Loading...
08/04/1992MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1992 – 1:30 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION Members Present: Chairman Mazur, Messrs. Bickerstaffe, Carassas, Hamilton, Savage, Mr. Martin Members Excused: Mr. Merriam Also present: Scott Shuford, Planning Manager James M. Polatty, Jr., Director of Planning and Development Doreen Feidhaus, Recording Secretary Chairperson Mazur 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. ITEM A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approved (motion was made by Ms. Martin, and seconded by Mr. Carassas). Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). B. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION, DEFERRED AND CONTINUED ITEMS: 1. (Continued from 6/16/92, 6/30/92 & 7/14/92) M&B 14.05, Sec 12-29-15 (2131 Range Road) John E. and Patricia A. Sadtler (Shazam Boat Works), CU 92-35 Request – To permit (1) vehicle service; and (2) outdoor retail sales, displays, and storage Zoned – IL (Limited Industrial) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford advised that this request was continued to allow the applicant to submit a detailed site plan. The applicant did not submit the site plan and staff therefore recommends denial. Applicant was not present. A motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Carassas to postpone this request to the end of the meeting. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). After all other items on the agenda were completed, the applicant had not appeared. Denied (motion made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe). Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 2. (Continued from 7/14/92) Part of Blk 2, Baskin’s Replat Resub, (2779 Gult to Bay Blvd) Herbert E. & Jane B. Wollowick (KCMT Entertainment, Inc./Sweaty Eddy’s), CU-92-45 Request – To permit on-premise consumption and package sales of beer, wine, and liquor Zoned – CG (General Commercial) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford advised that the applicant has requested a continuance to the meeting of August 18th due to the death of one of the applicants. A motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Carassas, to continue this request to the August 18, 1992 meeting. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 3. (Continued from 7/14/92) Lot 4 and part of Lot 5, Blk 2, Wallace’s Add, (519 S. Ft. Harrison Ave) Trivest Investments, Inc. (Gulf Coast Auto Sales), CU 92-50 Request – To permit outdoor retail sales, displays, and/or storage Zoned – CG (General Commercial) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford stated that staff had received a revised site plan on July 30, 1992 which still does not address important issues. Mr. Shuford advised that staff has recommended denial. Applicant, Basil Laschl, 1124 Sunnydale Drive, stated he could not hear well and that Michael Harvey would represent him. Applicant’s representative, Michael Harvey, 1425 Highfield Dr., stated that they submitted a plan to the Zoning Section staff and felt that the plan met all the requirements. He stated he understood the staff’s recommendation for denial. Pro: None Con: None Denied (motion made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Savage). Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). C. CONDITIONAL USES: 1. Slips 17 and 18, 700 Island Way II Condo, (736 Island Way) 736 Island Way Assn, Inc. (700 Island Way II a Condominium), CU 92-51 Request – To permit marina additions of two docks and boatlifts/catwalks Zoned – RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential) and AL/C (Aquatic Lands/Coastal) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford advised that questions have come to light concerning ownership and whether the applicants for this request have met the Condominium Association’s approval requirements. Mr. Shuford stated that normally deed restrictions and the like are private issues; however, in this case if the applicants are not authorized to apply for this request it should be a factor of consideration. Mr. Shuford suggested either to continue the request or consider a condition of approval that the applicant must demonstrate that they are authorized to apply. Mr. Shuford added a letter of objection to the request was received from James Dean, 736 Island Way #106. Applicant’s representative, Myron Gibson, Gibson’s Docks & Lifts, 2948 Fairfield Court, Palm Harbor, stated that a permit was originally approved for 18 boat slips in 1980, and that 16 slips were built at that time. Mr. Gibson stated that this application is to build slips 17 and 18. