Loading...
02/19/2002 (2) " , '~ ! l'", ".' "j,.,~'" :~I" II; ", ...., -1', . ',I .,11, . " l'~ " ." , ' .,' I~ . '.~ "I't : :,':", .t: ,",," .,,', :,1.. '" '~..,'.L,~. ~:\"."~ +. " L " " oil,.' " ", " , ' , ,. ~ t I' . ,':",l" ", ~ i ~ . ~ " I' ,:\. :'. . ,; ~t ..; , "'1 '.' .,' . " ' II,., c. , \. , . . ~ +~""~""'i' r~' ~J"""'''''''" , , ,,0 ~, .,' , t",. ,I:. ;', . ~. ,:/' ',' "," ;:: .!'7<' \', .' , , ,I I,",' ,I . ~', l , " .. " ..:' . ~ ~ , ! . ;, ",\1 :" ! '. , ' i./: ' '..J ",. " " ' , .:. If ;,'.. .. ".' .', " ";, . ..~ ~ i,~~ ..- . < I';' ~ . ~ .....\.~. ~ ~~,~ t' I ~.~ .. ) ,f " .J " ,I' " , ' COB " '.' \. .~~ . , "C~~mUlJity ,Deve,lopment, Board Meeting '. I :.. . . , .. T. '. . ' MINUTES I~ ' ::J , ~c' ~Y~:.' :",': '.'~!:;~. '. \ . l~'~<~. ',: .,.. 0,. . ~ ,. ". ' J :i<,::,.\':':,'\!. ;.:~:~: }'<": ..\,. . '.' ::1"'<' 1 I, '. ~ ',. j' J' ~:/',.':: , , t/\::;: '. .., .." '>c,';.'..[),..,: """.1 , ::~ ::. \.~:/~~ . '.'. ~ ,t .; , " " .1 ,;, " . ,: . .. , c, " "C' j'. " , . ~;I fl. " :,1 > o'~/ I , 10;J-. , " Date ,.' 1::" .... . , " r <, ,! ,c, ( I",: ~ , :' ,,' '>. ~ .' . b. ;::~ {~\::..:. . 1'.": 'J , ~ l . ~< I' ~'~;,:," ',' '.. .;'" -, '. r' ,J ,;.' .:,,", r, '. 1 .. 'u .. /~t'r .>" ;~:",'.: . ,} Ii, ' , , , '" 1', .1.1 ':'; ., .' I " I' .~ ~ .. . \ ' {:l, . ..... " ~ l ~;',:\,',~.," " ,I. " < ~ : \ ," ", 'l .,; l,:,:; ,. .~\ t~ :', I " )~\: ~ ';. '~. I.' .!. . ~ ,,. F;\(<,~:,: " ,\,:" '";,, :Xy;h\';:,,',:\'\'~:;'l~,:": ,: :" ' ({)J.~~G~~,I/'..' "'.}"~ I', t~ "'l 4, T'. ,c L\' . ",.', , c I, C '. , ,! ,,. .\:, , , c ,;~. 'r , .' I ~ . ,",r " , ' ','. . . ~ . . . " I,' ... ,,' .,' ,I , ~! . " I"} I ,'. '. C,.' , " "1 'I " . ; ~ ,\ Cl' l " ,; . \, I I I ! l 1 1 .j " , , , d' ,'I " I, 6:1'& , " . ~~.;. .:' .~,n"ll.r":,:' .':t '" I.~,<.~'-I..~ .:j.......;...... .\. ',:.... :....., ..', ..:....... .......:..~~.~.:.,...~.+.... ,...'L~' ,. , "~ . '" . '- ' '.' " ~ , ~.a, , ' I ' " ~~ ,. , ",\.,~ V .", ' ACTION AGENDA , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER, Fobruary 19, 2002 Meeting called to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall . A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: January 22, 2002 , ACTION: APPROVED 7:0 B. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (Items 1-6). The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. . , Caso: ANX01-12-30 - 1328 Woodbine Street - Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Liberian' A. Miles ' Location: 0.18 acres on the north side of Woodbine Street, approximately 460 feet "east of Betty Lane and 65 feet west of Rolen Road Atlas Page: 269B Request: (a) Annexation of 0.18 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land Use Plan amendment from RL, Residential, Low (County) to RL, Residential Low Classification (Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Residential, Single Family District ICounty} to .LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (Clearwater) Proposed Use: Existing single-family dwelling Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner ACTION: Recommended Approval - 7:0 ,2. Case: ANX01-12-31 - 2119 Pleasant Parkway - Level Three Application Owners/Applicants: John L. Blechschmidt and Linda W. Blechschmidt Location: 0.48 acres on the west side of Pleasant Parkway, approximately 400 feet north of lakeview Road Atlas page:, 3088 , Request: (a) Annexation of 0.48 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land Use Plan amendment from RLIP, Residential Low and Preservation (County) to RLIP, , Residential Low and Preservation Classifications (Clearwater; and (c) Rezoning from R-1, Residential, Single Family District (County) to LMDR, Low Medium Density residential District & P, Preservation District (Clearwater) Proposed Use: New single family dwelling Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner ' ACTION: Recommen'ded Approval - 7:0 ,3. Ca'oe:' ANX01-12-32 - 1725 W. Manor Avenue - Level Three Application Owners/Applicants; Robert Van Scoyoc & Marilynne Van Scoyoc ,Location: 0.15 acres on the east side of west Manor Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of South Lagoon Circle and 100 feet west of Ragland Avenue Atlas Page: 263A acd0202 1 02/19/02 c' , ' ~.", ~ T c' . !' :j , 'c , '4. , 'c' l~ '.. . ., . . ~~ ~:tt1J1 ;''<i '..i . . 'c'l ' lt~/~";':i'" ;1:;" ,"\ ,. ", '. Request: la) Annexation Clf 0.1 5 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) land Use Plan amendment from RU, Residential Urban (County) to RU, Residential Urban Classification (Clearwater); and Ie) Rezoning from R-3, Residential, Single Family District (County) to LMDR, Low, Medium Density Residential District IClearwater) Proposed use: Existing single-family dwelHng Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner ACTION: Recommended Approval - 7:0' Case: LUZ01.1209 - 565 Sky Harbor,Drlve - Level Three Application Owner: New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. Applicant: Clearwater Mall, lLC, c/o The Sembler Company Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire Location: 1.27 acres on the southern terminus of Sky Harbor Drive, approximately 450 feet south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, adjacent to the Clearwater Mall Atlas Page: 300A ' Request: la) land Use Plan Amendment from R/OG, Residential/Office General to I, Institutional Category; and Ib) Rezoning from 0, Office District to I, Institutional . District Present Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Fire,station Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner I ACTION: Recomm'ended Approval. 7:0 5. Case: LUZ01.12.10 - 520 Sky Harbor Drive - Level Three Application Owner: 'City of. Clearwater ,Applicant: Clearwater Mall, llC, c/o The Sembler Company . Represe,ntative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire " Location: 3.688 acre parcel on the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Sky Harbor Drive, adjoining Clearwater Mall Atlas Page: .30DA Request: (a) land Use Plan Amendment from I, Institutional to CG, Commercial General Category, and (bl Rezoning from I, Institutional District to C, Commercial District Present Use: Fire station, ' Proposed Use:, Commercial use as part of the Clearwater Mall redevelopment Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner 6. Case: FL01.11w34 - 23490 - 23498 U519 North - Level Two Application OwneriApplicant: Mr. Mark Howard, Cypress Plaza, Ltd. Representative: Mr. Jan Norsoph,' Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. Location: 2.09wacre site on the west side of US Highway '19 North approximately 200 feet north of Stag Run Boulevard Atlas Page: 2638 Zoning: C, Commercial District , Request: Flexible Development approval to permit vehicle service use within the Commercial District with an existing 1 Q-foot (south) side setback, a zero-foot side (north) setback to pavement, a three-foot rear (west) setback to pavement, and with acd0202 2 02/19/02 , .... ". 0 ~" ",' ,; ': '. :....' '<'. ..,'. ...~: .\' ,.'.'..}.~r",~ 0: .,...., .'~" .~~'..:' : ".."., o"~:: ',1':.: .~:':, I:'~ .~,' 'o~' ....,.t.',.,:: '.'~, ':~ ," '.'IO..,~.'" ,.",. .....: ~ ',' ,...~ ,-- u , " a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 5 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross floor area (115 spaces) to 4.20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (96 spaces), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment, Project under the' provisions of Section 2-704, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program Proposed Use: An 8/000 square foot vehicle service establishment in concert with existing retail and office uses Conditions: 1) There be no overnight parking of vehicles in the parking lot and no storage of new/used tires or other products outdoors; 2) the landscape plan be amended to reflect the use of Dahoon Holly trees, oleanders around the dumpster enclosure, additional low growing plantings at the entrance and south property line, r~placemeht of crepe myrtles in front of building, and use of ground cover/shrub in lieu of sod in all interior landscape; 3) site improvements be made within two phases: Phase 1 C includes landscape improvements along US 19 and include all parking lot improvements including required handicapped spaces; prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, and that Phase 2 includes the implementation of the remaining landscape improvements and installing Code-compliant dumpster enclosures (painted to match the buildings), within six months of CDB approval (August 19, 2002); and 4) all new signage and/or any amendments to existing signage be designed according to a common, architectu.rally~integrated and ' coordinated theme, in accordance with Code. Prdsenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner ACTION:' Recommended Approval - 7:0 with 5 conditions. C. . NON-CONSENT AGENDA - (Item 7) , ,1. Case TA 02-01-01 - Community Development Code Amendments':" Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning De'partment Request: Comprehensive amendments to the Community Development Code, as a result of the annual review, including amendments to the General Provisions, Zoning Districts, Development Standards, Development Review and other Procedures, Nonconformity Provisions, Enforcement Proceedings and Penalties and Definitions' , and Rules, of Construction ' Presenter: Richard Kephart, Senior Planner ACTION: Proposed language permitting new witnesses to be presented at Appeal Hearings - should not be permitted. , Further discussion requested regarding: 1) 'Sectioll 145, Article 4. Division 13. Lellld Clearing Re"lOval Permit. Section 4-130fA 2) Section 74, Article 3. DiviS/Oil 9. Gelleral Applicability Standards. Section 3~90~.. Permitteil ellcroachments illto setbacks and over street rights-of-way; 3) pavers, ete. as an open space issue rather than a setback issue; 4) Section 148. Article 4. Division 14. Transfer of Developmellt Rig/Its. Section 4~1403.C. Use of trOlls/erred developmellt rigllts does not contain . C language to clarify whnt a reasonable relationship between a transfer in height; and , , acd0202 3 02/1 9/02' ,.. ,~': . , ! '- ~ ., I 'I"'~ l:f::>d~<t- '-':;. :;";~':";;::<"/"I:'+' c " j .1': ,; ."