Loading...
07/30/1991 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1991 Members Present: Chairman Schwob, Messrs. Bickerstaffe, Carassas, Hamilton, Merriam, and Savage Members Excused: Mr. Mazur Also Present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney Doreen Feldhaus, Recording Secretary Chairperson Schwob 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. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Savage, to approve the minutes of July 16, 1991. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). B. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION, DEFERRED AND CONTINUED ITEMS: 1. (Continued from 5/14/91 and 6/18/91), Lots 8-11, Blk. 8, Clearwater Beach Sub. Rev. Plat (32 Bay Esplanade), Pick Kwik Food Stores, Inc./Nostimo, Inc., CU 91-40 Request - To permit package sales of beer and wine Zoned - CB (Beach Commercial) Mr. Hamilton declared a conflict of interest and will not participate in the discussion or vote on this request. Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation, and stated that there was a letter of objection received from the Chapel-by-the-Sea. Steve Seibert, 911 Chestnut Street, applicant's representative, stated the request is to sell beer and wine at a convenience store, which is across the street from another convenience store which sells beer and wine. Mr. Seibert stated that, in regard to concerns about loitering and rowdiness, the applicant will provide a security guard from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. every Friday and Saturday night. He noted that a quarterly report will be provided to staff to show this requirement is being complied with and that security is still in force. Mr. Seibert stated in regard to traffic, there simply is no significant adverse impact on traffic circulation that would result from selling beer and wine from that location. In regard to the sale of beer and wine to minors, Mr. Seibert stated that Pick Kwik has a very extensive and successful training program for new employees on this very issue. Mr. Seibert stated that in regard to the concentration of alcoholic beverage establishments, that allowing an existing Pick Kwik to sell beer and wine across the street from a competitor will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood at all. He felt the Board should look at the sale of beer and wine issue on a case by case basis. Mr. Seibert presented a petition in support of the request and noted that there were a number of signatures from residents of Island Estates and the Beach area; he also presented three letters in support. Mr. Seibert asked that prohibiting the sale of single containers not be imposed as a condition as this would put them at a competitive disadvantage, when one can simply go across the street and do the same thing. Mr. Seibert felt this request meets all the standards for approval for a conditional use, the request is compatible with the surrounding area and will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. John Jaeb, 4803 Bayshore Blvd., Tampa, the owner and president of Pick Kwik Food Stores, stated he has been in this industry since 1982. He stated that they are especially proud of this store because of the fact that, when the store was built, they were sensitive to community concerns and even designed the store with a Key West motif. Mr. Jaeb stated that the store is currently operating and sharing the business with the 7-11 Store across the street. In a similar situation in Tampa, Mr. Jaeb stated they operated a store across the street from a Farm Store. Both stores had similar sales volumes and the business available in the market area was shared evenly which is typical of what happens in a situation like that in this industry. Mr. Jaeb felt they have done their best to address all concerns raised by staff. He added that the issue of not allowing the sale of single containers would result in a customer relations problem, as it would be very difficult to tell a customer they cannot buy a single can at our store, when you can at every other convenience store in the City, particularly the one across the street. Mr. Jaeb stated they will contract for security service to provide patrolling of all 3 stores on Clearwater Beach to deal with the loitering problem and are committed to help the City of Clearwater improve the beach. In response to a question by Mr. Schwob, regarding the time and money invested in obtaining approval for this request, Mr. Jaeb stated that it will be years before they make up the investment for this request. He explained that they work on narrow net profit margin (2-4% range), and by not selling beer and wine they are being deprived of 7-8% of gross revenue, which includes gasoline sales. Mr. Jaeb stated that it makes a difference in making a profit or not making a profit. In response to a question by Mr. Savage, Mr. Jaeb stated it is difficult to say how many customers are lost as a result of not being able to sell beer and wine, but it is likely they are missing other revenue as well. This is due to the fact that customers have to go to the 7-11 Store across the street to buy beer and wine, and they are probably buying other things there that they would have bought at Pick Kwik. Mr. Galbraith, City Attorney, requested permission to question the witnesses testifying in regard to this request due to the fact that he is still defending the decision of denial of a similar request from the same applicant made by this Board two years ago. In response to questions by Mr. Galbraith, Mr. Jaeb