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Gibson stated that the condominium association president signed the document authorizing him to submit this application. He added that the people who own the slips are responsible for maintenance and fees associated with these slips. Mr. Gibson advised that Robert Dirnoff is the President of 700 Island Way Condominium Association and that he signed the affidavit authorizing him to make this application. Pro: Louis D. Karras, Vice President of 736 Condominium Association, 736 Island Way, stated that the President of the association had a death in the family and could not be present. He stated that the residents at this location are boat enthusiasts and desire to have the boat slips as some residents now maintain their boats elsewhere. He felt the applicants are boat enthusiasts and this request should be approved. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Karras stated that the Condominium Association will be considering a 75% approval of the two boat slips and that the meeting will be within 90 days. Con: Gerald Perlin, 736 Island Way, stated he felt that nothing will be approved by the association. He stated that the application is a real estate deal and not a request for recreational boating purposes. Mr. Perlin stated he questions the legality of the applicants authority to make this request. He stated that a decision should not be made until the question of ownership is resolved with the Condominium Association. Mr. Mazur stated that it is the Board’s responsibility to consider whether the boat slips are permitted to be built, and not to dispute ownership or other legal problems with the condominium association. Applicant Martin Cook, 736 Island Way #306, stated that he is secretary of the Condominium Association and one of the applicants for one of the slips. He stated they have been attempting for three months to determine proper procedures to apply for this permit. Mr. Cook stated he obtained the required signatures from the President and Vice President of the association as well as the adjoining condominium association officers. Mr. Cook stated he was not aware that 75% approval of the association was required prior to applying for the permit and would have done so prior to this meeting had they know. He added that he had consulted with an attorney and felt that the proper procedures to apply for this permit had been followed and asked that this request be approved. Applicant Nicholas Matsis, 736 Island Way, stated he is a Director on the Board of the Condominium Association and has lived there for 20 months. Mr. Matsis stated that he is a boat lover and had rented a slip but could not install a lift and consequently his boat was ruined. He would like approval of this request so that they can take it to the association for their approval of the slip. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Matsis stated if this request is approved that he will abide by the decision of the association. In rebuttal, Mr. Perlin stated that most of the slips are owned by nonboat owners and that it comes down to the value of the boat slips. Mr. Perlin felt this request is simply a real estate deal and not a question of boat owners wanting a boat slip. In rebuttal, Mr. Gibson reiterated that the original approval was for 18 slips, and would like to build the remaining two slips previously approved. Discussion ensued including the following: the condominium association rules, the ownership issue, and adding a condition requiring the applicants to demonstrate authority to make application prior to the issuance of a building permit. Approved (motion made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Savage) subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permits for the construction of the two slips within 90 days of this public hearing; 2) The boat slips shall be exclusively for the personal use of the residential condominium owners residing at 700 Island Way Condominiums (one slip per unit) and shall not be rented or leased to non-owners; and 3) Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate authority to make application to the Director of Planning and Development. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 2. Lots 33 and 46, and vacated alley, Court Square Sub, (401 S. Ft. Harrison Ave.) Park Terrace of Clearwater, Inc. (C.J.D. Corp / The Old Bailey), CU 92-52 Mr. Carassas stated he has a conflict of interest with the request and will not participate in the discussion or vote. Mr. Shuford stated that the applicant has requested continuance to the meeting of August 18, 1992. A motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Savage, to continue this request to the August 18, 1992 meeting. Motion carried 5 to 1, with 1 abstention. D. ANNEXATION, ZONING, LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, AND LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW: 1. M&B 23.04, 23.05, 23.06, 23.08, and 23.13, Sec. 21-28-16 (3160 McMullen-Booth Road) James B. & Marlene K. McCullough, A 92-07, LUP 92-13 Request – Annexation, Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas Amendments LAND-USE PLAN: FROM: Unclassified TO: Low Density Residential ZONED: RS 6 (Single Family Residential) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. The applicant was not present. A motion was made by Mr. Carassas and seconded by Mr. Hamilton to postpone this request to the end of the meeting. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). After all other agenda items were completed the applicant was present. Pro: None Con: None Applicant’s representative, Steve Stuebs, 36422 U.S. 19, Palm Harbor, stated he had received the staff report and agrees with the recommendation made by staff. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Stuebs stated that there is no part of this property being considered by the City of Clearwater for purchase that he is aware of. There is a portion of the property abutting McMullen Booth Road that is designated as future right-of-way and during the site plan process the site plan shall reflect this as well as any appropriate buffers. Mr. Shuford stated that in order to develop the property, they will have to provide either land or open space fees. Pro: None Con: None A motion was made by Mr. Carassas, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe to recommend that the City Commission approve the requested Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential and Zoning Atlas Amendment to RS-6. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). Lot 1, Clwr “19” Commerce Park (22067 U.S. 19 N.) Frank C. Kunnen, Jr., Z92-07 Request – Zoning Atlas Amendment ZONED: FROM: IL (Limited Industrial) TO: IPD (Industrial Planned Development) Mr. Shuford gave the background of the case and submitted, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford noted a letter of objection was received from Fairwood Forest residents. Mr. Shuford stated that City’s Environmental Management Group indicated that having the ditch meet minimum nuisance standards for lots is not appropriate because extra vegetation is needed in the ditch during heavy rains to prevent washouts. Mr. Shuford suggested the Board may wish to modify the condition recommended by staff pertaining to ditch maintenance. He also noted that in regard to providing reports to the Planning & Development Department, that perhaps the easiest way to handle it would be to have the report updated when new occupational licenses are issued. Applicant, Frank Kunnen, Jr. 22067 US 19, stated that he is the owner of Clearwater 19 Commerce Center. Mr. Kunnen stated that the IL zoning is too limiting, and that IPD and IL are now the only Industrial zonings in Clearwater. He stated that at one time all uses in the center were strictly industrial, however they now have uses such as dance and karate schools. He discussed fencing and the maintenance of the ditch. He stated that washouts would occur if the vegetation is not permitted and noted that the City has permission to use his property for ditch maintenance. Mr. Kunnen stated he had spoken with Buddy Jones of Fairwood Forest and felt he had satisfied his concerns. Mr. Kunnen added that he will be a good neighbor and cooperate with the City. A lengthy detailed discussion ensued with the applicant, the Board members and staff concerning the recommended conditions of approval. Pro: None Con: None A motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Carassas to recommend that the City Commission approve the Zoning Atlas Amendment to IPD subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall meet the perimeter landscaping requirements of Sec. 136.023 of the Land Development Code to the extent that such landscaping can be installed in areas outside of utility easements and retention areas; or ditch maintenance access areas. Such landscaping shall be installed within six months from the date of IPD zoning approval by the City Commission; 2) The applicant shall screen all dumpsters visible to residential areas with 6 ½ ft. tall concrete block walls, stuccoed and painted to match the exterior of the buildings within six months of the date of IPD zoning approval by the City Commission; 3)All freestanding signage, if relocated, shall meet the requirements of the Highway Commercial zoning district; all attached signage shall meet the requirements of the General Commercial zoning district; 4) The applicant shall submit reports to the Planning and Development Director indicating business occupancies and the areas associated with such occupancies to demonstrate compliance with the use percentage table on the site plan at the time of each occupational license approval; 5) There shall be no more than a cumulative total of 20,185 sq. ft. of gross floor area for retail and restaurant uses; 6) New uses or revisions to existing uses within the center shall continue to be reviewed, on a case-by-case basis, for any required impact fees; 7) The applicant shall maintain all ditches and retention areas on the property (or in utility easements) in accordance with City requirements to be developed by the Public Works Department; and 8) There shall be no additional door or window openings on any building wall which faces a residential area. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 3. (Continued from 6/30/92) Downtown Land Use Plan: The City of Clearwater proposes to change the zoning and land use classifications within the shaded area shown on the map in this advertisement and as described below. The City of Clearwater further proposes to include the subject property in the Downtown Clearwater Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). The City of Clearwater also proposed to change the permitted and conditional uses, parking standards, and other requirements associated with the Urban Center district. Zoning Changes: The City of Clearwater proposes to change the zoning districts for the subject property from Limited Industrial, Urban Center (Core), General Commercial, Neighborhood Residential “Twenty-eight”, Multiple Family Residential “Sixteen”, Multiple Family Residential “Eight”, and Open Space/Recreation to Urban Center (Bayfront), Urban Center (Core), Urban Center (Eastern Corridor), and Urban Center (Transition). Land Use Changes: The City of Clearwater proposes to change the land use classification for the subject property from Industrial, Commercial/Tourist Facilities, Residential/Office, Public/Semi-Public, High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, and Recreation to Downtown Development District/Regional Activity Center. Mr. Shuford stated that the City Commission held a work session on July 23, 1992 regarding the Downtown Plan and was unable to complete discussion on the entire plan. Consequently, the City Commission canceled the public hearing for the Downtown Plan scheduled for August 13, 1992. Mr. Shuford added that implementing the Downtown Plan will likely not occur this calendar year, but probably in June of 1993. Mr. Shuford explained in detail what the plan is and what it will do, why it needs to be updated and how it will be implemented. Public Comments: Joe Beno, 500 N. Osceola Avenue, stated a basic plan for downtown expansion to the north is needed to dress up the area. Mr. Beno’s concerns included trash cans in the street and problems experienced with abandoned vehicles. Mr. Beno felt the plan is good and should be adopted and enforced. Mrs. C.C. Morgan, 313 Eldridge St., stated she is also speaking for Michael McDaniel, Attorney, of 512 N. Ft. Harrison Ave., who also owns a home on Eldridge Street. She recommended that the area from Georgia Street to Cedar Street along Osceola Avenue now zoned RM-16 not be rezoned to Urban Center. She felt if any changes are proposed to this area that they should be directed toward restorning the original quality of this neighborhood. Mrs. Morgan stated innovative zoning incentives should be considered which would allow the combination of neighborhood commercial uses within the multi-family developments. Such uses could include: a small grocery store, hairdresser, a restaurant and other services on the main floor of residential buildings. Mrs. Morgan stated that the downtown zoning now in place has not been successful, and that the downtown has lost many retail businesses. She felt that this demonstrates there is ample commercial area to be redeveloped without rezoning this small residential area in question. She felt to allow vendors, businesses, personal services, etc. in this area would not enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood. She added that many violations of the current code exist and should be enforced. Mr. Shuford presented a map to the Board noting the north expansion of the Bayfront District, and explained that primarily residential development is expected in this area. Mr. Shuford pointed out the mixture of land uses including CR-28, Open Space/Recreation, Public/Semi-Public, RM-16 and RM-28. He noted that the idea behind the expansion is to place this particular area under one zoning which would allow the City to better address the different uses. Mr. Shuford stated that many of the uses as mentioned by Mrs. Morgan would be conditional uses, and that the purpose of allowing vendors is intended to allow them primarily in Coachman Park and other public areas. Richard Haworth, 551 Saturn, Public Affairs Director of the Church of Scientology, stated that he was concerned about the Fort Harrison area where it was proposed to change the zoning from Urban Center Core to Urban Center Bayfront. Mr. Shuford referred to the map and explained in detail the zoning in this area. Mr. Haworth stated the reason he is concerned is that this change would make the Ft. Harrison Hotel a non-conforming use with regard to density, height, and setbacks. He added that there are no buildings in this area that could be rebuilt with the proposed zoning change. He added that some space now being used for counseling and training will be converted back to rooms and anticipates a problem with doing that with this change. Mr. Haworth felt that the zoning should not be changed in a way that would create so many nonconforming uses. Mr. Shuford explained that the existing uses would not be nonconforming but the dimensional requirements might be. If any buildings are damaged more than 50% of their value they could not be rebuilt without a variance. In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Shuford