The URL can be used to link to this page

01/20/2004 ....... . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER January 20, 2004 Present: Ed Hooper John Doran Shirley Moran Edward Mazur, Jr. Alex Plisko Kathy Milam Daniel Dennehy Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Acting Board Member Absent: David Gildersleeve Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Lisa Fierce Frank Gerlock Patricia O. Sullivan Assistant City Attorney Assistant Planning Director Development Review 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. . .. . C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: December 16,2003 Member Moran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 16, 2003, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owner, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. (Items 1-9) '. 1. Case: FLD2003-08037 - 3080 Allen Avenue Level Two Application Owners/Applicants: Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen (3090 Charles Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727.422.0422; fax: 727.726.8190). Representative: Bryan L. Zarlenga (380 Park Place Blvd., Suite 300, Clearwater, FL 33759; phone: 727.531.3505; cell: 727.639.5569; e-mail: bzarlenqa@tbeqroup.com). Location: 1.95 acres located at the northwest corner of Allen Avenue and McMullen- Booth Road. Atlas Page: 212A. Zoning: 0, Office District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a reduction in the front (north) setback from 35 feet to 15 feet (to pavement) and from 35 feet to 16 feet (to generator pad) along Charles Avenue, a reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 98 spaces (5/1,000 square- feet) to 97 spaces (4.9/1,000 square-feet), an increase in building height from 30 to 38.5 feet under the provisions of Section 2-1004.C., and to vacate 242 feet of Allen Avenue right-of-way. Community Development 2004-01-20 1 . Proposed Use: A 19,560 square-foot medical clinic. Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner. This case was continued from the October 21,2003, CDB (Community Development Board) meeting due to an insufficiency. The applicant has submitted a vacation request form to vacate a portion of the street right-of-way along Allen Avenue and a revised site plan clarifying the proposed property line. Two Federal Department of Transportation Type 3 barricades have been placed at the terminus of the right-of-way, per Traffic Engineering Department requirements. The 1.95-acre site is at the southwest corner of McMullen Booth Road and Charles Avenue. The entire parcel is comprised of 12 individual platted lots. The parcel is largely undeveloped with a small, one-story masonry building located in the southwest corner, which will be demolished. The lot drains into an existing pond on the eastern portion of the parcel. The proposed two-story, 19,560 square-foot medical and surgical facility will be located in the northeast corner of the parcel along McMullen-Booth Road and Charles Avenue. The north and northeastern sides of the building will be supported on stem walls and overlook the proposed 13,907 square-foot retention pond. The pond will be enclosed in 140 linear feet of black cast aluminum ornamental fencing with masonry columns. . The site plan has two points of ingress and egress for the parcel. The first is 187 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road, along Allen Avenue. The second point of ingress/egress is 172 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road, along Charles Avenue. These two points of access have been aligned on the parcel to create a parking lot configuration that promotes the accessible flow of traffic on and off-site. The parking lot has been optimally designed to create the maximum amount of parking spaces possible. The required number of parking spaces is 98, at five spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area. The proposed number of parking spaces is 97, at 4.9 spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area. The reduction in parking can be justified due to the amount of interior landscaping provided by the applicant on site. The City requires a minimum of 10% interior landscaping and the applicant has provided 28%. The applicant is proposing to apply for signage at a later date, but has submitted a letter referencing that all future signage submittals will be architecturally integrated into the design of the building with similar style features, color, and materials. A monument-style freestanding sign would be appropriate. . The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on September 18, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to permit a reduction in the front (north) setback from 35 to 15 feet (to pavement) and 35 to 16 feet (to generator pad) along Charles Avenue, reduce the required number of parking spaces from 98 spaces (5/1,000 square-feet) to 97 spaces (4.9/1,000 square-feet) and to increase the height from 30 feet to 38.5 feet, under the provisions of Section 2-1004. C., with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal is in compliance with Flexibility Criteria for Medical Clinics in the Office District per Section (2- 1004.C); 2) The proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria, under Section Community Development 2004-01-20 2 . . . 3-913; and 3) The improvements are compatible with the surrounding area AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That the vacation of Allen Avenue right-of-way be approved by the City Commission prior to any Building Permits; 2) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; and 3) That all future signage be architecturally integrated into the design of the site and building (including a monument-style freestanding sign and channel letter attached sign). See page 17 for motion of approval. 