stated there may be a slight increase in traffic from customers because their store is on the opposite side of the street from the 7-11 Store, but for the most part they will be sharing the existing business that is already there. Mr. Jaeb responded that this is based on his experience with the Farm Store situation in Tampa. He felt they will generally share business with the 7-11 Store, but there will be a slight increase only because they are on opposite sides of the road. Karen Conley, 520 Ridge Road, Largo, Human Resources Manager for Pick Kwik Stores, stated there is a policy manual in every store which defines the guidelines for the sale of alcohol, and every new employee receives a handbook which contains this information as well. She noted that this book clearly outlines the disciplinary actions should an employee not follow the procedures for the sale of alcohol, particularly in regard to the sale to minors. Ms. Conley stated that all new employees must take a test their first day on the job which involves the legal drinking age, and the restricted hours. Ms. Conley noted that all employees must attend an orientation which includes Responsible Vendor Training in which they learn how to check identifications and how to detect false identifications. She added that their area supervisors do store inspections on a monthly basis and they specifically check as to whether employees are checking for identifications. In response to questions by Mr. Galbraith, Ms. Conley stated that there are as many as three employees and as few as one in the stores after 6 pm, and that at the Clearwater Beach stores there are generally two or three. Mr. Galbraith asked whether they would be willing to agree to a condition requiring two or three employees at these locations should the Board decide to impose this as a condition. Ms. Conley responded that it would not be for her to agree to, that it would be up to Mr. Jaeb to decide. In response to a question concerning a hypothetical situation where there might be one employee in the store, several customers inside, and eight to ten customers in the parking lot drinking, leaving cans, and loitering, Ms. Conley stated their employees would contact the security guard and/or the police. Mr. Seibert stated he felt this is a highly irregular process having the City Attorney cross examining witnesses. Mr Seibert stated that Mr. Galbraith is representing another lawsuit, this is a separate application and that this testimony is not part of that lawsuit. Mr. Galbraith explained that the City Attorney does not represent the Planning Staff or the City Manager. He stated that two years ago this Board voted no on an application that pertained to this property to sell beer and wine by this applicant. The decision was appealed and the case went before a Hearing Officer and the Planning and Zoning Board's decision was upheld. The case then went to Circuit Court to review the record before the Board and determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the decision of the Board. The ordinance was challenged as to whether it was constitutional. The Circuit Court determined there was substantial evidence and found the ordinance to be constitutional. That decision has been appealed. Mr. Galbraith stated that if the Board votes yes today he will be in a position to defend both a yes and no decision for the same request for the same property with the only difference in the request is that there will be no sale of alcoholic beverages before 9:00 a.m.. Steven Stuebs, 31622 U.S. 19, stated he is a project engineer with John Landon and Associates. He stated that one area of expertise of his firm is transportation and traffic engineering. Mr. Stuebs stated his firm is representing Pick Kwik in this case in regard to traffic impact. He stated that his firm has determined that there will be no significant traffic impact associated with adding the sale of alcoholic beverages at this store, and that it will not generate a high percentage of new traffic trips but will share traffic with the 7-11 Store across the street. Mr. Stuebs stated that convenience stores do not generate a high percentage of new trips and that most of the traffic is from traffic trips from the adjacent roadways. In response to questions by Mr. Galbraith, Mr. Stuebs stated the traffic for this use already exists, and that he has observed customers go to the Pick Kwik to purchase beer or wine only to find out they cannot, and they proceed to the 7-11 Store across the street. In opposition, Ann Garris, 38 Acacia St., representing the Clearwater Beach Association, stated that Pick Kwik has 87 other stores and will only benefit 7% of their gross income by adding the sale of alcoholic beverages to this store in a neighborhood where we don't want it. Ms. Garris stated she has dealt with all the issues on the beach very closely for 20 years and nothing has changed. This store is close to a playground, church, recreation center, playing field and tennis courts. These are all places where the children gather to play. Ms. Garris stated that the law says it is not good to have children around a place where alcoholic beverages are sold, and this is where the children of the community and the children of the people who visit our area go to play. Ms. Garris stated that Pick Kwik feels they should be able to sell beer and wine as does the 7-11 Store across the street, which she felt wouldn't have been granted a conditional use permit had the citizens been able to speak in objection then, as they are