..': .,:" \ ~ ,: ,~ ~:" : ,~ : .' ~ ..' i I! '. . F ' 'T;, j" . '.', ,;'t ,.:...; .;~ ~ ." , ',' ..+..., ,'. '. ._~",.',". ;...... :,"'.~ ',' "'.' "'. ~..' ;.'. , +" ':~',' ,'. "'l ~,,;. '. ' '~'. ~,"," ~"." .r,"' 0., ~..I"'.' ,',~' ....t :': , ' )~, ' 'l" c'L 'c' ,'. ,; , '. .1.., e {,e ,..,; j : ~ , .' 'c L' :~ ~ :. )c c', " , , I' \' " ,. . , . ~ , ~~ ~>>...~-:\,~{~ ~:'t.;;1 :le " ' ~ , ~ .;~.. .",: ~'f~t'. '~.:'<." '>~.~t !. .'1; ."i~>-.: ~ ',1'-; I '. ': . ,; , " '\ c; . .., ,/ .,' l>~. " 'c , '. ", , , " \' c .~.. - 0, , " 5) Section 142. Article 4. Division 7. SlIbdivlsioll/Plats. Section 4-70B.C. Recording of jillal plat should not be changed. ' " . I ~ .' .' ,j '.: ,Ii' I' D. ~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS ; \" :', :~. r ~.~ ~'. :". ';.,~ . i 1.' ~eq'uest for time extension Marriott Seashell Resort ,'at 301 South Gulfvlew Boulevard FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 ~'d. "e '; -:, l ~ . :'i2~ ~:..: ~ I:'q{ ,....., , ;;'. ,"Ii", '. ~:,;:}" " ,:~..,:<,. . ~ .: l. ". '. ACTION: APPROVED;" 7:0 , ,,2: ' 'Ii Request for time extension Boulevard . Elias AnastBsopoulos FL 00-,11-49 at 731 BaywBY " ACTION: APPROVED 6:0 .,' r:,' ~ e . '. . ,c. . ~'\.',,)~:. ". }!>,:,:,:\'~' .:>'" \1,1 \. &/:': , .E..., ~e. , .. ApJOURNMEN,T 3:34 p.m. ; :~',i .. ~. . . ~~{:':":'.'.'-~' , r. ): \ l' . ~ :-<0.. ' '.~::~'; ):>~ '~', ""t~ !';I.~II, , , c, . ", c, c " ;, : ". It .' -I; er +'. .( ~.' '",;. ., ", ,) r+ ~ l" :r -.:, ',' :; .,/)" "... ~J .;-:'e' : " . _, . eL " ,I ',' ,I,'. ',' c.) , ~ . ,. . \, . < :'),c:;,'" , , , , . , ',' ,- /" " :,', '" i q "/ ~ " " , '\: , " " , I, :1 ..'. ",' , , !.' '" .1 , j' ~ : -I ' . . . ;;:',J 'Ie t:.. 1 'e , I -i. I, " " . l .-; ....'.. '. ,"/' :<:': ,! , , ;'", , , .' - .' 1-'j:l'.": " I_ e' . ~ ' , , " j:~:~ '~. "' <.', " f.::,:,~~~' . ;..n. I' '1'. . \1 '" ~ u J- 1 ~' ~ ~ c' r.e - . ' ,)'. i , c , " . , , ~ ,. ! I . ~ t j _,,'. !\t;'~<,,:' 'acdO~02 ' {~I", ' . ,c "" '" ~~:~jJ';!t';,;;;\,,', "",,', 4. 02/19/02 , , :01 ,'-'F 'I :' ~ FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS L^ST NAME- tilts,. "AM E -MIUDI.E N^ME ~~ ~b COUNTI' ~C1TI' 0 COUNTY 0 OTllER I.OC^1. AGCNCY NAME OF roLITICAl SUBDIVISION: ~<.\ ~ ~~~~ MY POSITION IS: o ElECTIVE \"o-ArrOINTlVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, aWhoril}'. or commiUee, It applies equally 10 members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting connict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes, CE fORM 8B - 10.91 "AGE I , Your responsibililies under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a connicl of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close allention to the instructions on this form l?efore completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SE:CTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES .,_.:",(\ person holding el~ctive or appointive county, municipal. or other local public office M UST ABSTAIN from vOling on a measure (~, which inures to his special private gain, Each elected or appointed local orticer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a governmcnt agency) by whom he is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he is retained); to the special private gain of a relative; or 10 the special private gain of a business associatc, Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies'under See, 163.356 or 163,357, F,S" and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relativc" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, father~in-Iaw, mother-in- la"" son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity ensaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, cOOWner of properly, or corporale shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above. you must disclose the connict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN IS DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing Ihis form with the pe~on responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes, APPOINTED' OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these mal1ers. However, you must disclose the nature of the connict before making any attempt to inOuence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOUclNTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WLL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and' file this form (before making any attempt to innuence the decision) with the person responsible for' ,....J recording the minutes of the meeting. ~ho wi," incorporate the (orm in the minutes, · A copy of the form must be provided Immedmlely to the other members of the agency, · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. ...... ....I~.. I~ '..~. I'.. l'.'<,,:,'...':,\,'~.'l ,'j~"",::'.'., :'t:'~"""'lf.~:';""/"':\-:":'."~'.~"~) ....., ....l..d...,...~ ....1..:: ~:':, .'. I IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFl.UENCE THE DEcisION E?<CEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETlNO: · You must d~sclose ora,Uy the nature of your connict in the measure before participating, , I · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after Ihe vote occurs with tre person responsible for recording the minules of I the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to th~l,er i members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting afler the form is filed. 'iIf ! . I i t. ~'n ~~~iCL DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST , hereby disclose that on ~x..'1' \\" ~~~~ , ' (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) _, inured to my special private gain; , . _ inured to ~he special gain of my business associate, '~ inured to the special gain of my relative, .=:::::: inured to the s~cial gain or . ~....\\~ ~~~~~ \' () \\\.t\c::, whom I am retained; or ,..:..:.- inured to the special gain of : 'is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. , (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my connicting interest in the measure is as follows: f~'t\v.:;.\.,~ ,,~, 'tl~_'-\l'~~""~ ol;)~~ \~\!- ~ '\\'..\'~ , by i ~ '1 . . , " ,which, Ch)1 <' , ; ~ . c .C.,', > " .' '~) ,~- " , , 'H~2 \\.~~~. " ' Date F~d \. , ~~J\ ',. Signature "-,- - ~ ,) NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~1I2.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED , DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLO~ IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCfI , ,SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED 55,000. CE FORM 88. 10.91 PAGE: ,. .' ~ :: I.:C ~ I ., , 1 r . IF YOU MAKE NO A1TEMPTTO INFLUENCE THE DEcisION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · YOll must disclose orally the' nature of your conniet in the measure before participating, . You must complete th~ form and file it within 15 days ufter the vote occurs with lflc. person responsible for recording th~ minutes of the meeting. who must incorporate the (orm in the minutes, A copy of the form must be provided immediately to lh~,""her members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly althe next meeting after the (orm is filed, ,~I .' , -- .:.....-. I, . ~ ~~~~'i:fL- DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST , hereby disclose that on \=~~ . \\" ~t~~. . (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) ~ inured to my special private gain;, ~ inured to the special gain of my business associate, _ inured to the special gain of my relalive, ' ~ inured to the special gain of ~....\,~ ~r-\C\,S"'f~(j ~ (;) ,\\t\~ , . whom I am retained; or . ' ~ inured to the special gain of . is the parent organization or subsidiary of u principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: ~~~W\~ ,,~'\)~~~~~""~ ~~~~ll~ ~ '\~ , by , which' , . (' ; ~_.... , '(\2 ,,~~~ Date Fi d \, "Ts~~lL_) Ignature . ~OTJCE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES g112.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAYBE PUNlSHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOW" ',: IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTIO. ,-.: -SALARY, REPRIMAND, 'OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED SS,OOO. , CE FORM aD ,10.91 MOE: ~. .......... ,~.~,.,...'f'~_.~~. _,4 .........J_............'+.........,~~".j..I~l,T\_.'. "I.' -. . ,. .' ..H~~J-"j.' ...J_..I-u. ~ _'C .r....... ,,~,.. .~..L. '~,rlr>c"u'" ~..... .,, . ..... ~ > ,". :.. ' ". -, '. ,:,: .";":;,:' .~; . / :", . .'4 .' .;': ",0 4-1'; '...