Loading...
05/20/1997PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER May 20, 1997 Present: Edward Mazur Kemper Merriam Robert D. Bickerstaffe Frank Kunnen Douglas Hilkert Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member   Leslie Dougall-Sides Sandy Glatthorn Gwen Legters Assistant City Attorney Planning Manager Board Reporter   Absent: Brenda Harris Nixon Bernie Baron Vice Chair Board Member   The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. in City Hall, followed by the invocation, meeting procedures and the appeal process. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Minutes Approval -- May 6, 1997 Member Merriam moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. B. Requests for Extension, Deferred and Continued Items B1. Time extension request -- Dayton Andrews Chrysler-Plymouth. CU 9651 In a letter dated May 12, 1997, the applicant requested a six month time extension because he wishes to change the location of the building, as indicated on a new site plan. In response to a question, it was indicated the applicant need not be present for a first time extension request. Member Kunnen moved to approve Item B1, for a six month time extension for CU 96-51, and to accept the alternate footprint as submitted, subject to the conditions of approval imposed in November, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Conditional Uses C1. Trial Period Review Kapok Pavilion I. Ltd./Kapok Pavilion, Inc. to permit on-premise consumption and package sales of beer, wine and liquor (business ownership change) at 923 McMullen Booth Rd., Sec 09-29-16, M & B 31.01, together with Del Oro Gardens, Lots 17, 18, 31-36, 44-46, 51, and part of Lot 52, zoned CG (General Commercial) & RS 6 (Single Family Residential). CU 96-47 Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating this conditional use was granted on May 5, 1996 with 14 conditions of approval, one of which was a one year trial period. She highlighted the extensive staff review of the applicant’s compliance efforts and associated comments from the neighbors. Complaints from the adjacent residential area involve one recent event where loud entertainment was conducted in the area closest to the residents; Styrofoam packing material blows out of the dumpster area; officers policing the area have not provided a totally coordinated effort; and large trucks block the road during deliveries to the south loading dock. Staff indicated the original 14 conditions have been generally met and are necessary to ensure the use will remain compatible with the surrounding properties. Staff recommended adding two conditions for the management to avoid having trucks blocking San Bernadino Street and to obtain the requisite permits for signage required as one of the original conditions of approval. While the applicant had concerns such signage was not permitted by the City’s sign code, the City Commission granted sign variances on April 17, 1997. It was indicated staff is available to explore signage options to meet the sign code. An additional one year trial period was recommended. Tim Johnson, attorney representing the applicants, reviewed the history of change of ownership requests related to this business. He asked the board to limit the conditions of approval specifically to alcoholic beverages, the subject of today’s conditional use request. He expressed concern with imposing conditions having nothing to do with the alcoholic beverage use. He was aware that Mr. Vivolo, an adjacent neighbor, had complained to the City, but suggested the neighbor will never be satisfied. Mr. Johnson addressed three complaints received during the trail period and the solution for each: 1) The City repaired a hole in a fence that was allowing patrons to park at Ruth Eckerd Hall and walk through the neighborhood to the establishment; 2) patrons of a guitar show in February parked in the adjacent subdivision, so police officers hired to put up barricades were alerted closer monitoring is needed; and 3) trucks blocked the roadway because physical site constraints require very professional drivers to negotiate the delivery area. Mr. Johnson asserted improperly parked delivery vehicles should be cited for traffic violations instead of being monitored by management. He noted the trucks were delivering musical equipment, not alcohol. Mr. Johnson said this case is a travesty because this is a clean, acceptable business. He strongly objected to imposing two additional conditions or a fourth trial period on a business that has shown itself to be a good neighbor. He said alcoholic beverages account for about one percent of the applicant’s sales and he did not know why they retain the license, except to keep their future options open. One member noted the point was made at the previous hearing that wedding events could not be held without the alcoholic beverage license. In response to questions, Mr. Johnson said the sign variance minutes contained a misstatement regarding the purpose of the sign variance. He said the Planning and Zoning Board conditioned approval upon the applicant posting signs advising the neighbors of upcoming special events and advising patrons where they may park. While the applicant was advised such signage