10/01/1996PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 1, 1996
Present:
Jay Keyes
Brenda Harris Nixon
Edward Mazur
Kemper Merriam
Robert D. Bickerstaffe
Bernie Baron
Frank Kunnen
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Sandra Glatthorn
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Etim Udoh
Gwen Legters
Central Permitting Manager
Assistant City Attorney
Associate Planner
Board Reporter
To provide continuity, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order.
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined meeting procedures and the appeal process.
Minutes Approval -- September 10, 1996
Member Nixon moved to continue this item to allow time for members to review the minutes before the next meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items
B1. (Request For Time Extension) Clearwater Free Clinic to permit non-commercial parking at 707 N. Ft Harrison Ave, J.H. Rouse Sub, Blk 1, Lots 1, 2, 7 & 8, zoned CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
& RM 8 (Residential Multi Family). CU 95-58
Ms. Glatthorn stated this item was approved with six conditions on October 17, 1995. Completion has been prolonged by delays in obtaining the DOT permit to close the driveway on South
Fort Harrison Avenue. Staff recommended approval of a one year time extension.
Member Nixon declared a conflict of interest regarding this case. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Baron moved to approve a time extension to October 17, 1997. The motion was duly seconded. Members Keyes, Mazur, Bickerstaffe, Merriam, Baron and Kunnen voted "Aye"; Member
Nixon abstained. Motion carried.
C. Conditional Uses
C1. Griffin International, Inc. (Pet Safari) to permit a Veterinary office at 1575 S Highland Ave, Sec 23-29-15 M&B 34.031, zoned CC (Commercial Center). CU 96-44
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant proposes to provide low cost pet vaccinations in compliance with State regulations. Staff felt conditions
support the request and recommended approval with three conditions.
John Clark Cannon, representing Pet Vaccine Services, stated he wishes to conduct two hour clinics every 28 days, to inoculate dogs and cats, as an ancillary service in the existing
Pet Safari. The activity will be conducted completely inside the store and is to be advertised by flyers, TV and radio. He requested and received clarification of the standard site
lighting condition, stating the clinics would be held during daytime hours.
In response to a question, he stated dog grooming and related activities indicated on the floor plan are existing services offered by Pet Safari. His service is limited to inoculations
as permitted by the Board of Veterinary Medicine, and inspected by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Baron moved to approve Item C1, CU 96-44, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 6 months of the date of
this public hearing; 2) All site lighting on the site shall be equipped with a 90 degree cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential
properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; and 3) There shall be no outdoor cages, runs or other outdoor facilities for animals associated
with the business. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
C2. Bay Bazaar Partnership/William Kebort (Kitchen Table Deli) to permit (1) package sales of beer and wine (new license); and (2) restaurants, nightclubs, taverns and bars, and package
sales occupying over 10% of the gross floor area of a retail complex at 771 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Shores, Blk C, Lots 1-10, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). CU 96-45
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant wishes to create a 12 square foot package sales area in the existing delicatessen. The property meets
the supplemental standards to allow under 80 square feet of the existing deli to be used for package sales. A conditional use is required because previous approvals elsewhere in the
shopping center brought the total floor area for alcoholic beverage uses in the retail complex to 23 percent. Staff supported the request and recommended approval with two standard
conditions, plus one condition authorizing the maximum allowable floor space for the proposed package sales. The board agreed a 12 square foot floor area would be excessively restrictive
and questioned if the applicant objected to receiving approval for an 80 square foot package sales area as allowed by code.
Antone Zilieris, authorized representative, stated he wishes to sell beer from a cooler in the deli. He agreed a larger floor area would be better, and would allow him to add another
cooler if he decides to sell wine in the future.
Two letters were submitted and one citizen appeared to protest nightclubs, taverns and bars in the residential area. Ms. Glatthorn clarified, while those uses are included in the category,
the applicant’s request is limited to package sales.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C2, CU 96-45, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational
license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90º cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from
adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; and 3) The business shall be limited to a maximum of 80 square feet
of floor area to be used for alcoholic beverage sales - package sales only. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C3. Blair G. Mills, Inc. (Colortech Plus, Inc.) to permit 1) vehicle service; and (2) vehicle sales at 205 S Belcher Rd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 23.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). CU 96-47
Ms Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant wishes to conduct an automobile detailing business, with auto sales of approximately four vehicles at a
time as a secondary use. She read the range of services proposed and explained the occupational licensing requirements. Staff supported the request and recommended approval with five
conditions.
One member expressed concern that, because the subject property is adjacent to a residential area, hours of operation should be listed. Ms. Glatthorn agreed the board may want to consider
a condition limiting hours of operation.
