to no delivery between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM and there will be no building opening within 50 feet of the residential district. She
also stated this will be the only establishment in the center which will sell alcoholic beverages for off-premise consumption. She advised the market is a new concept for the applicant
who wishes to cater to the needs of hotels and condominiums in the area. She also advised applicant estimates 7% to 10% of sales will be beer or wine. She stated the store will not be
a convenience store but will be an upscale market named "Market on Sand Key" or something similar. She also stated no beer advertisements, etc., will be in the windows and the building
will blend in with the shopping center. She further stated the complex has a private security guard on duty. After questioning by Board members, Ms. Carraway advised as follows: The
store will be opened 24 hours a day but beer and wine sales will be governed in accordance with State law; and, the private security guard is part of the complex.
In opposition to the above request, the following persons appeared to give their comments:
Ms. Maryann Burris, Unit 203 Landmark Towers, 1230 Gulf Boulevard, expressed concern about empty beer bottles and cans and about drunk driving. She felt the Board should not make it
easier to purchase beer and wine for off-premise consumption. She stated the area is primarily residential and both the Radisson and Sheraton sell mixed drinks.
Ms. Faith Malone, Unit 408 Landmark Towers, 1230 Gulf Boulevard, felt there is ample opportunity to purchase alcoholic beverages on Sand Key and she felt the proposed operation will
be very accessible to users of the public beach. She expressed concern that boisterous activity could not be curtailed. After questioning by Board members, Ms. Malone advised as follows:
She stated there are 216 owners in Landmark Towers; the association meeting is scheduled for tonight and the owners have not met to take a vote on the operation; and, she felt a 10:00
PM limitation might help but felt alcoholic beverage sales is not necessary.
In rebuttal, Ms. Carraway stated applicant will have private security to eliminate drinking and most of the people catered to would be guests of the hotels and residents. She also stated
the owner of the property will not allow the complex to become a hangout for kids. After questioning by Mr. Mazur, Ms. Carraway advised there are restaurants with the Radisson and mini
bars in the rooms of Radisson. but the beer is very expensive from the mini bars. She also advised the applicant has the option to cancel the lease if the sale of alcoholic beverages
is not approved.
Mr. Green stated he is not in favor of a limitation of hours to sell alcoholic beverages and felt, if there is a limitation, it should be later than 10:00 PM.
Mr. Schwob felt the problems in the past with Pick-Kwik may be causing some concern for the Board but felt the subject request was more of a supermarket rather than a convenience store.
He also felt there are many safeguards built in to the complex. He suggested this may be one of those requests the Board may want to look at after a 6-month or one-year trial period.
Ms. Nixon felt Sand Key is different that other places and felt the alcoholic beverages sales should be permitted no later than 11:00 PM. She felt an upscale place does not need to be
opened after 11:00 PM.
Ms. Carraway advised the applicant would accept a limitation of no alcoholic beverages sales after 11:00 PM.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That, except for Sunday sales limitations, alcoholic beverage sales be limited from 8:00 AM to
11:00 PM; and, 2) That the occupational license be procured within six (6) months. Discussion followed regarding whether it is necessary to review the request in six months or one year.
Mr. Schwob felt it would be a good idea since the request is unique. Amended Motion made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Ms. Nixon, to approve the above request subject to the following:
1) That, except for Sunday sales limitations, alcoholic beverage sales be limited from 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM; 2) That the occupational license be procured within six (6) months; and, 3)
That the request be reviewed within one year of opening. Motion carried (6 to 0).
5. Lots 1-10, Blk. A, Gunn's Addition (2086 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard)
SDS Investments/Parker
CU 89-62
Request - Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays and/or Storage and Vehicle Service
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
Mr. Hilton gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Atty. Emil C. Marquardt, attorney for applicant, stated applicant is requesting to tie the subject property in with the existing operation. He advised the use will be like a parts shop.
After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Marquardt stated there will be no major repairs and that only detailing will take place. He advised he has no objection to a condition of approval
be included that no major repairs be allowed.