~.. ,'.:. ..;'.....J. "'1.:~~ '~' () .J FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL," AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ME. FIRST NAME. MIODLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION AUTHORITY OR ,;: d Sf- COMMITTEE CO . ;f THE BOARD, COUNCIL. COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR /J' ~ CO ITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: L-t^,C. CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY OF POLITICAL SUBIVlSION: Cle/, 1/.,.,~hv MY POSITION IS: o ELECTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM ISO This form is fO( l)SIJ by an pJl'SOn sarving ;at the coUnty, city, 0( other local level of govemment on an appointod or eloctod board, council, commission. authority, or committee. tt applies oqually to members of ~ and non-acMsory boOlC'S who lilre pfcsentad with a voting COf'1nict of Interest under Section 112.3143, Florida StaMes. Your responsibilities under the Jaw when faced with n measure in which yoo haV9 B conflict of interest 'Nill vary greatly depending on whether you hold ~n eIoctive or apPoIntive position, For this reason, please pay closa attention to the InstruCtions on this form before compleling the reveroe side tlnd filing the form, ' INSTRUCTtoNS FOR COMPL~NCE WITH SECTION 112.31.c3, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, munlclpal, or other local public OfflC4 MUST ABSTAIN from voting 00 a' measure which Inures to his speci;ll privata gain, Each elecled Of appointed local offICer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of ;a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he is retained'(includlng the parent O(ganlzation or sub$idiary of a corporate principal by which he is robined); to the &peC/a1 privata gain of a relative; or to the special private gain of a business assoclalo. CommissioMcs of CC....'MlUllity redevelopmont llgoncies undof Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers ot independent special tax districts elected on a ono-acre, ona-vots basis are not prohlbr:.od fron.1 voting in that capacity, . For purpostJS of this law, ;a "relative" lncl~ only tho offICer's fa\her, mother, 500, daughter, husband. wila, falhar-in.law, mothor.in-Iaw, son-in-law. and daughter-in-law, A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the offICe( as a "partner, joint venturer, co-ownor of property, or corporate shareholder (whore tho shares or the COfporation aro not listed on any national 0( reg~al stoc~ excha.nge). ELECTED OFFICERS: In ;addition to abstaining rrom voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN b:f publicly st:lting to the assembly tho nature of your Interest in the measure on which you life abstaining from voting; and . WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this fonn with the person responsible for recording lha mInutes of tho rrletrling. who should ~1n the form In the minlJt&s. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations dosCrlbed above, you otherwise mll)' particip.1te in theso mattors. However, you must cflSC10se the nator.6, of tho conflict befCl(8 making any attempl to influence the docision. whether crony or in writing and wholhor mado by you 0(' your dIrectloo. aIF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATIEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTe WILL BE TAKEN: ' . You must c:omp/oto and tile thIs form (bafOl'o making any attempt to influence tho doclsion) with the person rosponsiblo tor rocording tho minutes of trn! mooting,....no will inCClrp04'a\e \he fOfm,ln the mlnu\os. . A copy of the form must be Pfovidcd Immediately to the othor members of tho agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeling after tho form is filed. CE Form BB. 10-91 PAGE t . .'. ~ 'LUz. 0 I ~/2.. -OJ ~ LtJr- 0/-/2. ~/O d~~J ,~p.nJ~, AlLJ ~ (FI~ ~(t; '~:CJ;;IL .~AFf~lL nec/ r.""', \"",:1 '" IF, YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must ~ ~y the nat:uns of)'OU'conf'kt In tho rnoastn before partlclpatlng, , r.. · You rrurt ~ the form and file It witNn 15 daya after the vote ocan with ttw porson rosponcib4e for rocording the mloutos of . moOting, who I'!lUSt IncorpoIcto !he form In tho mmtes. A copy 0( the foon must be providod Jnmedia~ to the other member. of h] agency, IlIOd the form I'TIUSt be road publ'dy at tfM next meoting 8,ft.ar the form "$ed, . ' _ I. 'tE, /f(/ ---1- ijI/l-- .,' ~LOSURE OF LOCALOFFICER'S INTEREST }:~,," ,horuby_lhalon 2-/17 /t? L sr. .~ I ' (a) A measure C';lItne or \WI come before my agency which (check one) Inured to my special priwte gain; , , , . Inured to tM special gain of my business associate, inured to tho specla1aaln 0( my relatMl, ~ : , 'f.-., inur~ to....".- gain" !k..1A_ C-;;~ / A/JZ,..'~ -9"-/ whom I om r.tained: " Inurod to the special gain of , which is the p;arent ornanlzation or subsicflary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure bofore my l1\Ioncy and the nabJre of my oonnicting interest in 1M measure is as. folktw: . "., '~~V'B <-.:. Data Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 5112,317 (1991). A FAILURE TO MAKE mY REQUIREO OISCLOSU~~ CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOV . OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOITION, REDUCTIONS IN SAu\RY, REPRIMAND, on A CIVIL PENAL 1"' , NOT TO Exceeo $5,000, . CE Form 88.10-91 PAGE 2 'J:.:r~"'.< ,',. ;.I"i~ ";".(. \ .... ....~4.J1"'.;I','h'.,..>..~. ~..~", ~.. . .:.,.~ .' . ) ~' t.. -' . '."""I~ "",'.-. ..r', I,. '~:'.:..'. . .;.It,'i\_~I!'''''. ..~.: ;':.:;.~ o/'~".~..': ,;,} ,..... \.:.s '~F ."':' "~. "; ,~ IF YOU MAKE HO ATTEMPl:' TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION ~CEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You must ~ ora.1t the nature: 0( )'tQ" ~ 10 \he rooasuro before partIclpating, . . ( ,~ · You must c:ompIet:e the form and file It wilhk\ 15 daY8 aftoc tho vote 00CI.n with 1M porson ~b&e for rocording the minutes ~ . meeting, who IfIUSl hcofporate !he form In the mlnulna. A copy of tho foem must be provIdod lmmod"l3t&ly to tM other rnembora of 1m agoncy, and the form must be ~ publ"1cly at the next mooting a,ftor the rorm Is r.Ild, '~'::~~OSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S tNTEREST 2.-/1'7 JPL , , CE Form 68 - 10-91 , . Inured to the speci31 gain of my re/alive, : 'f.-' k>urod ~,;,. special g.~ of k..1A~?-;rC ~/ ~~;I 9"-/'vA,oo, I.m torai";;'; or Inured to the special gain of . which is the paront organlz3tion or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conllicting Interest In tho measure is as follows: L U:z.. t9 / -/2. - f) J ~LtJ~ 0/-/2. ~/O d~ /V~;.J , ~ ,~. ;tit?' ~ (flh~:;./. ~~ __~~!.; jL " ~~~d~r2- f~ JL ?'/ ~c/ ." c. _"~,,,,,,,,,_,u' . ...~. 1.1...--......._......_,.. ,''':TY' ..," . '1 " .,c..) I,',' NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES !i112,317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED OISCLOSUVRAEL CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT. REMO . OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, OEMOITION. REDUCTIONS IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALT' NOT TO EXCeED $5,000. I, ~, /Vf.4 Li//L- I'" ............. .) ".-,' " h.eroby crlSClose ~ on (a) A measure ~mo or will come before my ogeocy which (chock one) Inured to my ~I pmate gain: inured to the special gain of my business associate, I c ~t/~'L- Dato Flied c PAGE 2 .. '....'. .'or} J"~~"..~'" .~'.I,""c'l,,"'."~ ~ . ., .......~.... "_ .'~ .1........ .. ~ >~ ...,. ~ ~ ~ . .. >.. .~ ~ ~ ........ _ i.'II;..... Jo. (I..... ... ._. . ..... on ....... h.. ~ . ! . t . ." ..\.' " i, ! . . 1',\ H ~l' I .t . :.J~ . ~ " ' " .'..~ '....~ I:)' , , , , I. ' <.' '1: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER February 19, 2002 Present: Gerald Figurski Carlen A. Petersen, David Gildersleeve Edward Mazur, Jr. Shirley Moran Alex Plisko Ed Hooper Frank Hibbard Chair Vice Chair Board Member - arrtved 2:02 p.m./departed 2:44 p.m. Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Alternate Board Member (non-voting) Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides , Cynthia Tarapani 'Lisa L. Fierce Gina Clayton Brenda Moses Assistant City Attorney , Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Long Range Planning Manager Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are In agenda order although not . necessarily discussed in that order. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: JanuarY,22, 2002 B. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (Items 1 -6). The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. Case: ANX01-12-30 - 1328 Woodbine Street - Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Liberian A. Miles ,Location: 0.1 B acres on the north side of Woodbine Street, approximately 460 feet east of Betty Lane and 65 feet west of Rolen Road Atlas Page: 2698 Request: (a) Annexation of 0.1 8 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land , Use Plan amendment from RL, Residential Low (County) to RL, Residential Low Classification (Clearwater); and (c) Rezoning from R-3, Residential, Single Family District (County) to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential' District (Clearwater) , Proposed Use: Existing singlo-famlly dwelling Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner ',The property owner requests to annex the prcperty into the City and approve the appropriate City land use plan category f:lnd zoning district. mcd0202 1 ' 2/19/02 , \ . , c.: ~.. > '. I .~. 'I~ . >I,...'. '. ':'."'.': .',....II:.,,"'.:.',..~..:... ....:....,' :",."'I:~:. ...j,,~,. "'. ~'" ~"...'.; I""I.:~.."'''''- :. .~I.:.."'i .... ,.:'~~,'....