2. Item pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2003-10056 - 628 Cleveland Street Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: CRA, Tone 40, Ltd./Station Square, LLC. Representative: Brian Murphy, Beck Development, LLC. (5100 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 251, Tampa, FL 33609; phone: 813.387.5336; fax: 813.288.0188; cell: 813.918.2305; email: brianmurphy@beckqroup.com). Location: 0.97 acres located on the north side of Cleveland Street, approximately 500 feet west of North Myrtle Avenue. Atlas Page: 286B. Zoning: D, Downtown District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed-use development and a building within the required sight visibility triangles, a reduction of the required number of parking spaces from 388 spaces to 226 spaces, an increase of the permitted height from 30 to 158 feet and an increase of the permitted density from 61 dwelling units to 146 dwelling units by using 85 dwelling units from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan area density pool, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C and a Comprehensive Landscape Program to eliminate the requirement to provide foundation plantings, under the provisions of Section 3-1202. G. Proposed Use: The proposal includes a mixed-use development with 146 attached dwellings, 5,096 square-feet of retail sales and service and 9,904 square-feet of restaurant within a building 158 feet in height. Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. Planner Mark T. Parry reviewed the request. The site is 0.97 acre, on the north side of Cleveland Street, approximately 500 feet west of North Myrtle Avenue. It is a through lot with frontage along Cleveland and Laura Streets (south and north, respectively) and has been developed with a 13,000 square-foot, three-story building constructed in 1933 and a 78-space, CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) owned, public parking lot. Two driveways currently provide access to the site with one driveway along the front (south) side of the site along Cleveland Street and a second along the front (north) side of the site along Laura Street. The existing building and parking spaces will be demolished with this proposal. This application for Flexible Development approval includes specific requests to permit a building within the required sight visibility triangles, reduce the required number of parking spaces from 388 to 226 spaces, increase the permitted height from 30 to 158 feet, and increase the permitted density from 61 to 146 dwelling units by using 85 dwelling units from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Public Amenities Incentive Pool, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C and a Comprehensive Landscape Program to eliminate the requirement to provide foundation Community Development 2004-01-20 3 . plantings along the front (north and south) fa<;ades along Laura and Cleveland Streets, respectively, under the provisions of Section 3-1202. G. The proposal includes a mixed-use development with 146 attached dwellings, 5,096 square-feet of retail sales and service and 9,904 square-feet of restaurant within a building 158 feet in height. The building will be located approximately 15 feet from the front (north) property line along Laura Street and within the required sight visibility triangles on either side of the driveway. Structured parking will be provided within the first three floors of the building. There will be 226 spaces provided for the residential and retail/restaurant uses, plus 100 unassigned public parking spaces on the first and second garage levels (326 total parking spaces). The total required parking for the residential and non-residential uses is 388 spaces where 226 spaces will be provided. The existing driveway along Cleveland Street will be removed with this proposal and a single driveway located at the northeast corner of the site along Laura Street will provide access to the site and building. The proposal includes the implementation of landscaping on the site coordinated with the City's proposed Streetscape and Wayfinding Master Plan and the proposed Station Square Park redevelopment. These projects are slated for installation between 2004 and 2006. The landscape plan should enhance the aesthetics of the site. . The main entrance to the building will be along Cleveland Street and includes a formal, arched entrance, upscale and elegant in character. The south elevation also incorporates colonnade elements with canopies. The proposed materials will be stucco and simulated coquina with natural colors. The design of the building steps back as elevation increases (at the third and seventh floors), creating interesting elevations along the skyline and provides for a building which will blend in with the existing scale of buildings along Cleveland Street. The Cleveland (south) and Laura Street (north) elevations will feature balconies, canopies, and awnings on the first floor. The multiple levels of structured parking will be camouflaged by the building design and hidden from view through the use of decorative grillwork. The restaurant and retail components of the development will be accessed from Cleveland Street. The restaurant will include an outdoor seating area with approximately 60 seats at the southwest corner of the site adjacent to Station Square Park. The restaurant and retail spaces will be directly accessed via the sidewalk along Cleveland Street. Solid waste services will be provided via two roll-out dumpsters at the northwest corner of the site along Laura Street. All stormwater requirements have been met with this proposal with the site utilizing the payment in-lieu of option for retention and directing stormwater runoff to the Town Lake. A portion of the property currently occupied by 78 metered parking spaces is owned by the CRA with the remainder of the property owned by Tone 40, Ltd. The CRA will enter into an agreement with Tone 40 Ltd. for the sale of the portion of the property currently occupied by the metered parking subject to several conditions. The CRA subsequently will enter into an lnterlocal agreement with the City Commission attesting to the fact that the buyer (Tone 40, Ltd.) will abide by and develop the site in accordance with those conditions. In summary, the agreement outlines the time frame by which the property must be sold and application for . Community Development 2004-01-20 4 . building permit must be submitted. It also specifies the number of public parking spaces, dwelling units, prohibited and allowed uses permitted on the site and public/private maintenance responsibilities of the public parking spaces and the timeframe for which these conditions are applicable. The increase in height above 30 feet is consistent with the Vision, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan as outlined above and is consistent with the criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. It