now. She added that since they are trying to improve the community and rather than add another wrong to the one that is already there, the Board should just say no. Ms. Garris pointed out that the traffic situation is already bad and to allow this use would only make it worse. She also stated that the only way the Fire Department can get to the many residences of North Clearwater Beach is through this intersection. She is concerned at the lack of comment from the Police Department, when two years ago Lt. Palombo, then the Beach Commander, made very strong statements that adding alcoholic beverage sales at this site would increase the need for police enforcement on the North Beach. Ms. Garris noted that she felt the reason there are more calls at this location than the ones on the South Beach that sell alcoholic beverages is because the people on the South Beach have given up calling the police as it doesn't help; and that there is a much more intense police presence on the South Beach. In regard to the security guard issue, Ms. Garris stated that when the security guard directs persons loitering at the store to leave, they will go to the picnic tables at the playground and recreation center nearby. She felt that rather than have to have security to reduce rowdiness and loitering, why not just eliminate alcohol sales and not have it at all. She stated that the Clearwater Beach Blue Ribbon Task Force report stated "Clearwater Beach should be carefully protected from unnecessary liquor sales" and "Liquor served with food does not appear to be problematic for the most part. Chilled alcoholic beverages to go, on the other hand, tend to attract an element of the population which indulges in loitering, noise making and otherwise disruptive behavior." Ms. Garris added that this is the only planning group the beach has ever had. Ms. Garris stated that the only difference in this application and the one two years ago is that this time staff is recommending approval and the Police Department had no comment. She felt nothing has changed and this request should be denied. In response to questions by the Board, Ms. Garris stated she is officially representing the members of the Clearwater Beach Association; that the store is a nice place for the youth to gather but that alcoholic sales should not be added to a place where teenagers already "hang out"; and that she felt the store would not enforce the proposed restriction of not selling single containers of beer and wine. Harry Cline, 400 Cleveland St., representing the Palm Pavilion, Inc., stated that they oppose the application. My clients are contiguous property owners to this operation. Our client's property is a hotel facility. It is a residential, family oriented, tourist based residential facility, which has recently been renovated at a substantial cost. Mr. Cline stated that the proposal to sell beer and wine off premises at this location will without question have a substantial adverse impact on this particular property and the community at large. Mr. Cline noted that on the South Beach where there are currently two Pick Kwik stores selling alcohol beverages there have been many alcohol based and related problems with the kids loitering, hanging out, noise, etc., which is an adverse impact on the community. Mr. Cline presented a certified transcript of the previous hearing and noted that the Board unanimously denied it. Mr. Cline also presented a transcript of Lt. Palombo's testimony before the hearing officer, in which Lt. Palombo stated "The P.D. (police department) had problems with noise, vandalism, car problems, debris being cast upon surrounding properties, most of which were beer bottles and beer cans and the general disruption of the community in that area, and that's South Beach Pick Kwik." Mr. Seibert stated he objected to this as hearsay testimony. Discussion ensued, and Chairman Schwob stated Mr. Seibert's objection is noted and that the Board will take it in the proper context. Mr. Cline stated that what is at issue here is alcohol sales in a predominantly residential community and that the increase of this use in this area is not appropriate. Mr. Cline stated that Baymont Street is a divisional street on the beach. South of Baymont is essentially commercial, the streets are 4 lanes, it is the hub of nighttime activity and appropriately, there is alcohol concentrated there. However, north of Baymont the character of the beach changes and these people are trying to keep it that way. Mr. Cline stated that this application should be denied, as it does not meet the ordinance criteria, it clearly will have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties, his client's property, and the community at large. Mr. Cline felt that Pick Kwik should not state that it is difficult economically to run a convenience store without an alcoholic license when they built that facility after having been denied the alcoholic license. Mr. Cline stated that this is the same application that was here two years ago, and to change the hour to create a "different" application makes a mockery of the system. It shouldn't have been filed and processed. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Cline stated that the Palm Pavilion does sell beer for on premises consumption, not for carry out. Mr. Cline responded that he has represented clients seeking alcoholic beverage uses on the beach, but not north of Baymont Street. He felt that South of Baymont Street is the tourist area and alcoholic beverages should be permitted there. In rebuttal, Mr. Seibert stated in response to Ms. Garris' theory to just say no that you can't do that without a good reason. The burden is on staff and citizens to show that there is adverse public interest, and he felt they have met the standards for approval. In regard to the filing of the application, Mr. Seibert stated they are trying to provide information that wasn't brought to Board before, and that they are properly before this Board today. He added that the sale of beer and wine is not going to create more traffic or make a difference to anybody. They will not sell to young kids, and are willing to go a step further and provide security rather than call police for every problem. Mr. Seibert stated beer and wine is sold in many establishments on Clearwater Beach, many of them are adjacent to the Pick Kwik Store, as well as the establishment that existed on this same site prior to the Pick Kwik. He added that Pick Kwik will sell beer and wine as responsibly as they can, and the use is appropriate to the area and asked that the Board grant the request. Mr. Galbraith advised the Board members that they are free to vote yes on this application today, and free to impose reasonable conditions if voting yes. Mr. Galbraith stated that since he is still defending the no vote from two years ago, each member of the Board should state the reason for voting the way they are voting, whether it is for denial or approval. Mr. Seibert agreed explaining the votes is a good idea. Mr. Carassas asked Mr. Shuford how enforcement of prohibiting the sale of single containers would be handled. Mr. Shuford explained enforcement could be as simple as sending in a Code Enforcement Officer to purchase a single container. He added that this has never been imposed as a condition of approval for package sales in the past, but felt this condition could be very effectively enforced. Discussion ensued with the Board members expressing concerns including the following: the Pick Kwik store is very clean and appears to be well run; the potential negative impact on the community; traffic; the fact that Pick Kwik was denied a conditional use for the sale of alcohol at this location before it was built; loitering being a problem at the 7-11 Store across the street which sells alcohol but is presently not a problem at this Pick Kwik; and stopping additional alcoholic beverage establishments for the good of the community. Motion was made by Mr. Bickerstaffe, and seconded by Mr. Merriam, to deny the above request. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: Mr. Bickerstaffe voted yes for denial for the following reasons: if approved problems would develop in the area, and it is time to take a stand to keep residential and commercial areas separated; Mr. Carassas voted yes for denial for the following reasons: if approved it may impose an excessive burden and have a substantial negative impact on the community; Mr. Schwob voted yes for denial for the following reasons: if approved it may impose an excessive burden and have a substantial negative impact on the community, based on possibilities of loitering, requiring extra police protection and traffic impact; Mr. Savage voted yes for denial for the following reason: it would have a substantial negative impact on the community; Mr. Merriam voted yes for denial for the following reasons: if approved it may impose an excessive burden and have a substantial negative impact on the community, and the hearing officer and the courts have determined that the Board acted properly in determining the criteria in the previous case. The motion carried unanimously (5 to 0, with 1 abstention). Mr. Carassas was excused from the meeting at 3:55 PM. C. CONDITIONAL USES: 1. Lot 2, Blk. C, Skycrest Unit 1 (1717 Drew St.) Tri-High Corp., (Easy Times Bar-Charmill's Pizza), CU 91-58 Request - To permit on-premise consumption of beer and wine Zoned - CG (General Commercial) Mr. Shuford stated the applicant has requested a continuance to allow him the opportunity to amend his request to include package sales as well as on premise consumption. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Savage, to continue the above request to the August 13, 1991 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 2. M&B 43.03, Sec. 09-29-15, Lots 1-7 and 10 ft. alley lying west of Lots 1-3, A.B. & Jennie Cate's Sub., (400 N. Ft. Harrison Ave.) Salvation Army, CU 91-59 Request - To permit noncommercial parking Zoned - CG (General Commercial) and RM-28 (Multi-Family Residential) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Savage declared a conflict of interest and will not participate in the discussion or vote on this request. Jay Myers, 800 Drew St., applicant's representative, stated that two months ago the Salvation Army came before this Board with a request for a parking conditional use for a site adjacent to this for a correctional office building. Since that time another opportunity has presented itself for community. Morton Plant Hospital in conjunction with the Johnny Ruth Clark Health Center, approached the Salvation Army to take some of the vacated buildings and convert those into a health center for mothers and children. Mr. Myers stated they are redeveloping the existing property and need parking in an area that is zoned RM-28. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Myers stated he has no problems with the conditions recommended by staff. Discussion ensued regarding tapering the entrance of the parking lot, and the stormwater issue. No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to approve the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) One existing curb cut on N. Ft. Harrison shall be removed per D.O.T. standards as indicated on the site plan. The existing driveway apron shall also be removed and replaced with sod, a continuous sidewalk, and curbing parallel with the street; and 2) Landscaping of the interior and perimeter of the parking lot shall be installed to meet the requirements of the Land Development Code. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0, 1 abstention). 3. M&B's 33.02 and 33.021, Sec. 20-29-16 (18443 & 18449 U.S. 19 N/Units 4-6, Levitz Plaza Shopping Center (formerly Grant's Plaza), Home Shopping Network Realty, Inc. (Clearwater Nightclub Enterprises, Inc.), CU 91-60 Request - To permit on premise consumption of beer, wine and liquor Zoned - CC (Commercial Center) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford stated there may be a mistake in the staff report concerning the facility from which a variance to the separation distance requirements would be needed. It may not be necessary for such a variance with relation to New York New York's location, rather the M. L. Chaser's facility would require the variance. Discussion ensued regarding parking, the site plan and the aerial provided by staff. Charles Samarkos, 915 Chestnut St., representing the applicant, stated he is also representing the prospective tenant, Clearwater Nightclub Enterprises, Inc. (Stingers). He stated that the parking issue appears to be the problem and this just came up when reviewing the staff report which states there are adequate parking spaces, yet in the recommendation it mentions annexing the unincorporated areas. Mr. Samarkos noted apparently there are parking spaces that were not built out that were shown as built out on the site plan. Mr. Samarkos stated they have no problem with conditions 1, 2, and 3, but would like condition 4 to be amended. Rather than requiring annexation of the property, it should be required that there be adequate parking to meet City Code or a variance obtained. He noted that the cost of annexation is a problem and it should be up to the owner of the property, Home Shopping, to pursue annexation and they are not willing to do that at this time. Mr. Shuford suggested the amending condition #4 as follows: The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate parking is provided according to City Code or obtain any necessary variances thereto; in the alternative, a developer's agreement to annex the unincorporated area(s) of the property shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issuance of any requisite building permits and/or occupational license. No persons appeared in support of the above request. The following persons appeared in opposition. Alan Millard, 18675 US 19 No., Lot 506, past president and current board member of the Bay Aristocrat Village Homeowners Association, stated he is here today representing that board. He stated they object to this request because the activities that take place in the area, including Chasers and New York New York, and the parking lots is detrimental to their park. Mr. Millard stated the mobile home park has been purchased by the residents and they are concerned with what happens in this area. Home Shopping has allowed the shopping center to deteriorate and they have not sought good tenants, which is what they should do rather than put in another nightclub. Mr. Millard noted that Home Shopping has proposed a multi-million dollar complex with shops and condominiums which would be preferable to a nightclub. Mr. Millard added that the pounding noise from the existing clubs is unbearable and asked that the Board take a stand and not approve another nightclub in this center. Mr. Shuford stated that there hasn't been any development proposal for the property to the east of the site submitted to the City. However, there is a proposal in the County for a project called Allen's Creek Development which is a combination of office, retail, and residential uses. Jimmy Bonbright, 18573 U.S. 19 No., the owner of New York New York, stated he is opposed to this request. Mr. Bonbright stated that Home Shopping is in violation of their lease which states they will not lease any portion of the property for the purpose of operating a restaurant of the same kind or nature. He added that this is a very congested area. In addition to his business there is Chasers, Maggie's Pub, and a restaurant that is currently vacant but will likely reopen. The current businesses fill the parking lot as it is, and if another club opens there parking will be a serious problem. John Wunderle, 18425 US 19 No., the owner of Maggie's Pub, stated Home Shopping is bringing more businesses into the shopping center, tentatively a television repair shop is proposed. Mr. Wunderle stated he and his wife run a small pub with beer and wine only with a clientele of people over 40 and are not in competition with New York New York. He felt adding a nightclub with over 8,000 square feet with younger clientele would wipe out the parking and would put them out of business. In response to a question by Mr. Shuford, Mr. Wunderle stated that they share parking with the entire Levitz Center. Everett Quinn, stated he has been a resident of Bay Aristocrat for 18 years. He stated that when the shopping center was built they welcomed it as a pleasant place where they could shop easily, but over the years the center has been deteriorating and is almost like a ghost