Jim Henry, the applicant, stated he does automobile paint touch-up on privately owned vehicles in his shop between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. He offers mobile
service to new and used car dealerships that have existing body or mechanical facilities, but does not extend mobile service to homes. He expressed concern with staff’s recommended
condition #4 prohibiting major repairs, including painting, fender, and body work. He described the kind of minor fill and touch-up work he does, stating it is classified as body work,
although the painting is done by airbrush and typically uses less than one ounce of paint. Mr. Henry displayed the tools of his trade, including a small artists’ paint brush, and 1/4
ounce to 7/8 ounce containers of paint for custom mixing.
Board members agreed the painting described is very minor in scope. Discussion ensued regarding language for a condition to allow Mr. Henry’s work while preventing the major repairs
prohibited by code in this district. One member requested verification that Mr. Henry understood the floodlights behind his building must be brought into compliance with condition #2.
Mr. Henry indicated he understood the condition.
In response to a question, Mr. Henry explained the vehicle sales portion of the application. He indicated sometimes he has the opportunity to buy or sell specialty cars as a service
to his customers. While this is not a principal part of his business, he has obtained a dealer license and would like approval to conduct this service on the subject property should
the opportunity arise. He indicated this would occur infrequently and felt it would be unusual to have as many as four cars for sale at one time. In response to a question, he stated
the vehicles for sale would be parked in his parking spaces or alongside his building. He does not work on mufflers or tailpipes. Ms. Glatthorn noted City Environmental Management
had no concerns except to comment that any rearrangement of onsite parking or traffic circulation would require landscaping review. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C3, CU 96-47, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and
occupational license within six months from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90º cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward
and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) There shall be no outdoor storage or service, and
no inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the site for longer than 24 hours; 4) There shall be no major repairs involving transmission dismantling, painting, fender or body work (minor
painting is allowed); 5) The site shall meet all Sanitation Division requirements, and the applicant shall maintain the property in a litter free condition; and 6) The hours of operation
shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C4. The Home Depot USA, Inc. To permit outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage at 21870 US 19, The Clearwater Collection, 2nd Replat, part of Lot 1, zoned CPD (Commercial Planned
Development). CU 96-48
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant is requesting approval for outdoor staging and storage of materials near the loading dock and garden center
areas. The request includes outdoor display of seasonal merchandise along the front sidewalk as a promotional sales area. The request will meet the standards for approval if the correct
amount of space is provided for pedestrian access. The application states the display area would not interfere with the fire lane or emergency exits of the facility, but would be located
in compliance with all City health and safety codes.
Ms. Glatthorn responded to a question about the occupational license requirement, stating suggested condition #1 should be changed from six months to 30 days.
Ronnie Cheeks, Manager of Home Depot in Clearwater, said they wish to paint off an area on the sidewalk to store and display merchandise outside during peak selling seasons. In response
to a question, he said the request is no different than what they have been doing, except they will ensure pedestrian areas are not blocked and merchandise remains within the designated
area.
Questions were raised regarding whether any of the proposed outdoor storage and display areas are common areas of the shopping center. One member felt the property owner, rather than
the tenant should be presenting the request. Lengthy discussion ensued and some members expressed strong concerns regarding proof of property ownership, terms of tenancy, and whether
this business has the right to restrict vehicular and pedestrian traffic ingress/egress. One member favored a continuance to allow the applicant time to provide the requested information.
Ms. Glatthorn indicated this application was brought forward for the purpose of delineating the areas in which the applicant may legally conduct this use. She noted the City Traffic
Engineer had observed the outdoor retail sales areas were subject to the Pinellas County traffic impact ordinance. Staff has recommended conditions to ensure adequate safe ingress and
egress are provided, and she did not feel a continuance was indicated. One member did not agree, stating the request needs to be cut down in size and ownership of the subject areas
demonstrated. He expressed concern the request appears to enlarge an activity that already blocks the pedestrian areas. One member referenced a previous case where the board had denied
a similar request by a retailer. Ms. Glatthorn indicated staff had recommended approval of that case, too, conditioned upon a five-foot walkway being maintained.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Staff was requested to work with the applicant to provide additional information concerning: 1) the effect on the overall parking situation of eliminating 22 marked parking spaces
in the rear and whether a cross parking agreement exists; 2) how the front sidewalk and customer loading areas are proposed to be kept clear; 3) the effect on access through the driveway
to the north of the building; 4) whether an access easement exists; 5) property ownership; and 6) drawings and dimensions of the rear loading/storage areas.