~""i"'.,'4~. ~~I~I w"',~. ,:,: p', '1 The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, Including sewer,' solid waste, pollee, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The applicant has not paid the sewer impact fee but is aware that payment of this fee must be paid prior to City Commission approval. The proposed. annexation and existing use are consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan both with regard to the Future land Use Map ,as well as'goals and policies. The existing and future use of this site as a single family home is consistent with the lMDR zoning district. Finally, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and is compact in concentr'ation. ~, >. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of the property located at 1,328 Woodbine 'Road; 2) approval of the Residential low plan category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the low Medium Density Residential (lMDR) zoning district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. 2. Case: ANX01-12-31 - 2119 Pleasant Parkway - Level Three Application Owners/Applicants: John L. Blechschmidt.and Linda W. Blechschmidt location: 0.48 acres on the west side of Pleasant Parkway, approximately 400 feet north of lakeview Road < Atlas Page: 3088 Request: (a) Annexation of 0.48 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) land Use Plan amendment from RL/P, Residential Low and Preservation (County) to RLlP, Residential low. and Preservation Classifications (Clearwater; and (e) Rezoning from R-1, Residential, Single Family District (County) to lMDR, low Medium Density residential District & P, Preservation District (Clearwater) Proposed Use: New single family dwelling Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner ''II~) ( ,,~ The pro'perty owners are requesting to annex the property into the City and approve the appropriate City land use plan category and zoning district. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The applicants have paid the applicable sewer impact fee of $900.00 and also are aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City sewer system. o The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan both with regard to the Future land Use Map as well as goals and policies. The existing and future use of this site . as a single family home is consistent with the lMDR zoning district.. The proposed annexation is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through Its adjacency with existing City boundaries and is compact in concentration. mcd0202 2 2/1 9/02 '. " , ~ c" '~" " ~ ' \:J . I ~ , . , Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of the property , located at 2119 Pleasant Parkway with the condition that all 'new Cconstruction meet the requirements of the Clearwater Community Development Code; 2) approval of the Residential Low and Preservation plan categories pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDRI and the ,Preservation (P) zoning districts pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. , 3. Case: ANX01~12-32 - 1725 W. Manor Avenue ~ Level Three Application Owners/Applicants: Robert Van Scoyoc & Marilynne Van Scoyoc Location: 0.15 acres on the east side of west Manor Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of South Lagoon Circle and '100 feet west of Ragland Avenue 'Atlas Page: 263A Request: (a) Annexation of 0.1 5 acres to the City of Clearwater; (b) Land Use P!an amendment from RU, Residential Urban (County) to RU, Residential Urban Classification (Clearwater): and (c) Rezoning from R~3, Residential, Single Family District (Countyl to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential Distr,ct (Clearwater) , Proposed use: Existing,single~family dwelling Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner I, The proj)erty owners are requesting to annex the property into the City of . Clearwater and approve the appropriate City land use plan category and zoning district. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service leVel. The applicants have paid the applicable sewer impact fee of $900.00 and also are aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City sewer system. The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan ,both with regard to the Future Land Use Map as well as goals and policies. The existing and, future use of this site as a single family home is consistent with the LMDR zoning district. The proposed annexation is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal anryexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and is compact in concentration. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the followhlg actions on the request: 1) Approval of the al1nex~tion of the property at 1725 West Manor Avenue; 2) approval of the Residential Urban plan category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. 4. Case: LUZ01-12-09 - 665 Sky' Harbor Drive - Level Three Application Owner: New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. ' mcd0202 2/1 9/02 3 ~:4. .... "':'''':'J.:...~....~f. "';'..,J. "'I' ~~:' ..'~;'.~.~ftl. "'I,~",":',,,,,~'.';:'''''.': :f'. "'1':~''''I.'.''.,:.::'','.'.~i~,.~':. ',.:; '~",,'.,~.',.":,:'.\~'...:....:'.I't:'I'::. , , " " ~ .,. " '~ ,Applicant: Clearwater Mall, LLC, c/o The Sambler Company Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire Location: 1.27 acres on the southern terminus of Sky Harbor Drive, approximately 450 feet st?uth of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, adjacent to the Clearwater Mall Atlas Page: 300A Request: (a) land Use Plan Amendment from R/OG, Residential/Office General to I, Institutional Category; and (b) Rezoning from 0, Office District to I, Institutional District Present Use: Vacant Proposed Use:. Fire station Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Se~ior Planner . ~ : The' property owners are requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan's Future land Use Map from Residential/OfficeGeneral (R/OG) to Institutional'(I), and. to rezone from Office (0) District to Institutional (I) District.. :"~~ '.....}:P , An amendment of the Future land Use Plan from Residential/Office General (R/OG) to Institutional (I) and a rezoning from Office (0) to the Instit'utional (I) zoning district for the subject site is necessary to allow the construction of a new fire station on the subject site and to facilitate the exchange of land between the applicant and the City of Clearwater. The neighborhood is surrounded by commercial and medium density residential uses. The proposed institutional use will blend into the existing neighborhood and serve as a transition between more intensive commercial uses to the west and medium density residential uses to the east and south. The Fire Department has indicated that the proposed new location is adequate for the construction of the new fire station and will not affect response times or level .of service. This exchange will enhance the proposed mall redevelopment and will provide the City with an alternative fire station site in the immediate vicinity. The proposed Institutional Future land Use classification and Institutional zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, are compatible with the surrounding area, do not require nor affect the provision of public services, are compatible with the natural environment and are consistent with the development regulations of the City. The Planning Department recommends approval of the following actions on this application: 1) Amend the Future Land Use Plan designation of 565 Sky Harbor Drive from Residential/Office General (R/OG) to Institutional (I), and 2) amend the ZonIng District designation of 565 Sky Harbor Drive from Office (0) to Institutional (I) . [c'" .,,} ~ 6. Case: LUZO'-'2-'O - 620 Sky Harbor Drive - Level Three Application Owner: City of Clearwater , ,Applicant: Clearwater Mall, llC, c/o The, Sembler Company mcd0202 4 2/19/02 . r ;"" '1 ,c c, ,; ': :~ ~ "I'. '';'" " , ' , \. Representative: E. Do Armstrong III, Esquire Location: 3.688-acre parcel on the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Sky Harbor Drive, adjoining Clearwater Mall Atlas Page: 300A Request: (a) land Use Plan Amendment from I, Institutional to CG, , Commercial General Category, and (b) Rezoning from I, Institutional District to C, Commercial District Present Use: Fire station Proposed Use: Commercial use as part of the Clearwater Mall redevelopment Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner The property owners are requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map from Institutional (I) to Commercial General (CG), and to rezone from the Institutional (I) District to the Commercial (C) District. An amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from Institutional (\) to Commercial General (CG) and a rezoning from the Institutional (I) to the Commercial (e) zoning district for the subject site is necessary to allow the use of the existing fire station site for commercial plJrposes and to facilitate the exchange of land between the applicant and the City of Clearwater. The neighborhood is surrounded by a variety of development including commercial, offices, restaurants, and medium density residential uses. The proposed commercial use will be an extension to the existing Clearwater Mall and will blend into the existing commercial uses in the, area. The Fire Department indicates that operations at the existing station will not be affected by the proposed land exchange and likewise the proposed new location is adequate for the construction of the neW fire station and will not affect response times or levels of service. This exchange will enhance the proposed ":laU redevelopment and will provide the City with an alternative fire station. The redevelopment of Clearwater Mall will result in additional traffic on the surrounding roadway system but would generate less traffic than if the existing mall were ,fully occupied. Various access and signal timing improvements are recommended at the signalized intersections and driveways along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and on the US 19 northbound frontage road. The proposed Commercial Future land Use classification and Commercial (C) zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, are compatible with the surrounding area, do not require nor affect the provision of public services, are compatible with the natural environment, . 