is illegal, staff has indicated they will work with the applicants to meet this condition. He stressed the business activities will continue regardless of whether the conditional use is approved, because this is not an alcoholic beverage sales business. No verbal or written support was expressed. Three persons spoke in opposition. Len Vivolo objected to being characterized as chronically unhappy, stating he is the neighborhood watch coordinator and spokesman for the homeowners association. He said the neighbors are happy with the plan for off-duty police officers to control traffic access during events. He reiterated temporary no parking signs are needed and felt the City could bend its rules to accommodate the neighbors. He complained of four to six hours of loud bass noise from a sweet sixteen party; semi-tractor/trailers blocking the San Bernadino Street; the unclean dumpster area; and deteriorated pavement with potholes and standing water making an unsightly entrance to the neighborhood. He said officers sent out to monitor the area are not property briefed. He felt a more coordinated effort was needed by the Police Department to brief officers ahead of time regarding the specifics of the task. He submitted a photographic composite to illustrate his points. He said the neighbors are not against the conditional use, but wish to see enforcement of all 16 conditions as recommended by staff. He submitted two letters reiterating the above concerns. Mr. Vivolo responded to questions regarding truck parking, and no parking areas in the neighborhood. Two board members encouraged neighbors to call the police when trucks are blocking the roadway, rather than depend on Kapok staff to enforce traffic laws. Charles Weis expressed concerns about the unsightly loading and dumpster areas, stating Styrofoam blows around the neighborhood. He reiterated concerns about the loud bass noise from the recent “Sweet 16” event held in the southernmost building where it had been agreed no loud events would be conducted, and previous problems caused by patrons walking through the neighborhood to parking at Ruth Eckerd Hall. He said the neighbors are apprehensive this license will generate more special events and eventually lead to a nightclub use. In response to a question, he said the parking problem has improved since the police have been present, but the dumpster area has gotten worse. Dan Grimmer, Del Oro homeowner association president, said the neighborhood wants business and entertainment, but expressed concerns for safety unless the conditions of approval are strictly enforced. He supported staff’s recommended conditions and an additional trial period. Mr. Johnson responded to the opposition, stating the police have taken responsibility for enforcing the conditions. The applicant was not allowed by code to post temporary no parking signs. The complaints about dumpsters and noise have nothing to do with the alcoholic beverage sales use. He referred to one of the letters submitted by Mr. Vivolo, praising Ms. Keris, the business manager, for her compliance efforts. One member expressed concern Mr. Johnson had taken Mr. Vivolo’s praise out of context because the letter had gone on to state the applicant had violated the neighbors’ trust by returning to the detrimental activities. It was discovered Mr. Johnson’s copy of the letter did not contain the negative summation contained in the copy submitted to the board. Mr. Johnson suggested the submittal of two versions of the letter called into question its credibility. In response to questions, Mr. Johnson said the applicant will try to do better with regard to monitoring the dumpster area. One member suggested complaining to the trucking companies when drivers park inappropriately. In response to a question, Mr. Johnson reiterated his request to eliminate the two new conditions of approval. Board discussion ensued regarding the item. It was indicated the board does not have control over parking, noise, and pavement condition, and those problems exist in other residential areas. It was felt such problems are likely to increase as residential areas get closer to commercial and industrial areas. This is the fourth time the applicant has come before the board, and it was noted no egregious violation of the conditions has occurred. General agreement was expressed the board should not be held responsible for imposing conditions to control problems over which the board has no jurisdiction. Discussion ensued regarding noise and temporary no parking signage regulations. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn stated a condition requiring temporary no parking signs was not recommended because the City Traffic Engineer has not allowed them. Use of such signage would be subject to the Traffic Engineer’s approval. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the City Manager has the authority to direct the use of such signage when needed. It was indicated either party could carry the signage discussion further in another venue of the City. Ms. Glatthorn said staff had recommended conditions they felt would help alleviate problems. Staff was requested to inform the Police Department of the need for a traffic patrol in the area. Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C1, CU 94-47, subject to the following conditions: 1) This use shall be subject to all previously established conditions of approval imposed at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of July 19, 1994, except previous condition #3, limiting outdoor entertainment hours to 12:00 midnight, which shall now read as follows: The use of outdoor speakers and all outdoor entertainment shall cease at 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday evenings, and at 12:00 midnight Friday and Saturday nights. Indoor entertainment shall cease at 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday nights; and at midnight all other nights; 2) Kapok Pavilion shall provide an off-duty police officer or security guard to properly direct customers during events which require overflow parking and to prevent customers from climbing the fence into Del Oro Groves subdivision; 3) Kapok Pavilion shall provide advance notice of all events which utilize overflow parking by means of two phone calls to representatives of the Del Oro Gardens and Del Oro Groves subdivisions; 4) Kapok Pavilion shall at all times keep the dumpster and kitchen entrance area clear of trash and other debris; 5) Kapok Pavilion shall police the parking lot to avoid nuisance behavior related to drinking and loud music from automobiles; 6) When the Kapok Pavilion anticipates that an event will require offsite parking, at the Kapok Pavilion’s expense, the police department will place temporary barricades on San Bernadino and San Mateo at the east end of the Kapok Pavilion employee parking lot, to be manned by off-duty Clearwater police officers who will permit only local traffic past the barricades; non-local traffic will be advised that additional parking is available at Ruth Eckerd Hall and will be routed through the employee parking lot and returned to McMullen-Booth Road; as appropriate, one or more officers will leave the barricades to patrol the neighborhood and the back of the Kapok Pavilion facility; 7) If an event unexpectedly requires offsite parking, the Kapok Pavilion, at its expense, shall cause the City to deploy off-duty police officers and temporary barricades to minimize intrusion of patrons into the surrounding neighborhood, even though the event may already have begun; 8) The Kapok Pavilion will post temporary signage visible from McMullen-Booth Road to advise its customers that additional parking is available at Ruth Eckerd Hall; 9) Shuttle service shall be provided by the Kapok Pavilion to transport patrons from the Ruth Eckerd Hall parking area when it is used for overflow parking; one or more signs indicated “shuttle stops” will be posted for those persons using the Ruth Eckerd Hall parking facility, to encourage those persons to utilize the shuttle service provided by the Kapok Pavilion; 10) The gap(s) in the Ruth Eckerd Hall fencing will be closed; 11) The beeper number for an on-duty employee shall be provided to those persons calling the Kapok Pavilion during normal business hours; the on-duty employee may be called if a neighbor reasonably believes the City’s noise ordinance is being violated; if the employee agrees the noise violates the noise ordinance, the employee will take the necessary steps to rectify the problem; if the employee does not agree the noise ordinance is being violated, the appropriate City agency may be called by either party to resolve the issue; 12) A written agreement, regarding overflow parking needed by the Kapok Pavilion, shall be put into place between the Kapok Pavilion and PACT, Inc., consistent with agreements between the City and PACT, Inc.; and 13) If allowable by City code, a sign will be posted at the Kapok Pavilion employee parking lot, notifying the neighbors of the date of a special event and every effort will be made to post such notice several days in advance of a special event. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Joseph J. Kokolakis, Michael Kokolakis, and Michael Kastrenakes (Preferred Car Sales, Inc.) to permit vehicle sales at 24639 US 19, Sec 05-29-16, M&B 22.04, zoned CG (Highway Commercial). CU 97-25 Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant proposes to establish a used automobile sales business on a property developed with a vacant bank building. Concern was expressed many of the 62 cars indicated in the display area on the plan do not have access to a driveway due to excessive “stacking” of vehicles. Staff recommended approval only if the applicant is willing to provide access the traffic aisles for each car displayed. Five conditions of approval were recommended. Board members felt it is not necessary to recommended conditions of approval regarding no displays or sales in rights-of-way and no vehicle service, because such activities are regulated by code. Staff was requested to include such items in the staff report for informational purposes, not in the conditions of approval. Discussion ensued regarding historic use of the property. Joseph Kokolakis, the business president, reviewed the property’s ownership history, and previous proposals for its use. The applicants are not increasing the size of the building or paved areas. Traffic will not exceed what