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 permits be obtained within time limitations of the certified site
plan; 2) That landscaping be provided along the front yard areas fronting on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard; and, 3) That there be no major repairs as stated in Section 136.025(c)(27)(d) of the
Land Development Code. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
6.Lots 3, 4 and 5, South Park Subdivision (520 Howard Court)
Workman Enterprises, Inc.
CU 89-63
Request - Indoor Storage and/or Warehousing
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
Mr. Hilton gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Mr. Roy Workman, representative of applicant, stated room has been made to store electronic parts for security system. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Workman advised as follows:
The new building will very closely match the existing building; and, the proposed use will not be a continuation of mini-warehouse but office and storage space is planned.
Ms. Nixon expressed concern about drainage in the area. Mr.Workman stated applicant is currently applying to SWFWMD for review and applicant expects to retain all drainage on site. Mr.
Hamilton stated the 3.85 acre site will require site plan review and drainage will be taken care of at that time.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to approve the above request. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
7. M&B 14-04, Sec. 13-29-15 (2171 Rainbow Drive)
SDS Investments
CU 89-64
Request - Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays and/or Storage
Zoned - CG (General Commercial)
Mr. Hilton gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Atty. Emil C. Marquardt, the specific request of applicant is for outdoor storage. He advised the property has just recently been purchased. He stated new cars will be stored on the
lot but will not be accessible to customers. He expressed concern about some of the conditions of approval as the property's use will not change. He felt requiring a specific number
of parking spaces should not be required and felt parking requirements are designed for uses adjacent to other uses. He stated the compacted shell surface has been on the lot for several
years. He stated there will not be in an out traffic as the use is not a sales lot. He felt the compacted shell base is more pervious than a concrete base. He requested a condition of
approval that the use be limited to outdoor storage should be sufficient. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Marquardt advised as follows: Applicant has no problem with landscaping
requirement; applicant would prefer to have the use restricted to storage rather than sales and displays to keep the shell surface of the lot; customers do not go to the lot; and, applicant
does not want to pave the lot.
Mr. Richter clarified that it is not this Board's decision whether the parking be paved and whether parking should be provided for customers. Mr. Richter stated the applicant would have
the option of meeting with staff and possibly with the City Attorney.
Mr. Green stated if the request is approved with staff recommendations there would be no opening for discussion with staff of conditions.
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 the parcel be used for storage only; 2) That landscaping be provided
between the existing fence and rights-of-way of Rainbow Drive and Main Avenue; and, 3) That the requisite permits be obtained within six months. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
8. M&B 89-65, Sec. 10-29-15 (1045 North Greenwood Avenue)
Willow Run, Inc.
CU 89-65
Request - 4-COP-SR (On Premise Consumption and Package Sales of Beer, Wine and Liquor)
Zoned - RM-24 (Residential Multiple Family) With PROPOSED REZONING TO CNG (North Greenwood Commercial)
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, staff recommendation.
Mr. Andrew Rylkiewicz, shareholder, requested approval as soon as possible. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Rylkiewicz advised as follows: The new owners plan an upscale clientele
and prices will be raised to attract a more upscale market, because higher prices may bring new business to the neighborhood; the new menu will include fried shrimp for $10.00 and buffalo
wings for $3.25; Mr. Rylkiewicz will remain in New Jersey; Johnny Long was a consultant under the previous ownership and Mr. Bridges was the former owner; A.A.J.R. is the new business
owner; and, Mr. Rylkiewicz participates in a catering house in the North.
Mr. Hamilton expressed concern about the area and he felt not enough questions were answered regarding the new operation. After questioning by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Rylkiewicz stated that,
to the best of his knowledge, Mr. Long was a consultant to the "Blue Fountain." After questioning by Mr. Green, Mr. Rylkiewicz stated applicant is proposing to redo interior and exterior
and, when he was referring to upscale, he was referring to the architecture and the color. After questioning by Mr. Schwob regarding the extensive police incidents, Mr. Rylkiewicz stated
a security guard will be inside and outside.