stated that the staff recommendation will be based on the general direction of the Board. He noted that regarding the creation of nonconformities, the Board has stated its desire to minimize the number of nonconformities created by the Downtown Plan or at least make problematic uses conditional uses so that they can be reviewed separately. Consequently, staff will recommend changes in this case to minimize nonconformities. Carol Cicero, 1730 Rosery Road, owner of Clearwater Radiator, stated that she felt that they have resolved their problem with the proposed zoning by filing an application for the conditional use in order to expand their facility in the near future. Ms. Cicero stated that as long as they can continue their use of vehicle service and planned expansion, which is what they bought the property for, that they are in favor of the Downtown Plan. Mr. Shuford added that this property is currently zoned General Commercial in which vehicle service requires a conditional use permit, as it would in the proposed Downtown Plan. He added that Ms. Cicero is applying for a conditional use with expansion plans to the Board in order that their current use of the property will be protected. Mr. Smallridge, Harbor Bluffs Condominiums, stated that he is confused as to what the long term plan is. Mr. Shuford explained in detail that what is being proposed is a short term, transition Downtown Development Plan. He added that there are many important issues to be resolved relating to the Downtown ranging from a consolidated City Hall to the Maas Brothers property, and the East End Project (Missouri Avenue and Cleveland Street). In the interim, the proposed Downtown Plan would serve a period of approximately five years and then be updated as a long term plan. Mr. Smallridge asked if the three projects Mr. Shuford mentioned require rezoning. Mr. Shuford stated that they would not, with the exception of the East End Project which would require some change in zoning as the properties have a mixture of zoning designations at the present time. Mr. Smallridge stated that with what he has heard today he felt that it is a good plan and that the City is moving in the right direction and that his concern is to maintain the quality of his neighborhood. Mr. Morgan speaking again, asked Mr. Shuford to explain what is meant by “mainly residential” uses, and how allowing uses such as indoor retail sales, businesses, vendors, personal services, etc. as permitted uses would enhance this residential area. Mr. Shuford explained that those uses are currently permitted uses in the Bayfront zoning district. Mr. Shuford explained that in Mrs. Morgan’s area the most likely development will be residential and the Bayfront district would allow substantially higher density for residential development than exists now which would be a greater development incentive than the other small scale permitted uses. Mr. Shuford added that, as Mrs. Morgan had mentioned previously, a mixture of commercial and residential uses in this area would be appropriate. Mrs. Morgan stated she felt the mixture of commercial uses should be within the residential buildings rather than separate retail establishments. She added that she felt allowing the uses as listed would not promote the type of development desired for this area. Mr. Shuford stated that retail shops and restaurants are not surviving on Cleveland Street. That it is not likely that similar businesses will be established along Osceola Avenue. He noted that Mrs. Morgan brought out a critical point, do we want a zoning proposal more open to market flexibility, or one that is very specific. For example, it could be specified that in this particular area of downtown that the only way a retail use would be acceptable would be within a residential building of a certain size. Mr. Hamilton stated that there is a redevelopment potential in the area around Hyde Park, and that people have come back to the area because of that blend of retail and residential. He felt that this area has grown and improved as well as increased the value of properties in this area and that this is an example of what the blend of the two uses can do. Mrs. Morgan responded that she felt Hyde Park is beautiful but it is a much larger area and that the area in question here is just 17 acres. She asked why the area on Osceola, north of Cedar up to Venetian Point, has not been suggested to be rezoned to Commercial. Mr. Shuford stated that in discussing Downtown Plan with different groups, the North Fort Harrison Business Association recommended that it extend Downtown zoning to Venetian Point, but staff feels it is not desireable to bring a zoning that intense that far north. The uses to the south of the marina are mixed uses, but to the north they are primarily single family residential. Florence Driggs, Harbor Bluffs Condominiums, stated that with regard to the distance from buildings to the water that no other building can go as close to the water as Harbor Bluffs. She felt if