would normally be found at a bank. He outlined the setbacks and retention pond location. He expressed concern with a condition to provide a landscaping buffer along US 19, stating Environmental Management has approved the landscaping plan. He questioned whether staff required anything additional. Ms. Glatthorn responded to questions regarding meeting the landscaping code. Discussion ensued regarding whether to impose a conditions requiring compliance with the landscaping code. Some members favored a condition of approval to clarify where landscaping needs to be brought up to code. Others did not favor a condition, indicating it is the responsibility of City code enforcement to ensure compliance. In response to questions, Ms. Dougall-Sides indicated, without a condition, lack of compliance could subject the applicant to code enforcement citation. With a condition, failure to comply could result in failure to obtain an occupational license or revocation of the conditional use. Ms. Glatthorn clarified code does not require the site to be brought up to the current code. Staff is recommending landscaping compliance to buffer the area along US 19. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Hilkert moved to approve Item C1, CU 97-25, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within 6 months of the date of this public hearing; and 2) All vehicles displayed shall have direct access to a traffic aisle and shall be stored only within the paved display area indicated on the plan submitted with the application. A revised plan shall be submitted to staff for approval prior to the issuance of the requisite occupational license. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C3. First Kalamazoo Co. To permit indoor storage and/or warehousing at 708 Chestnut St., Magnolia Park, Blk 14, part of Lots 6-8, zoned UC[C]2 (Urban Center Core). CU 97-26 Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating staff supports the request, subject to one condition. Alan Feldshue, representing the applicant, said they wish to use the property for storage of videos. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Hilkert moved to approve Item C1, CU 97-26, subject to the following condition: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within 6 months of the date of this public hearing. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C4. Michael G. Preston, TRE (Frenchy’s Seafood, Inc.) to permit Marina facilities (dock expansion) at 419 East Shore Dr., Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk C, Lot 5 & part of Lot 6, zoned CB (Beach Commercial). CU 97-27 Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to expand existing marina facilities. They propose to add boat slips to provide free parking for transient boaters wishing to eat at Frenchy’s restaurants. She outlined code requirements regarding parking, boat slip rental, stating the plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Harbormaster and other affected departments. Questions were raised regarding a previous approval for the subject property. Scott Hume, representing the applicant, said the plan includes constructing a new section of dock, and replacing a deteriorated section of an existing floating dock. The dock will serve the boat that delivers fish to the restaurant, as well as restaurant patrons. He responded to questions regarding configuration and use of the new dock. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn indicated the existing commercial use of fish delivery may continue, but additional commercial activities would not be permitted. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C1, CU 97-27, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within 6 months of the date of this public hearing; and 2) The use of the additional dock area shall be for the exclusive use of transient boats with no slip rentals and no additional commercial activities permitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C5. Nachum Benjacob (Direct Auto Wholesale, Inc.) to permit vehicle sales at 1771 Coachman Plaza Dr., Sec 05-29-16, M&B 33.03, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). CU 97-28 Ms. Glatthorn presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to establish an automobile wholesaling business at an existing automotive garage facility. She reviewed parking requirements for the change of use, stating the lack of surplus parking on the site would result in a code violation if any outdoor storage of cars were to occur. The Community Response Team has been advised of a large number of inoperative vehicles stored on an overflowing the site. Staff recommended approval subject to two conditions. Nick Benjacob, the property owner, and John Santoro, the business owner and lessee, addressed the board. Mr. Santoro said he deals in high end, high dollar cars, and would handle no more than four or five each month. He questioned why he could not use one of his five parking spaces to pull out a car to show to a customer. Ms. Glatthorn said this practice has been allowed in the past, on a limited basis. Discussion ensued regarding language for such a condition. Mr. Benjacob said there is one parking space for each storage unit on the site and he has received approval from the Department of Motor Vehicles. He questioned why it matters what the lessee chooses to park in the spaces provided. Ms. Glatthorn explained DMV requirements are different from the City’s code requirements. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board discussion ensued regarding allowing a staging area in front of one of the units, for a limited amount of time, subject to Fire Department approval. Member Bickerstaffe moved to approve Item C1, CU 97-28, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit, certificate of occupancy and occupational license within 6 months of the date of this public hearing; and 2) This approval is for the indoor storage and sale of automobiles only, no automobiles shall be stored or displayed outdoors, except in one space, in front of Unit 4’s door, for one hour at a time, as acceptable by Fire and Building codes. 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. Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas amendments of the City of Clearwater for property located on the North side of SR 590, approximately 700 ft west of McMullen Booth Road, Sall’s Lake Park, Unit B, Tract B. (Stephen Edward Terepka) Z 9703; LUP 9702 LUP: From Residential Urban to Commercial Neighborhood Zone: From RM-8 (Multi-Family Residential) to CPD (Commercial Planned Development) Mr. Udoh presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to expand an existing dry cleaning business, but does not have enough space in the current location. The applicant is requesting CPD rezoning and land use plan amendment to construct a dry cleaning business office with ancillary services on a vacant lot he owns directly across State Road 590, opposite the current business. Reading from the staff report, Mr. Udoh detailed construction plans; conditional use requirements; site considerations and history; lot size; and adjacent uses. Staff was reluctant to support the request as it is not consistent with surrounding land use patterns; is not in character with the residential neighborhood; and will not foster a consolidated commercial or professional corridor, as no similar uses exist within the area. Staff did not recommend endorsement, as the plan does not appear to comply with standards for approval numbers 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, and 11. Housh Ghovaee, with Northside Engineering, distributed copies of an aerial photograph showing the subject property and surrounding area. He said the applicant wishes to relocate his dry cleaning business across the street. He detailed surrounding conditions with regard to the businesses, zoning, and residential areas. He explained dry cleaning is residentially driven and needs the support of the neighbors to survive. The applicant has grown out of the existing location and needs more space to serve the community and neighborhood. He said a dry cleaning use is compatible with the neighborhood zoning. The applicant had requested CPD zoning with staff’s blessing, in order for the land to go with the dry cleaning use. The property will be developed with nothing more than a dry cleaning business, consisting of one building with a drive-through canopy in the center. He said the neighbors welcome the store as a buffer between the neighborhood and the noisy animal shelter to the east. Mr. Ghovaee said the owner paid $25,000 for the property the staff report lists as having an assessed value of $6,600. Responding to concerns listed in the staff report, Mr. Ghovaee said the proposed zoning classification may not be compatible with residential, but the proposed use is compatible. The applicant will meet landscaping requirements. The applicant will talk to the surrounding property owners regarding construction of the proposed dry cleaning business and gather letters in support, if necessary. A heavy vegetative buffer can be planted between the dry cleaning business and the residential area. It was felt this would effectively buffer any impacts from the dry cleaning business, as well as help alleviate the noise and odor problems from the animal shelter. One member noted the proposal does not meet the comprehensive plan. He said CPD zoning would give more flexibility, not less, and would not ensure the proposal would remain a dry cleaning business. Mr. Ghovaee had a different understanding, stating CPD zoning was chosen because he thought it was more restrictive, and the applicant was willing to limit the property to remaining a dry cleaning business. Discussion with staff ensued regarding what may and may not be done under CPD zoning. Steven Terepka, the owner/applicant, stated he was willing to go with a more restrictive zoning, such as personal service. The subject lot has been vacant and littered for a long time. He wished to see it put to good use, by developing a business to buffer the animal shelter. The site is narrow and deep; ideal for a specially designed dry cleaning store. He submitted two photographs of a dry cleaning store with a drive-in through the center. He said he purchased the property because nothing else can be done with it. He wished to provide laundry and dry cleaning service to residents of the nearby apartments. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Ms. Glatthorn said staff received one telephone call in opposition, but no name or addressed was given. Board discussion ensued. The applicant was advised the final decision will rest with the City Commission. One member suggested, and reiterated several times, the need for a continuance to allow staff to pursue the applicant’s offer to switch to a more restrictive zoning category. In response to questions, Ms. Glatthorn read from the code the permitted uses for the subject lot, and explained professional use categories and requirements. In response to a question regarding limiting the use, Ms. Dougall-Sides said if CPD zoning were to be instituted, much could be done with the property and the board could not restrict the use to dry cleaning. One member reiterated his concern the proposal does not meet the comprehensive plan and he could not vote for endorsement, even if staff recommended it. One member suggested discussing the plan with Assistant City Manager Bob Keller, who favors such innovative ideas for developing property. In response to a question, Mr. Ghovaee was informed the applicant may modify the plan before it goes to the Commission. Ms. Dougall-Sides read the procedure for considering zoning atlas amendments, stating the item may be deferred for additional action or input, if desired. One member asserted planned development is the correct solution for this lot, and that details can be worked out at a higher level. A question was raised whether the applicant wished the board to vote on the request as submitted, or to request a continuance to amend the request. Mr. Ghovaee requested a vote. Member Bickerstaffe moved to endorse Item D1, Z 97-03 and LUP 97-02 to the City Commission. The motion was duly seconded. Discussion continued regarding the proposal. One member said the request is an attempt to use vacant land in a manner that is compatible with and provides benefits to the surroundings. He felt the permitted uses for the site are not realistic; the proposal is the highest and best use for the property; and the applicant is doing the best he can with a difficult lot. One member pointed out six of the standards for approval are not met. In response, one member said the applicant has addressed all staff’s concerns, for the welfare and betterment of the community. One member felt the proposal is an excellent buffer for the residential neighborhood. Upon the vote being taken, Members Merriam, Bickerstaffe, Kunnen and Hilkert voted "Aye"; Member Mazur voted "Nay." Motion carried. Board and Staff Comments Discussion of the Memorial Causeway Bridge Project was continued to the next meeting, due to the late hour. Lengthy discussion ensued and board members offered suggestions regarding staff’s procedure for recommending conditions of approval. Some members stressed the importance of supporting staff’s recommendations to the applicant by emphasizing code compliance through conditions of approval. Others felt reiterating code requirements is confusing and redundant, and staff should be checking to verify whether code is met before the occupational license is issued. While most supported conditions of approval when necessary, it was felt imposing too many conditions creates a risk some will be overlooked. Staff was requested to discuss this issue with other City departments and return for additional discussion of the issue before a full board. Discussion resumed regarding the appropriate timing for meeting conditions of approval, specifically related to the CHIP emergency shelter. Consensus was to clarify the board’s intention regarding this issue, so it does not continue to come up for discussion at every meeting. Member Bickerstaffe began a motion to clarify when conditions of approval must be met. Board members suggested amendments to the motion. Chair Mazur summarized the motion as follows: Unless the board specifies to the contrary, the conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board are meant to be met before issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the intent of the board will have a limited effect on a case that was already decided. Mr. Mazur responded the board wished to clarify its intent for the record. In response to a question, Ms. Glatthorn reported the City Commission unanimously overturned the Planning and Zoning Board’s decision to deny the Planet Bubba conditional use request, and imposed conditions that differed from the board’s conditions. The board requested a copy of the final order. Discussion ensued regarding Jam’z & Java’s nine month trail period review having come up after the business closed. If the City Commission’s final action regarding the Planet Bubba appeal does not specifically rescind the conditional use approval, staff was requested to readvertise and bring the issue back to the board for final dispensation. Staff was requested to create a mechanism to ensure this does not happen again. Ms. Dougall-Sides said Central Permitting Director Shuford is setting up a staff committee to review and streamline conditions imposed by various boards. She said staff will track approvals with attached trial periods to ensure compliance or revocation. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:41 p.m.