Member Bickerstaffe moved to continue Item C4, CU 96-48, to November 5, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C5. Stout Investments, Inc. (Rope Development) to permit indoor storage and/or warehousing; mini storage at 1505 S Ft Harrison Ave, Sec 21-29015, M&B 44.07, zoned CG (General Commercial).
CU 96-49
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant wishes to construct six single-story buildings, on vacant land. The proposal requires site plan approval
and the design must be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. The staff report was amended to incorporate the Traffic Engineer’s recommendation
to provide one driveway on Ft. Harrison Avenue and one on Woodlawn Street. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended approval with six conditions.
Mike Gaylor, from the engineering firm representing the applicant, displayed an aerial photograph of the vicinity and profiled the proposed site layout, drive accesses, drainage provisions,
topography and where trees are being saved. He stated two driveways are critical to the project. The west drive, on Ft. Harrison Avenue, will serve as the main ingress/egress point,
routing traffic past the 24-hour management residence. The Woodlawn Street drive on the north is needed for fire safety, but will be closed with a roll fence most of the time to restrict
access into the adjacent residential area. Because Ft. Harrison Avenue is a DOT Category B road, he related details of his discussions with DOT regarding the traffic volume in the vicinity.
He displayed a scaled rendering showing how design of the mini storage buildings and management residence will be consistent with the surrounding architecture. The 2.4 acre property
will be fenced for security, and the southwest corner built up for retention. The hours of operation will be 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., 7 days a week.
Concerns were expressed with the potential traffic hazard created by vehicles using the driveway on the long curve on Ft. Harrison. In response to questions, Mr. Gaylor explained sight
distance requirements, stating the right-of-way to the edge of the property line is 25 to 30 feet wide in this area. He made note of a board suggestion to limit the property identification
sign to four feet in height to provide adequate visibility for motorists. While acceleration/deceleration lanes are not required on this Category B road, he was receptive to the suggestion
to widen the entrance to the western driveway, to lessen the effect of vehicles suddenly slowing down to make the sharp turn into the facility.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
In response to questions, Mr. Gaylor said attempting to route trucks through the northern driveway would create a security problem and would be difficult to enforce. This plan is for
all
vehicles to use one main entrance that is monitored by the resident manager. A question was raised regarding why the distance between buildings is only 20 feet, when driveways are required
to be 24 feet wide. He explained minimum building separation is regulated by the life safety code for fire access. While he has tried to provide wider drives wherever possible, the
doors opening onto the 20 foot wide aisles are for smaller walk-up storage units. The drive-up units with overhead doors are situated along the outside perimeter of the facility. Mr.
Gaylor said he will incorporate minor deceleration lanes for the western driveway into the final site plan. He requested the standard time limit be extended to one year to allow time
to obtain DOT approval for opening the western driveway.
Member Kunnen moved to approve Item C5, CU 96-49, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational
license within one year from the date of this public hearing; 2) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90º cutoff mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from
adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; 3) Drawings shall be submitted to the DRC at time of site plan review
to clearly demonstrate that the appearance of the proposed buildings will be similar in appearance and consistent with the Fairwinds development; 4) All doors shall be oriented so as
to be least visible from public rights-of-way and surrounding properties; 5) Access for the development shall be restricted to one access point on Fort Harrison Avenue and one on Woodlawn
Street, subject to the approval of the City’s Traffic Engineer; and 6) Additional landscaping shall be provided along the east and north sides of the site to buffer nearby residential;
landscaping shall include 2-inch minimum caliber trees. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C6. Dayton Andrews, Inc. To permit vehicle service (expansion of existing facilities) at 2388 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Gulf to Bay Estates, Lots 594-597 and Sec 18-29-16, M&B 24.06, zoned CG
(General Commercial). CU 96-51
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating the applicant wishes to expand vehicle service at the existing car dealership by constructing a 4,500 square foot structure
for parts and new car preparation. She discussed proposed placement and parking calculations and residential buffering requirements. Staff felt conditions support the request and recommended
approval with six conditions.
One member pointed out, because the subject property is adjacent to a residential area, the hours of operation should be listed. Another member indicated this is not a new business
and limiting the hours of operation is not as critical as providing a solid block wall to buffer the noise impacts of a new activity closer to the residential area.
Bill Adams, representing the applicant, stated four bays are proposed for getting new cars ready for sale or delivery. The remainder of the building is for excess parts storage, replacing
a semi-trailer that had been used for parts storage in that location for many years.