Mr. Edward Worrell, architect for applicant, stated he is involved with the North Greenwood Task Force. He advised as follows: the nightclub/restaurant/lounge is very important; Mr.
Long intends to have tight security, he wants to insure there are no further problems, and he is determined to make the operation a success; Mr. Long plans to provide valet service in
the rest room, etc. to avoid any possible drug buys; there will be bouncers at the doors; and, Mr. Long's ultimate goal is to serve food during the date with no alcoholic beverage sales.
Mr. Worrell stated the only way the area
can be improved is to get the City's help to make the improvements.
Mr. Hamilton clarified the Board wants all facts prior to granting approval. He stated that usually this Board doesn't question a change of business ownership but the Board wants to
question the person who wants to run the business.
After questioning by Mr. Green, Mr. Worrell stated Mr. Long has about $125,000 to $150,000 invested in the operation. He clarified that the reason Mr. Long is not present is because
he is presently with bankers trying to secure financing.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Mr. Schwob felt this was not a typical case and but he has concerns about not being able to question the new management.
Mr. Hamilton stated there is a major expansion involved and felt the Board should have the opportunity to question the proposed owner.
Mr. Green felt the architect did a fine job in explaining but he felt since Mr. Long will be the resident owner, the Board should have the opportunity to question him about the proposed
operation.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Ms. Nixon, to continue the above request to the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting scheduled for September 19, 1989 in order to question Mr.
Long about the proposed operation. Motion carried unanimously (7 to 0).
Mr. Ferrell left the meeting at 3:35 PM.
The Board recessed at 3:35 and reconvened at 3:45 PM.
9. M&B 32-05, Sec. 2-29-15 (1453 Sunset Point Road)
Anne M. Caballero
CU 89-66
Request - Veterinary Office with Inside Boarding
Zoned - OL (Limited Office)
Mr. Hilton gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Mr. Robert Philippi, representative of applicant, stated the Doctor has been in practice two doors away for three years. He also stated that, to his knowledge, there have been no complaints.
After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Philippi stated the building will be enclosed and no one should be disturbed. He stated applicant plans a very clean and nice operation. He also
stated there will be a small exercise area where one animal at a time will be exercised. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Philippi stated the length exercise run will be 155 feet
long and 8 or 9 feet wide.
In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give his comments:
Mr. George Charles Smith, 1910 Bryan Drive, adjacent property owner, stated he will be operating a cafe and felt an office next door to the cafe would be more appropriate than a veterinary
office. He felt the veterinary office would be detrimental to the cafe. He expressed concern about cleanliness and noise. He stated his cafe is the only one in the area and he expects
to open around September 20 or 25.
In rebuttal, Mr. Philippi stated the animals will be completely within the building, which is to the extreme rear of the property, and will be 30 to 40 feet behind other buildings. He
felt the applicant would not be in objection to providing a fence and he felt getting the animals in and out of the building should be no problem. He advised applicant proposes only
one access, there would be no evening activity, and there should be a minimal affect on the area. He felt the improved property should be an asset. He stated that the landscape ordinance
will be met and the retention area is in the front of the building which will add green space.
Ms. Nixon stated she would have no objection if landscaping of a minimum height would be required.
Mr. Schwob felt that, with requiring soundproofing and landscaping, as well as the proposed hours of operation, the
operation should not interfere with the restaurant.
Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That a four-foot, solid hedge be planted around the perimeter of the property;
and, 2) That the certificate of occupancy be obtained within two years. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
10. Lots 2 & 3, Miller's Replat (7 Rockaway Street)
Charles and Ypapanti Alexiou
CU 89-67
Request - Rental of and Instruction for Non-Motorized Watercraft AND Rental of Parasailing and Wave Runner Equipment Operating Seaward of Designated Swimming Area in AL/C (Aquatic
Lands/Coastal) Zone
Zoned - CR-28 (Resort Commercial)
Mr. Hamilton declared a conflict of interest (see attached) and advised he will not participate in the discussion or vote on the above request.