'and are consistent with the development regulations of the City. The Planning Department recommends approval of the following actions on this application: 1) Amend the Future land Use Plan designation of 520 Sky Harbor Drive from Institutional (I) to Commercial Generul (CG); and 2) amend the Zoning District designation of 520 Sky Harbor Drive from Institutional (I) to Commercial (C). mcd0202 5 , 2/19/02 ~.' ",' :.::. .......;..~ .,IC,..:_, ~~,,""I',','1 ::'..'. ~'I"'~' "";'.,: '. ,',L.:..', :....:i.:.,..':.,.....r.~..:::,...(.~:~:-..,'.'.~ '::~:':~~"/". ~1, , ' ':) ...,) I' ' .::c ,,' 6. Case: FL01.11-34 - 23490 - 23498 US19 North - Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Mr. Mark Howard, Cypress Plaza, Ltd. Representative: Mr. Jan Norsoph, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. Location: 2.09-acre site on the west side of US Highway 1 9 North approximately 200 feet north of Stag Run Boulevard Atlas Page: 263B Zoning: C, Commercial District Request: Flexible Development approval to permit vehicle service use within the Commercial ~istrict with an existing 10-foot (south) side setback, a zero- foot side (north) setback to pavement, a three-foot rear (west) setback to pavement, and with a reduction In the required number of parking spaces from 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (115 spaces) to 4.20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (96 spaces), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2.704, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program Proposed Use: An 8,000 square foot vehicle service establishment in concert with existing retail and office uses Conditions: 1,1 There be no overnight parking of vehicles in the parking lot and no storage of new/used tires or other products outdoors; 2) the landscape plan be amended to reHect the use of Dahoon Holly trees', oleanders around the' dumpster enclosure, additional low growing plantings at the entrance and south property line, replacement of crepe myrtles in front. of building, and use of ground cover/shrub in lieu of sod in all interior landscape; 3) site improvements be made within two phases: Phase 1 includes landscape improvements along US 19 and include all parking lot Improvements including required handicapped spaces, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, and that Phase 2 includes the implementation of the remaining landscape improvements and installing Code-compliant dumpster enclosures (painted to match the buildings), within six months of , COB approval (August 19, 2002); and 4) all new signage and/or any amendments to existing signage be designed according to a common, architecturally-integrated and coordinated theme, in accordance with Code. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner '1 The owners are proposing a vehicle service establishment in association with existing retail sales and service/office uses. The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review Committee on January 17. 2002. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit a vehicle service use within the Commercial District with an existing 10-foot (south) side setback, a zero- foot side {north) setback to pavement, a three-foot rear (west) setback to pavement, and with a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (115 spaces) to 4.20 spaces per , ,000 square feet of gross floor area (94 spaces), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2.704, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program, for the site at 23490 U.S. Highway 19 North, with the following bases and conditions: mcd0202 6 2/19/02 . ..... r......... '. ,". ..I, rl,..:;..... ~ .~... 't' .' '1"'1.'_; ..'.'...',.... ~,.~.,.>......r.::.....,.:::....t..~...:l~...,:.~..:~ .~J."...,.'~41..~~.~,.~.:..,,,...l.: d ~. . ~ " .'") c" Bases for Aooroval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Inflll Redevelopment Project per Section 2.704.8; 2) the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3.1202.G; 3) the proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913: 4) the development is compatible with the surrounding area 'and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; 5) the proposal will provide for economic use of the vacant building, as It was originally designed, with a reasonable timeframe for completion of phased site improvements. , ~..~) ...... Conditions: 1) There be no overnight parking of vehicles in the parking lot and no storage of new/used tires or other products ou'tdoors; 2) the landscape plan be amended to reflect the use of Dahoon Holly trees, oleanders around the dump'ster enclosure, additional low growing plantlngs at the entrance and south property line, replacement of crepe myrtles in front of building, and use ,of ground cover/shrub In lieu of sod in all interior landscape; 3) site improvements be made within two phases: Phase 1 includes landscape improvements along US 19 and include all parking lot improvements including required handicapped spaces, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, and that Phase 2 includes the implementation of the remaining landscape, improvements and installing Code~compliant dumpster enclosures (painted to match the buildings), within six months of COB approval (A'-:Igust 19, 2002); and 4) all new signage and/or any amendments to existing sign age be designed according to a common, architeqturally-integrated and coordinated theme, in accordance with Code. , Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Consent Agenda Items B 1, B2, 83, and 86. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the address for Item #6 was , incorrectly typed on the agenda provided to the Board. (It was later confirmed that. the correct address above was properly advertised.) 'Member Petersen moved to approve Consent Agenda Items B4 and 85. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Figurski and Members , Petersen, Gildersleeve, Moran, Pliska, Hooper, and Hibbard voted "aye". Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. C. NON.CONSENT AGENDA (Item 7) 1. Case TA 02-01-01 - Community Development Code Amendments - Level ThroB Application Applicant: ' City of Clearwater, Planning Department Request: Comprehensive amendments to the Community Dovelop'ment Code, as a result of the annual review, Including amendments to the General ProvIsions, Zoning Districts, Development Standards, Development Review and other Procedures, Nonconformity Provisions, Enforcement Proceedings and Penalties and Definitions and Rules of Construction '~) mcd0202 7 2/19/02 ',:",;-':':.'_ ~~:"'~':"I'.' ..:',.' .~ .;......:~ . ' ...., '... ': "L...\ ~"'_"." '..:;~,..~~'I.,.'~":~,,.,.I":' ",' ,L".:.'~"" ,.,': .; , ...~'.. ,~ Presenter: Richard Kephart, Senior Planner < j Senior Planner Richard Kephart presented the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code. He distributed additional revisions not listed in the Staff report. He stated that should the Community Development Board have any concerns or recommendations, staff would present them to the City Commission at their next meeting; Since the passage of the new Community Development Code In 1999, the Planning, Department has been charged with reviewing the Code on an . annual basis to determine if any additions, deletions, or revisions are needed to improve the administration of the Code or regulations imposed. Over the past year, the Planning Department has been compiling a list of issues associated with the Code. Suggested amendments have been collected from various departments including ~Iannlng, Development Services and Parks and Recreation, as well as the City Commission, Community Development Board and citizens. . During this code update process, staff has met with numerous groups to solicit input on the update including the Clearwater Coalition of Homeowners Association, the Government Affairs Committee of the Chamher of Commerce, the Main Street Design and Economic Committees, the Environmental Advisory Board, the Pinellas Suncoast. Associatiqn of Realtors, the Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Development Board and the Marine Advisory Board. Additionally, the , Planning Department held a public workshop at the Harborview Center to seek comments and suggestions and answer questions. " r' ~) The'Planning Department is recommending a number of amendments to the Community Development Code. Of those, approximately twenty (20) can be considered a change in current policy or a new policy issue. The remaining amendments are editorial in nature, provide additional flexibility criteria, or are refinements to existing provisions. Below is a summary of the most noteworthy proposed amendments organized by Article. A comprehensive listing of all proposed amendments was provided to the Board. Amendments in the list are organized by number, by Code section number and include a brief summary of the amendment. Ordinance No. 6928-02 which in~ludes all of the specific amendments also was provided to the Board. The section number of each amendment in the ordinance corresponds to the number lnthe comprehensive list. Text that is underlined Indicates proposed language an~ text containing strikethroughs indicate deletions. Article 2 - Zonlna Districts · Accessory Structures (Pages 5, 6, and 7 of Ordinance) ,.::; The Planning Department is proposing to revise the diagrams illustrating setback requirements in all residential zoning districts by renaming accessory uses .to accessory structures and- eliminating reduced setbacks specifically for accessory structures in the front setback. The amendment also replaces references to accessory swimming pools with accessory structures. mcd0202 8 2/19/02 :' ~',. 