town, with the exception of a few shops and "beer joints". Mr. Quinn added that the restaurant on the property is closed right now and for sale, but when it reopens they will want to sell alcohol with their meals, which would make five establishments in this confined area licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. Mr. Quinn stated that their park is for residents 55 years of age and older and they would like to keep the area as quiet as possible and do not want another establishment of this type in this area. In rebuttal, Charles Samarkos, stated that Sec. 136.022.1.f.2 of the City code states that shopping centers with more than 25,000 square feet must have five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, and that the center meets this code requirement. He stated that he appreciates the concerns of the residents of Bay Aristocrat but this is right next to a large shopping center on U.S. 19 and the use they are requesting is permitted as a conditional use within in the zoning district. Mr. Samarkos added that all they are trying to do is use the center for something that it is zoned for, and that the request meets the standards for approval and the permit should be approved. Discussion ensued with Board members expressing concerns including the following: the parking situation, the potential for negative impact on the neighbors, and the floor plan for the proposed nightclub. Mr. Schwob asked Mr. Samarkos if he would agree to continuing this request, and provide the Board with a proposed floor plan showing doors, windows, open deck areas, etc. for the requested nightclub. Mr. Samarkos agreed to continue the request and provide the requested information for the Board. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to continue the above request to the August 13, 1991 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). D. ANNEXATION, ZONING, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: 1. Undeveloped portion of the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI), Parcel A - Sec. 17-29-16, all of M&B 21.00, less and except those lands zoned AL/I (Aquatic Lands/Interior); and Parcel B - Sec. 17-29-16, all of M&B 24.03, less and except those lands zoned AL/I, located between Drew St., Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., U.S. Hwy 19, and Hampton Road (50 acres m.o.l.)/Building Operation Holding Co., LUP 91-04, Z 91-01 Request - Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas Amendments LAND USE PLAN: PARCEL A From: Residential/Office To: Industrial PARCEL B From: Commercial/Tourist Facilities To: Industrial ZONING: PARCEL A From: OG (General Office) To: New RD (Research, Development and Office Park) PARCEL B From: CC (Commercial Center) To: New RD (Research, Development and Office Park) Mr. Hamilton asked why a zoning change would be considered to a new zoning classification that has not been approved. Mr. Shuford explained that the City Commission will have a first reading of this ordinance on August 1, 1991, and on August 15, 1991, the City Commission will have second reading of this ordinance prior to consideration of the above request. Mr. Shuford added that this applicant is interested in this new zoning district and that the request was amended from IL to this new district, if adopted by the City Commission. Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation, and that he was not aware of why the applicant or representative is not present. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to approve the above request. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). 2. (Continued from 7/16/91) An ordinance relating to the Land Development Code; creating a new division 23A within Chapter 135, Code of Ordinances, to establish a new Research, Development and Office Park District; establishing district size requirements, permitted and conditional uses, use limitations, and dimensional and numerical development requirements; amending Section 136.025, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary standards for the approval of business services, hotels/motels, manufacturing uses, marina facilities, personal services, residential shelters, and restaurants as conditional uses in the Research, Development and Office Park District. Mr. Shuford reviewed in detail the Ordinance with the Board members. Chris Bossetti, representing Park Place, stated his concern is with road improvements, specifically Park Place Boulevard and asked if that is part of this approval. Mr. Shuford explained that this will not effect the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) designation whatsoever. What the applicant will have to do is go through the Notice of Proposed Change process and explain to the City Commission and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council any changes they want to make, the impacts the changes will have, and whether the proposed services they were to provide under the original DRI are sufficient to accommodate any changes. Discussion ensued regarding changes and additions to this ordinance. Motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Savage, to approve the above request subject to the following changes: 1) the addition to Sec. 135.1524.: (9) Commercial or trade schools.; and 2) addition to Sec. 136.025.: (9.1) Commercial or trade schools may be permitted within the Limited Office, and General Office, and Research, Development and Office Park districts.... Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0). Meeting adjourned at 5:42 p.m.