Mr. Hilton gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Mr. Mark Robinson, representative of applicant, stated his prior business was operated for 15 years, he does not rent sailboats, everyone has an instructor with him/her, and activities
are supervised. He also stated that the 27-foot catamaran has been operated 8 or 9 years but he has no objection to not renting the 27-foot catamaran. He stated he currently has six
smaller catamarans and one sunfish but he does not rent the sunfish in the afternoon. He stated if the Board allows rental of only two catamarans he would not have enough. After questioning
by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Robinson stated he currently has six catamarans but has had as many as 15 in the last 15 years. He added there have been no injuries, during the week there are two
instructors, and during the weekend there are two or three instructors. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Robinson stated he did discuss the operation with the Harbormaster.
In support of the above request, the following person appeared to give her comments:
Ms. Ann Garris, 38 Acacia, stated the beach is a sailing center. She felt the operation is a real asset on the beach. She stated the operation is not a proliferation of this type of
operation but is merely a change of location.
In opposition to the above request, the following person appeared to give his comments:
Atty. Harry Cline, representative of Clearwater Beach Hotel, stated the facility will be on the property line. He felt boats need not be run from the beach. He stated the Clearwater
Beach Hotel is a family-run operation and expressed concern that there will be a corridor of boats lined next to the Clearwater Beach Hotel. He felt the operation should be in a more
public area, such as the sailing center at Sand Key, and felt the operation would be detrimental to the Clearwater Beach Hotel.
In rebuttal, Mr. Robinson felt, if there should be any problems with his operation, those problems could be corrected with communication with the Clearwater Beach Hotel. He stated there
has always been sailing on Clearwater Beach and he is trying to have a clean operation. He also stated the sign-up sheets for rental of his boats indicates many of his customers are
from Clearwater Beach. He felt the operation would not be a detriment to the beach and the operation is very attractive. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Robinson stated the operation
will be within the property lines of the Penguin Palace.
Mr. Schwob stated he respects the Harbormaster's opinion and would be very hesitant to vote against a recommendation made by the Harbormaster.
Ms. Nixon stated she does not think two catamarans would allow the business to work and felt four to six boats should pose no problem.
Mr. Schwob stated he would specifically like to question the Harbormaster concerning the request.
Mr. Mazur stated he would give a lot of weight to the Harbormaster's recommendation if it was a new operation or if there had been problems at the previous location.
Ms. Nixon felt a business that has been in operation for so many years without accidents should not be penalized.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to continue the above request to the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 19, 1989, in order to question the Harbormaster
or Assistant Harbormaster. Motion carried (5 to 0).
C. Annexation and Zoning:
1. M&B 41.08, Sec. 5-29-16 (Located approximately 300 ft. south of the eastern terminus of C.R. 193)
(Hyde)
A 89-15
Request - Annexation and Zoning,
RS-6 (Single Family Residential)
The above property is located approximately 300 ft. south of the eastern terminus of C.R. 193.
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Atty. Tim Johnson, Jr., representative of property owner and prospective buyer, stated the property is currently zoned AE in the County.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to recommend approval of the annexation and RS-6 (Single-Family Residential "Six") zoning. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
2. Lots 1-3, Blk. E, Jurgen's Addn. to Clearwater (Located on the southwest corner at the intersection of Metto and Vine Streets
(Crawford/Hancock)
LUP 89-9, Z 89-11
Request - Land Use Plan Amendment
From: Low Density Residential
To: Commercial/Tourist Facilities
AND
Zoning Amendment
From: RM-8 (Multiple Family Residential)
To: CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
The above property is located on the southwest corner at the intersection of Metto and Vine Streets.