Mr. Adams inquired whether it would be possible to locate the new structure to the west of the existing body shop, instead of in the location specified on the site plan. He noted such
a change would require a different building configuration, but they would still need 4,500 square feet. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed new location. Several concerns and
questions were raised regarding potential impacts to residential areas to the north and west, code restrictions related
to major vehicle repairs, and orientation of doors, windows and a solid wall for sound buffering. Ms. Glatthorn noted a revised plan would be needed and staff would have to work out
the details with the applicant regarding parking layout, landscaping, etc. Lengthy discussion ensued, reiterating the considerations involved in relocation.
No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Kunnen moved to approve regarding Item C6, CU 96-51, relocating a 4,500 square foot building, at least 75 feet to the east of the west property line off Shelly Street, with a
six foot solid wall, finished on both sides, to be located along the west property line, with no doors or openings on the north side of the building except a personnel door, if required.
There was no second.
One member pointed out the motion only applies to relocating the building. Mr. Kunnen stated that was his intention, and if an alternation location cannot be worked out, the applicant
would have to come back with a new request. Mr. Adams clarified the applicant would like approval of a 4,500 square foot building today, and if possible, authorization for staff approval
of reconfiguration details. If the application is continued 30 days, Mr. Adams stated the applicant will ask for a larger building. Ms. Glatthorn recommended a continuance to allow
time to do the appropriate site plan work. Concerns were reiterated regarding buffering adjacent properties.
Member Kunnen moved to continue Item C6, CU 96-51, to the meeting of November 5, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. Annexation, Zoning, Land Use Plan Amendment, Land Development Code Text Amendment, and Local Planning Agency Review
D1. Request for Annexation and Zoning Atlas Amendment of the City of Clearwater for property adjacent to the City Countryside Community Recreation Park, Sec 29-28-16, part of M&B 22.02
(Florida Power Corp.) A 96-26 Zone: P/SP (Public/SemiPublic)
Mr. Udoh presented written background information, stating approval would allow the City to utilize a portion of the Florida Power right-of-way as a parking lot for the new Countryside
Recreation Park. Florida Power has agreed to the annexation. As the standards for approval appear to support the request, staff recommended endorsement. No verbal or written support
or opposition was expressed.
Member Baron moved to endorse Item D1, A96-26, to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Mazur left the meeting at 3:47 p.m.
D2. (cont. from 9/10/96) Request to consider an amendment to the Wal-Mart Commercial Planned Development zone (CPD) to increase nonresidential development intensity by allowing the construction
of a Wendy’s Restaurant along the US 19 frontage between the Kinko’s and Jiffy Lube outparcels. 23106 US 19 N, Loehmann’s Plaza, Lot 1, Loehmann’s Plaza Replat, Lots 1-
3. (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc/Wendy’s International, Inc./Taheri Family Trust/Kinko’s of Georgia, Inc./Brandon NU-West Clearwater, Ltd) Z 96-09
ZONE: CPD (Commercial Planned Development)
Staff requested a continuance to the next meeting due to continuing efforts to resolve concerns with the applicant about site access, concurrency and visual corridor. It was indicated
resolution of these issues looks promising. Board members reiterated questions from the last meeting regarding State concurrency laws with regard to new construction on this F rated
road. Staff was requested to include in their report for the next meeting the definition of concurrency.
Member Baron moved to continue Item D2, Z96-09, to the meeting of October 15, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D3. (cont. from 9/10/96) Request for Land use Plan and Zoning Atlas amendments of the City of Clearwater for property located at 1331 Cleveland Street, Terrace Revised, Blk 6, Lots
3 thru 8, part of Lots 1 & 2, 9 thru 13 and N 11/2 vacated street. (Jami Al Salam Inc.) Z 96-10; LUP 96-05
LUP: From Commercial General to Institutional;
ZONE: From CG (General Commercial) to P/SP (Public/SemiPublic)
Mr. Udoh presented written background information, stating this item was continued from the September 10 meeting because neither the applicant nor a representative attended the public
hearing. No one was present today on behalf of the applicant. Some members thought the applicant or a representative is required to attend unless the request is single family residential.
Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated the board’s rules do not require the applicant or a representative to attend, but their presence may be requested at the pleasure of the board. No verbal
or written support or opposition was expressed.
Member Baron moved to continue Item D3, Z 96-10 & LUP 96-05, to the next meeting for the applicant or a representative to be present. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The item will be continued to November 5, 1996 for readvertising.