'l . .' . ..' . ~ ,::) :; 'J '., . · Social and Community Center (Pages 8, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21-22, 26, and 28 of Ordinance) The Planning Department is proposing to expand the locations in which social and community centers are permitted. At present, these centers are only allowed in the Institutional District; however, many existing centers are located in other zoning district. The proposed amendment would allow these uses as minimum standard and flexible standard development in the Downtown, Tourist and Commercial Districts. This proposed amendment wlll bring many of theses facilities into. conformity with the Code. · Marina and Marina Facilities (Pages 7-10,12-14,16,17,19,22,25-27, and, 29-30 of Ordinance) Recent revisions to the dock provisions (Ordinance 6795-01) require all commercial docks to be approved by the Community Development Board. Ma~inas and marina facilities are commercial docks, however, they are permitted as minimum standard and flexible standard uses in the Commercial, Tourist, Downtown 'and Institutional Districts. To be consistent with recently approved, dock provisions, the Planning Department is proposing amendments that would permit marinas and marina facilities only through a flexible development approval process (Community Development Board approval.) The amendment further requires marina/marina facilities to comply with the commercial dock standards, as well a general marina standards established in Article 3, Development Standards. 'Article 3 - Development Standards · Location of Watercrafts (Page 34 of Ordinance) Davits are exempt from dock setback requirements and concern has been raised that boats could possibly extend legally into adjacent properties. Trends , indicate that the size of boat lIsed for personal purposes is increasing in size. The Planning Department is proposing a provision that specifies that all . , watercraft must be contained with the property lines as extended into the water. · Deviations for Multi-Use Docks (Page 34 of Ordin'ance) Deviation provisions are proposed for multi-use docks 500 square feet in size or smaller consistent WIth the deviation procedures established' for docks for single and two family'dwellings. These procedures would allow deviations to be granted if the adjacent property owners agree to the,devlation. If they do not agree, the property owner may petition for the deviation through a flexible stand~rd review process. This Is consistent wIth the deviation procedures established for docks servIng single family and two family dwellings~ · Chain Link Fences (Pages 35-36 of Ordinance) mcd0202 ' 2/19/02 9 >;. .' ~ :\ .../: ,>: ....~ .:~ ;r. ~ .:' ~ " .< ,.' /r>' I' ':0 ...,...... ,.:""C;.). I:;;;' , 't The Planning Department Is proposing to prohibit chain link fences In" the 'Downtown District to be consistent with the design theme and charactor established in the Downtown Design Guidelines. ' · Vending Machines (Page 37 of Ordinance) .,' Due to the aesthetic concerns associated with vending machines, the Planning Department is proposing to limit the number of vending machines that can be placed outside of a building to two. The pro'posed amendment also prohibits signage on the sides of vending machines and limits signage on the front of each machine to 35 % of the front area of the machine. These limitations are very similar to provisi~ns regulating newsracks. · Tree ~eplaceri1ent Requirements (Pages 38~39 of Ordinance) The Planning Department originally proposed a 25% tree replacement credit for developed multi-family and commercial properties. After further research, the Planning Department determined that a revision was made to the Code In 1 999 that allowed trees within required landscaped areas to be used as credit against tree replacement requirements; however, this change was never codified. In light of this allowable creditt the Planning Department is recommending an amendment giving the Community Development Coordinator authority to waive tree replacement requirements for exotics, other ,undesirable trees and those trees in declining health il:'\stead of the 25 % replacement credit. This proposed provision, along with the credit for required landscaping negates the problem of having sufficient space for required tree replacements. · Parking Demand Study (Page 40 of Ordinance) The Planning Department is proposing a provision that requires a parking demand study to be conducted if deviations from the parking requirements are proposed. The amendment requires the methodology of such study to be in accordance with accepted traffic. engineering principles and approved by the Community Development Coordinator. It also clarifies that the results of the study will determine whether or not the reduction in parking can be approved. · , Maintenance of Rlghts'of~Way (Page 43 of Ordinance) At the request of the Community Response Team, the property maintenance stand~rds are proposed ,to be expanded to prohibit the growth of shrubs and vegetation, In addition to'weeds or trash, within the rlght~of-way. This amendment requires the abutting property owner to maintain' all landscaping so that it does not protrude In to the right-of-way and create safety hazards. , , · Seawells (Page 42-43 of Ordinancet mcd0202 10 2/19/02 . , , ;"?:.: " ~ cd ,; :). \ ."~ ....,;, ", During the Island Estates neighborhood planning process, the issue of seawall maintenance was discussed. Upon a review of the Community Development Code and the Building Code, it was concluded there are no specific maintenance standards for seawalls. Due to the importance of seawall " maintenance, the Planning Department is proposing a property maintenance standard for seawalls and a provision declaring unsafe/un-maintained seawalls a nuisance. · Abandoned Signs (Page 43 of Ordinance) Abandoned signs that are determined to be' nonconforming with the sign ordinance are required to be removed after notice Is given. This section of the code, however, also permits in the alternative, the ability to use neutral sign panels to replace the sign panels of an abandoned signs. The Planning Department is proposing to eliminate this provision so that abandoned nonconforming signs must be removed. · Sign Design Requirements (Page 45 of Ordinance) The Planning Department is proposing a provision that requires all signs to be , architecturally integrated into the building and/or site by using similar and coordinated design arid style fe~~ures, materials and color~. · Freestanding Signs at Elevated Intersections (Pages 45-46 of Ordinance) The Planning Department is proposing to add a provision that permits freestanding signs to project 14 feet in height above the crown of the road for properties fronting on elevated Intersections. This amendment is proposed to' address identification needs for properties with frontage along elevated overpasses , along US 19 and McMullen Booth Road. This issue has surfaced due' to new e;levated intersections being planned for US 19. The old code had a slmifar provision,permitting additional sign height in these locations. . Minimum Permitted Signage (Page 46 of Ordinance) Recognizing that the current provision for attached and freestanding signage is very limiting, the Planning Department is proposing to increase the absolute minimum permitted sign area from ten (10) square feet to twenty (20) square feet in area. " . 'Comprehensive Sign Program (Pages 47-48 of Ordinance) , The Planning Department is proposing revisions to the Comprehensive Sign . Program, which will allow deviations from the minimum sign stendards in terms of numbers of signs and sign area". These amendments will permit an increase in the amount of attached signage from 1 % of up to a maximum of 5 % of the build;n"g faQade to which the sign is attached. Freestanding signs will continue to be limited to two times the total permitted sign area. The amendments also propose guidelines mcd0202 1 1 2/19/02 ',' :~.. ;.;: . . .;~. LIt.' '.~ .... ~'I:," ".::'" """," ", "'.': "': ...... II ',I .'