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
Mr. Robert Root, representative of property owner, stated the proposed zoning would make the entire block Neighborhood Commercial and he felt approving the change would be an asset to
the area. After questioning by Mr. Johnson, Mr. Root stated the two-story building is 80% complete and there is an apartment on the second floor and storage on the first floor. Mr. Root
felt the area has many different uses and was slowly improving. After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Root stated his ultimate goal would be an office use such as an architect and if he
can't get the zoning approved he will use the property for personal use.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend denial of the Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities and the Zoning
Atlas amendment from RM-8 (Multiple Family Residential "Eight") to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
3. Land Development Code Text Amendment:
Chapter 134, Amending Sections 134.008, 134.010, 134.012, and 134.013 Relating to Exempt Signs, Additional Identification Signs Based Upon Public Street Frontage, Pole Signs and Window
Signs
LDCA 89-10
Mr. Richter explained the background of the Code amendment and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation.
The Board discussed the need for 24-square foot signs being allowed every 5,000 feet. Ms. Nixon felt the sign ordinance was fine as it is written.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above item.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Hamilton, to recommend approval the proposed ordinance with the following changes:
o The cumulative area of temporary and permanent window signs not exceed 50% of the area of the window, rather than the current 65% limit.
o Menu signs be permitted on exterior walls, in doors, or inside and visible through windows or doors of a restaurant.
o Building identification signs be permitted on the basis of one sign per office building containing a minimum of 40,000 square feet rather than one sign per building per property that
is developed with two or more buildings have more than 40,000 square feet.
o Permanent window signs be permitted to cover 20% of the area of a window in lieu of the current 15% limit.
o The allowable area for pole signs be permitted to be divided and placed as two signs on the same pole.
o Multiple signs in windows of an occupancy be permitted under one application and one fee.
Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Mazur, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with the following additional change:
o Identification signs for properties with generous street frontage continue to be permitted on the basis one sign per 500 feet of frontage, but the practice of requiring that the signs
also mark driveway entrances to the property be discontinued.
Motion carried (4 to 2) with Ms. Nixon and Mr. Johnson voting "nay."
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Mazur, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with the following additional changes:
o That the surface area for permanent window signs not exceed two times the business identification sign size allowed or 20% of the area of a window, whichever is less.
Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
D. Chairman's Items
Reconsideration of condition "b" of approval of August 1, 1989 RE: FRATERNITY HOUSE, CU 89-53
Mr. Richter advised that the condition of approval was that the property be brought into conformance with the Code. He also advised that the property currently has very little open space.
Mr. Richter stated, since the condition was placed on approval of the request, staff has worked with the applicant and it was discovered that it is very difficult to provide open space.
He also stated the applicant is able to provide about 1,800 square feet of open space but will not meet the 15% open space required for the lot. He advised staff recommended approval
of the amended condition as follows: That six (6) parking spaces be converted to open space to make the property more closely conform to the open space requirements of the Development
Code.
After questioning by Mr. Mazur, Mr. Richter stated, if the applicant requests approval of a variance to the open space
requirement, the condition of approval placed by the Planning and Zoning Board would still not be met.
Mr. Ted Barber of the Fraternity House stated the property has been under the same ownership for 20 years. He stated that in order to meet the open space requirements the building would
have decrease in size.
Motion was made by Mr. Green, seconded by Ms. Nixon, to amend Condition "b" of approval of August 1, 1989 as follows: That six (6) parking spaces be converted to open space to make the
property more closely conform to the open space requirements of the Development Code. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
The Board requested staff clarify if it has the authority to change a condition of approval. Staff was directed to obtain clarification from the City Attorney's office.
F. Board and Staff Comments
RE: Minutes of July 18, 1989
Discussion followed regarding the motion made on the proposed changes in the Rules and Regulations of the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Moore clarified that at the meeting of August
1, 1989, the Board discussed the possible confusion that took place in regard to the changes. She stated the Board, at its meeting of August 1, 1989, requested staff to redraft the Rules
and Regulations with proposed changes and bring them to the Board for its consideration a second time.
A. Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to approve the minutes of the July 18, 1989 meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0).
Meeting adjourned at 5:50 PM.
________________________________________________
James M. Polatty, Jr., AICP, Director
Planning and Development Department