Osceola could be closed off there would be enough land for development without being closer to the water. Discussion by the Board and staff included the following comments: Ms. Martin commented she felt that in developing the Bayfront including the Maas Brothers property that the City should consider a downtown similar to what Baltimore has done such as installing a boardwalk with small shops, etc. rather than building commercial uses so close to the residential areas. Ms. Martin asked whether a use for the Maas Brothers site had been determined. Mr. Shuford stated that the Maas Brothers Task Force has concluded that an arts center should be the primary use for that property. Mr. Hamilton stated that he felt the discussion should not be site specific and should be focused on the overall plan. He felt that the market must have the opportunity to determine what kind of developments can work, otherwise they will go elsewhere and the area will continue to deteriorate. Mr. Hamilton stated he felt the plan is a good proposal and that the staff has done an “excellent, excellent, excellent” job in putting the plan together. Mr. Shuford stated staff would like a general consensus of the Board on the Downtown Plan to report to the City Commission which will be having a special work session on the plan on August 14, 1992. Mr. Mazur questioned the issue of creating nonconformities in the area of the Fort Harrison Hotel. Mr. Shuford stated that the overall uses fit better in the Bayfront district but given the earlier direction from the Board to minimize nonconformities, the staff would recommend dropping the zoning change to Bayfront from Core. Mr. Hamilton stated he felt that in general the plan is aimed in the right direction, that there are some issues to be worked out, but the plan is very solid and it should go forward. Mr. Bickerstaffe felt the CRA should stay the same and concentrate on the core area. The zoning should be lined up and allow the market to come in. He felt the plan is a very good start and is going in the right direction. Mr. Mazur agreed that being too specific should be avoided, and it is the consensus of the Board to recommend that the Commission look at zoning that minimizes physical nonconformities and that the benefits outweigh the negatives. Mr. Savage commented that in regard to the long range plan vs. the short term plan, it can’t be too restrictive or it would never get off ground. He felt the Plan meets the needs for Downtown development. A motion was made by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Savage, that it is the consensus of this Board that the City staff has significantly demonstrated the need for a new Downtown Plan and the plan presented meets that need, and the Board recommends this plan continue forward in a positive vein with it becoming the blueprint for downtown revitalization while minimizing the number of nonconformities. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 4. (Continued from 7/14/92) Ordinance N. 5236-92 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 134.015, Code of Ordinances, to delete the sign variance application deadline; providing an effective date (LDCA 92-08) Mr. Shuford explained the ordinance and presented, in writing, the staff recommendation. Mr. Shuford discussed with the Board issues concerning nonconforming signs and related variances. A motion by Mr. Hamilton, and seconded by Mr. Bickerstaffe, to recommend that the City Commission approve Ordinance No. 5236-92. Motion carried unanimously (6 to 0). 5. Ordinance No. 5264-92 of the City of Clearwater, Florida, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 136.004, Code of Ordinances, relating to height limitations, to eliminate a height bonus provision for properties having required minimum floor elevations, and to allow parapet walls to extend above maximum height limitations; amending Section 137.005, Code of Ordinances, to revise the definition of “Height”, providing an effective date. (LDCA 92-12) Mr. Mazur stated consideration of this ordinance will be continued to the September 1, 1992 meeting. E. CHAIRMAN’S ITEMS Mr. Mazur stated sometimes the maps with the applications are not clear and are difficult to read. Mr. Polatty stated staff is in the process of digitizing all zoning maps. Mr. Shuford stated this is a long term plan to improve the maps, however in the interim he will make sure that names of streets are clearly marked. Mr. Mazur asked if a conditional use permit for pet grooming is required for the Pet Smart shop in the center at US 19 and Countryside. Mr. Shuford stated that staff determined that the small area they are allocating for pet grooming in that building is an accessory use. Mr. Shuford stated he will look into this use and report back to the Board. F. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS G. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Martin thanked staff for the maps provided in the presentation of the Downtown Plan. Meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.