. ~'. "'~".. '" :;.... ",-." . ~~ ~. ,~ c~ " o .1 , " '. ;'~";'d .. , ...." :, I _I , . , ' I, ;. . .:J",:l' Ct ..',. to be used whe'1 determining the number and location of additional signage. Proposed criterion focuses on site size, amount of frontage, access, traffic ' circulation, etc. . I I . , · Portable Storage Units (Page 49 of Ordinance) The Planning Department Is proposing to give the Community Development , Coordinator authority to approve the use of portable storage units In emergency situation for duration of emergency repairs instead of only for four (4) days. Article 4 - Development Review and Other Procedures · , Submittal Requirements (Page 49 of Ordinance) , The current code permits either a plat of record or a survey to 6e submitted with an application of development approval. Because a plat of record does not include the location of any buildings or structures and a survey does, the Plannhig Department is proposing to delete the plat of record option. · Appeals Presented to Hearing Officer (Page 51 of Ordinance) Typically, appeals made to hearing officers are decided on the i~formation . that was presented when the original decision was made. The current code does not specify this; therefore, the City has been in positions where cases are being tried at the hearing officer level. The legal Department is proposing that the code be revised to not allow discovery or depositions at the appeal, however, new witnesses may be presented. · Final Plat (Page 52 of Ordinancel The Planning Department is proposing an amendment that specifies that' no building permits may be issued until evidence of final plat recordation has been . submitted. The 'Code currently requires this only upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy, which occurs when building construction is completed. . . Tr8nsf~r of Development Rights (Pages 53-54 of Ordinance) \ To gain consistency with the Countywide Rules, the Planning Department is . proposing to add language to the tral)sfer of development rights (TDRs) provisions that specify that TDRs may only be used within approved Community . Redevelopment Areas or to protect architecturally significant structures, historic structures or environmentally sensitive areas. Amendments also require the sending site to meet all property maintenance standards prior to transferring development rights and to require consent of the mortgage holders prior to approving any transfer. An amendment also requires that there be a reasonable relationship . between the number of units transfElfred and any increases in building height. 'Article 7 Enforcement Proceedings and Penalties mcd0202 12 2/19/02 ..........;..L....'. ,\.' . I.."" "'''-I'.:f '",'f,', ':..: .......:..~L.....;.."..~:'...I:..::.~..,...,.:....~.>.~:.~.:...:....i. <..-:: ~ ':.J.._.." "~.'''',.:. I":r:;', ":".::'1:" ~:..'. '~!~,' , '~::~.. .~: "".,1' .,' ;I,",~.;' 1-.< ':.,.....'~.~.(.'...,.,'\'...~.,.,..!.., .:'" :;...~~..'..~:.. :. \.' .~. ("':'.,'~",~.:. '1, . J 'I, t~ . < l' . Correction of Violation Prior to Hearing IPage 54 of Ordinance) The Planning Department'ls proposing to delete the provision which allows violations, if corrected prior to the hearing and not repeated within six months, to' be considered withdrawn. This amendment would ensure that repeat violators are enforced upon according to stricter standards and greater fines. . CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedu'res and criteria for reviewing text amendments. Any code amendment must comply with the following. '. '.C1 .. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, , policies, objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. ,... '> Below is a selected list of 'goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater . Comprehensive Plan 'that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code: , i0 . c . Goal 2 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development. . Policy 2.1.1 - Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and/or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment 'plan. . Policy 2.1 .2 - Renewal of the beach tourist district shall be encouraged through the establishment of distinct districts within Clearwater Beach,' the establishment of a limited density pool of additional hotel rooms to be used in specif.ied geographic areas of Clearwater Beach, enhancement of public rights- of-way, the vacation of public rights-of-way when appropriate, transportation ,improvements, inter-beach and intra-beach transit, transfer of development rights and the use of design guidelines, pursuant to BelJch by Design: A preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. v . Policy 2. 1 .3- The area governed by Beach by Design: A PreliminlJry Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines shall be recognized on the Countywide Future Land Use map as a Community Redevelopment District. This area is bounded on the north by the line dividing the block between Acacia Street and Somerset Street, the Gulf of Mexico on the west, Clearwater Harbor on the east and the Sand Key Bridge on the south, excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside mcd0202. 13 2/19/02 , , .1 . , :ll " ~ ,.C /.. " . '~J' . \'.,;.' o ..1 . c' : ~ , Drive. Beachfront and public property located adjacen~ to the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway with a Future Land Use designation of Recreation/Open . Space shall ,be excll:lded from the Community Redevelopment District. . Policy 2.3.3 - The City of Clearwater shall continue to Implement the Design Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. . ~olicy 3.2.1 - Land Uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shaH generally be interpreted as indicated In the following table. The intensity standards listed in the table (FAR - floor area ratio; ISR - impervious surface. ratio) are the maximum allowed for each plan category, except where otherwise permitted by special area plans or redevelopment plan approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual zoning district, as 'established in the City's Community Development Code, may have more stringent intensity standards than those listed in the table but will not exceed the maximum nllowable intensity of the plan category, unless otherwise permitted by approved special area plans or redevelopment. . ,Objective 4. 1 - All signage with the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the Clearwater sign code, as found in the Community Development Code, and ., all proposed signs shall be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing safety and attractiveness of the streetscape. . Policy 4.1.1 - Commercial signs in Clearwater shall be restricted to discourage the proliferation of visual clutter, promote community aesthetics, provide for highway safety and to allow the identification of business locations. . Objective 4.2 - All devel~pment and redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the'minimum landscaping/tree protection standards of the' Community Deyelopment Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies,. the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City. .' Policy 22"2.7 - Transfer of development rights should be implemented to provide alternatives to development and degradation of wetlands and other natural resources. 2. The' proposed amendments further tho purposes of the Community , Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text' amendments include a broad range of regulations ranging from permitted uses, numerical standards, flexibillty criteria, procedures, enforcement and definitions. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103 that lists the purposes of the Cod.e. The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the mcd0202 14 2/1 9/02 ~. .' ~'<." . " ~. . . . .f, ',', .~ '\ '. . ". " ,. " . I.. '..'] \....1,.. (.;) ., ~:!k;:;~..:.I,;\~", ' Community Development Code. They also further the original redevelopment goals that established the Code. The amendments permit certain uses In a wider range of zoning district. They also provide more appropriate development standards regarding marinas, signage and tree replacement requirements. They also strive to improve community aesthetics through the additional regulation of sign design and the limitation of the number of vending machines allowed outside of a building. In many instances the proposed amendments promote more site-specific solutions. These solutions ultimately promote economic development and maintain high standards for development, which are essential in a community undergoing redevelopment. . , Planning Department Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 6928~02 which makes revisions to the Community Development Code. Concern was expressed regarding proposed amendments for Marina and Marina Facilities with respect to the need to clarify hairline cracks' on seawalls versus structural cracks. Mr. Kephart said staff has met with the Marine Advisory Board regarding those concerns. Staff feels they have been addressed in the . proposed provision declaring un-maintained seawalls a nuisance in Section 100 of the Ordinance 'regardingseawall maintenance. . Concern was expressed regarding Section 142. Article 4. Division 7. Subdivision/Plats. Staff is proposing to amend Section 4-702 - Required Approvals to require that11lf a plat approval is required, preliminary plat approval must be , obtained before a building permit may be issued." It was felt that this proposal would pose a hardship to developers. There is no schedule for review of a final plat and it could become delayed due to the process. It was suggested that staff research other cities' processes regarding this section. Ms. Tarapani said staff Would have difficulty issuing a building permit without prior knowledge of the. locations of the easements and final property lines. c , it was felt that Section 143, Article 4. Division 7. Subdivision/Plats. Section 4-708. C. Recording of final plat should not be changed. '. 