D4. Request for a Zoning Atlas Amendment of the City of Clearwater for property located at Hercules Avenue at Sunset Point Rd, Sunset Oaks, Lot 2 and the south 160 ft of Lot 1; Pinellas
Groves SW, part of Lot 1; Sec 01-29-15, M&B 13.03. (City initiated / Markos & Maria Poniros/Amoco Oil Co./McDonalds Corp.) Z 96-11
ZONE: From CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to CG (General Commercial)
Mr. Udoh presented written background information, stating this City initiated request is designed to minimize some of the zoning restrictions experienced by developers, while protecting
surrounding properties. Staff recommended endorsement.
Brief discussion ensued regarding ownership of some of the parcels affected by the rezoning. Concern was expressed with the statement on page 2 of the staff report, “With the completion
of improvements on these roads, it is anticipated that any increase in future traffic volumes would have an insignificant impact on the level of service in this area.” One member pointed
out, if each parcel was built to the maximum, the impact would be very significant. Ms. Glatthorn clarified, with the completion of road improvements, the impact would be minimal.
In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn responded other agency reviews are not required, because this is not a land use plan
amendment. It was indicated the interested parties are not required to be present for this City initiated request.
Member Nixon moved to endorse Item D4, Z 96-11 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D5. Ordinance 6091-96, relating to the Land Development Code; creating Section 42.36, Code of Ordinances, to establish site lighting restrictions for residential and nonresidential properties;
providing an effective date.
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating this ordinance was prepared as a result of staff and the Planning and Zoning Board having identified the need to regulate
site lighting. Staff examined surrounding community requirements and decided to utilize a simple shielding requirement as opposed to regulating on the basis of candlepower, type of
light source, or some other measurement-based approach. The shielding requirement will allow easier code compliance for new lighting, and simplify retrofitting existing non-conforming
lighting.
One member requested a text amendment to clarify language in the first sentence of the last paragraph of subparagraph (6) on page two. The sentence was amended to read as follows:
“The building official shall approve, within five business days from the date of submission, any request for a temporary exemption that meets electrical code requirements and does not
create a public safety concern or result in light trespass onto any residentially-zoned property within five business days from the date of submission of the request for temporary exemption.
One member felt light spill or “trespass” must be quantified in order to be enforced. He did not agree with exempting street lighting and sports fields, and strongly advocated establishment
of specific candlepower criteria. Other members firmly disagreed with imposing candlepower restrictions, stating the provision to require a 90º cutoff mechanism to direct light downward
onto the subject property, is sufficient to avoid the safety hazard created by blinding lights shining directly into the streets. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding this topic.
One member felt language modification was needed to clarify subparagraph (2)(b) prohibiting light rays from being emitted “at angles greater than 90 degrees perpendicular to the surrounding
ground level.” Ms. Glatthorn suggested endorsement with direction to staff to work on clarifying this language. The board member also expressed concern with language in subsection
(7) that seems to require a building permit for installing a home security light into an existing outlet. Ms. Dougall-Sides clarified, stating activities that typically require building
permits would not be exempted from the permitting requirement under this section. In response to a question, she said shared security lighting is exempted.
Discussion ensued regarding how to ensure all new and replacement lighting conforms. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the ordinance is not retroactive, but goes
into effect immediately upon adoption. She did not recommend an amortization period, to avoid difficulties such as the City experienced with sign amortization.
The candlepower debate resumed. One member pointed out holiday decorative lighting sometimes disturbs neighbors and suggested consideration of language stating light cannot shine onto
adjacent properties, causing a negative effect. One member pointed out the ordinance could be simplified by the inclusion of simple sketches illustrating the intent.
Member Nixon moved to continue Item D5, Ordinance 6091-96, to the next meeting, for illustration of perpendicular light shielding, and clarification of the permitting requirement for
home security lighting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D6. Ordinance 6092-96, relating to the Land Development Code; amending Section 40.544 establishing funeral homes as a Conditional Use in the Public/SemiPublic Zoning District; amending
Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, to establish supplementary Conditional Use permit standards for funeral homes in the Public/SemiPublic District; providing an effective date.
Ms. Glatthorn presented written background information, stating staff recommends endorsement of the ordinance adding this new conditional use, so site impacts can be carefully controlled,
particularly in proximity to residential development.
To avoid confusion with a permitted use, one member requested amendment of language in Section 40.544, changing the word “permitted” to “allowed.” Ms. Glatthorn concurred.
Member Nixon moved to endorse Item D6, Ordinance 6092-96 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
Ms. Glatthorn distributed copies of a survey from a property owner expressing pleasure with the recent Clearwater Community Hospital landscaping and parking lot expansion project.
Member Nixon commented the project was done beautifully and enhanced surrounding property values.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Chair
Planning and Zoning Board
Attest:
Board Reporter