'It was suggested staff further review Section 145, Article 4. Division 13. 'Land Clearing Removal Permit. Section 4-1301. It was suggested that staff incorporate a dimenuous number or percentage regarding deviations from the parking requirements in the Code, Section 87, Article 3. Division 14. Parking and Loading, Section 3-1401. Mr. Kephart said that section was addressed due to the numerous types of studies. The City is attempting to set the ground work from the' beginning to clarify how studies will be . done. In response to a question regarding the significance of a flat roof indicating in Section 57, Article 2. Division 12. Institutional District. SectIon 2-1203, Mr. Kephart said that section was 'developed to address issues related to flat roofs with rocks and gravel materials during storms. mcd0202 . 16 2/1 9/02 ".. ""I.~I,.., :," ,".'. ,".;.r-.::.. ,'....~. r. ,,""':' 0."'......:' r: J, ': {'. "..: ': ~ ~; ';., ~.... ,,'i.~. l il'~;"~' .; ,:,o.,'. ""; ..:,~;~ ~ Ms. Tarapani said at this morning's City Commission Work Sessio~, Commissioners requested a comparison between the sign code changes in the former and new Codes. ::) (;) , , ' Discussion ensued regarding Section 74, Article 3. Division 9. General Applicability Standards. Section 3-908. Permitted encroachments Into setbacks and over street rights-at-way. That section indicates that roof overhangs shall be not be permitted to extend into required structural setbacks more than 30 inches. Ms. Tarapani said the Code currently is silent on roof overhangs. On balconies, etc., the Code restricts overhangs to 30 inches, therefore staff felt this proposal was consistent witt; those parameters. It was remarked that roof overhangs, especially for new housing, larger homes, and varying building heights are not standard, and this 3D-inch requirement was too restrictive. In response to a . question, Ms. Tarapani said gutters are included in the 30-inch requirement. Staff considered setback requirements, attempted to make overhang sizes uniform, and attempted to address the impact on neighbors when this section was developed. It was remarked that the potential for 2 overhangs occurring in the same plain would be remote. Staff will check the former code regarding overhangs as a percentage of the building's density. ' Concern was expressed that pavement on the back of a building requires a COB level review and is a separate issue from required setbacks. Ms. Tarapani said multifamily projects require a staff level review for rear of buildings. She said the review is necessary to comply with setback regulations. I~ was remarked that landscaping can inclLlde various features such as pavement. It was suggested staff consider exempting pavers and other landscaping materials from the setback requirement. Ms. Tarapani said the pavement issue was developed as a result of instances where property owners wish to pave the entire yard and totally' eliminate green space. She felt staff's proposal is consistent with other cities' requirements regarding density and ISR (Impervious Surface Ratio). In response to a question, Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton said the Island Estates residents through their NeOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District) process, is considering an open space requirement in front yards in addition to ISR. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said she is unaware of any other municipality that defines what can be placed in a setback. It was felt .that pavers, etc. should , be considered as an open space issue rather than a setback issue. Ms. Tarapani said brick walks, paver blocks, etc. are just as permanent as other types of landscaping.' It was remarked that the former Code had a green space requirement to cover these concerns. Consensus was to further discuss this issue at the next meeting. Concern was expressed that Section 148. Article 4. Division 14. Transfer of Development Rights. Section 4-1403.C. Use ot transferred development rights does not contain'language to clarify what is a reasonable relationship between a transfer in height. Ms. Tarapanl said the CDB Is responsible to make that determination. She said the COB would review each case. on an Individual basis along with compatibility and other related issues. In response to a question, Ms. mcd0202 16 2/19/02 .......;. '.. '.,'.".:" ,.1, '.' ..:."....,,\.,. :"~..f .::....,II...::..~ ..':;....:... .~..:'..'.:_.... .t~..1 ...~..,~.:.......'....~.:~..J...'..,.'.'...,...."';.I c/o I' .~ Taraparii said the City Commission has not made a final decision regarding a mathematical relationship or other means of determining a "reasonable relationship". It was suggested that a sliding scale between the number of units transferred and height may be one solution to the issue. Concern was expressed that the language in this section is open to interpretation and would result in a high number of appeals. . Concern was expressed that the proposed language permitting new witnesses to be presented at Appeal Hearings should not be permitted. Assistant City Attorney Leslie'Dougall-Sides said the Appeal Officer would not disregard the information and facts heard at the CDB meetings, nor the recommendations made by the COB regsrdir:ag a case. It was remarked that new witnesses could present ' new information. I ' . , 'l'C . One citizen felt it is fundamentally unfair to allow new witnesses to attend a hearing officer hearing. Should they be permitted to speak, their testimony should be limited to the facts and information presented at the CDB meeting. Consensus was to recommend to the City Commission that no new witnesses be allowed at Appeal Hearings. , D. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS .f~ 1. Request for time extension - Marriott Seashell Resort - FL 01-01-01 and \'1!~ DA 01-01-01 at 301 South Gulfview Boulevard Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce said the Marriott Seashell Resort is requesting a time extension for approval of the project at 301 South Gulfview Boulevard from February 20, 2002, to February 20, 2003. Member Hooper moved to approve the extension of the project at 301 South Gulfview Boulevard from February 20, 2002, to February 20, 2003. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Gildersleeve was absent. 2., Request for time extenslon- Elias Anastasopoulos - FL 00-11-49 ot 731 Bayway Boulevard , , Ms. Fierce said Mr. Anastasopoulos is requesting a time extension for approval of the project at 731 Bayway Boulevard from February 20, 2002, ,to February 20, 2003. Member Petersen moved to approve the time extension of the project at 731 Bayway Boulevard from February 20, 2002, to February 20, 2003. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being tal~en, Chair Figurski and Members Mazur, Petersen, Moran, Plisko, and Hibbard voted "aye". Member Hooper abstained. Member Gildersleeve was absent. Motion carried. '~ mcd0202 17' 2/1 9/02 "~<<l..eJ.('oi-l.;,,~",:t-Jo"-'1..J.V.;;;.I,: ,:.,y, OJ,. .t:."f ,:.> ,~,'c ~.'.. ...:~:.:,: .. ....n\; .c~' " ,~}I'~ ~., ~ c. 'I T, .'. ..' ~ \'.~ . " I: :. .' . 'llJ, ~ ',r....,~'::. :'\::',;:(,' ,.~:}'~: ; . " : . . '..... ' ,,:~ :',. :. ' ',.:f>'" .:.: '.-, ..... ..' L'. .. :', . ,',.; ':" ,"'.~.':;:_ .1",' ...~..,.. .'. .',. '..~'.". .'..... ;. ..':,.~'.... ".....~~ ..;.'~'.~ ,~..." .',;". ; I., ~.': ,." .,...", 1 , " :' " , , t,' c.~ :. . ,. ,I. '1, '.. .", ., . , ' " , , " , , ,. . , , " " : ; : . ,.'! ~., ~',:'r!'-\ .;....~: :'".',~: :':.:. '~I, '.":,,, ,,-<<,: "~,' :,' "1,' :;, .' :"",~ '""., ~",I" . l-C .~ ; . J.' t)'d ~ l C ' , ...{ :1 . I,;:: c , ~:':, r. ' ~,.','. ,~,~':. . ~ ~ " ' i ~'::; .~~::! '. . . ~~~~:i \~" .. ,'" '1 I{/? f:,,':';,. ,t'.. : ~ 'e, J ,', , . '" .~.." . (:: '," ~L;~:-.:. ,.:,': , ;c~: ,j~.! :; > "'.. " , ': '. ~ i~ , ,.J'I I.. . I ." c,. .. ~ ~ . " ' J ~ . :' : I ' .: ~ . ~~: '.,.. . C : . ,'> '.: : :'?~"o.', .',' ," ~".~ . ~ . ' , ',i .' ;.. ;.:. (. l( ~:. >~ !' .:. > I' ~). r" ~ :.. r " , " . " .1 . , r. :.~ '>~'., ,~; " ,\' \ ~ or': C:... ,::" .":/"c 'c' '. " \~ ,: .. ~ T" j .c \......c. " ~.. . .~ \ :':' 0' <,' ,. :;.,:::IC .:,': I,'~.' \ '. " " ": .. :.(' . ,I, .'. ,~)~;. : , . ; ..' ! .", , Jt,:,~." . " ~ ' '. . :: J .. l . , I- "<t ~. . " >;' .' . , ;' '.. '" \ I'. .,l',' c, , ~;" ".. : ' i",; " ' " . '" . : T '"',. '" .' \ ' o L , ' o Other ... . ~. .:1 .' I. , '. A' luncheon to honor Chair Figurski's service on the COB is scheduled for March 19, 2002. Ms. Tarapanl said an appeal r.ega\rding a denial of an occupationallicens'e is s~heduled for the March 19, 2002, meeting. . Chair 'Figurski urged everyone to vote at the March 12, 2002, election. '. '. E. ADJOURNMENT " 'The' nie~~higadjourn~d at 3:34 p.m. , , 1)/ air Community Developm ....\ " ,iJ;:e:rtrkYn@fh -;' ,Board Reporte~ . , ,. ' , , ". , .. .j ./ . ,r; , ~.' '\ I ,'. , '< ~ ~ ' I; :', . " .:J \, " '0 I,' . ,. I"). " , " c ~." .. ., '" . . mcCf0202 -i") " 18 : , ~~>.... ' .j, .' . . . , . . , . . ,..,.. H ~ '. ..-'I!~ ~~'.' I....' I',r..i- ". .....1..; .cn...., ~. Ii..- n:1 .. .') L .,.. ~T.~ .,'I'.~' .1,', ~....'. ";' .'rd1.- ~ ,t[,;::v~~",jt~;. "w'J\rJ..;:t:]:~~'V",,;~,,,.)J"" ;t"J ~ ~ ~ . ll.-I.J\... " 2/19/02' , . I " <I \':"~'c" ""i<''.t 'I !'~'.~rU-./"ldt ',-~ '),A:".,,'n't'1~. .'\.~v' ~.:),~.H. 1),1.~.l"li~"