also is consistent with the intent and direction of the Design Guidelines currently under development. The Guidelines will require structures taller than other buildings along Cleveland Street to incorporate stepbacks in the building design. The building, above 30 feet, steps back a total of 30 horizontal feet at two separate locations. In addition, the fa<;ade of the building is further articulated by a series of planes accented by various architectural details including fenestration, awnings, and balconies. The elimination of the sight visibility triangles on the north side of the site and foundation planting along the north and south sides of the building are needed to maintain and create the desired build-to line along Cleveland and Laura streets. An adequate distance will be provided between the edge of the building and the proposed sidewalk and the edge of the building and Laura Street for visibility. . It is anticipated that 226 provided parking spaces will adequately serve the site, as the retail and restaurant components are expected to generate significant walk-up traffic and the 100 public parking spaces also will serve these uses. All required parking for the residential component will be provided on site. In addition, almost 2,000 spaces are within the Downtown Core Character District and within easy walking distance of the subject site. The City will operate the 100 public parking spaces on the first two levels of the parking garage. The 221 parking spaces reserved for dwelling units will be located on levels three through five, accessible only to residents via a gate and card reader. There will be five parking spaces reserved for the restaurant and retails uses on the first floor of the parking garage, which will accommodate smaller delivery vans such as those used by UPS, Fed Ex, etc. Larger delivery vehicles are expected to park temporarily along Cleveland or Laura streets adjacent to the building. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on December 4, 2003. The applicant has worked with staff over the past several months to provide an attractive, well-designed development that will enhance the local area and the City as a whole. The development will further the City's goals of improving the character of the area and promoting private sector investment within the Downtown. The proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project use, with all applicable standards of the Community Development Code and is consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit a mixed-use development and a building within the required sight visibility triangles, reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 388 to 226 spaces, an increase to the permitted height from 30 to 158 feet, and an increase of the permitted density . Community Development 2004-01-20 5 . . . from 61 to 146 dwelling units by using 85 dwelling units from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Area Public Amenities Inceptive Pool, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C and a Comprehensive Landscape Program to eliminate the requirement to provide foundation plantings, under the provisions of Section 3-1202. G., with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-903.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The proposal is in compliance with the Vision, Goals, Objects and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Core character district; and 4) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1) That this application be effective upon approval of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan by the Countywide Planning Authority; 2) That this application be effective upon development agreement approval by the Community Redevelopment Agency; 3) That the permitted uses for the first floor retail area include retail establishments that sell or lease goods directly to the consumer such as a book store, gift shop, antique store, florist, clothing store, video store; an art gallery; gourmet grocery store (which may include accessory sales of alcoholic beverages); prepared food for off-site consumption, a restaurant with accessory sales of alcoholic beverages, and a sidewalk cafe as accessory to the principal retail use; 4) That the developer shall actively market and use his best efforts to obtain tenants for the first floor retail space as one or more of the allowable retail uses as described above. Should the developer be unable to obtain an allowable retail use within one year of issuance of the temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the retail space, the City may allow, upon written request of the Developer, one or more alternate uses to occupy the first floor retail space; 5) That the following uses be prohibited: a) All uses prohibited by the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; b) All other retail uses not specifically defined by the Development Agreement as allowable retail uses or alternate retail uses, pursuant to the Community Development Code's definition of retail sales and service; c) Nightclub/Bar; d) Alcoholic Beverage Package Store; and e) Medical or Veterinary offices; 6) That a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 146 dwellings units be located on the site and that units less than 1,000 square-feet in gross floor area be limited to 36 units total (with no more than 12 units being smaller than 750 square-feet); 7) That the rental of units be a minimum of six months at a time; 8) That all units be designed with a separate bedroom; 9) That the project shall contain approximately 15,000 square-feet of allowable retail uses (as defined above) on the first floor; 10) That a minimum of 100 parking spaces be made available to the public per the development agreement; 11) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by staff; 12) That a complete permit application including site plans be submitted within six months of the purchase date; 13) That construction must commence within 240 days of closing on the property; 14) That the Certificate of Occupancy be issued within 18 months of the issuance of building permit; 15) That the final details of the "grillwork" in association with the parking garage be submitted to staff for approval prior to issuance of building permit, and it be designed to screen vehicles to a height of 3.5 feet; 16) That a Transportation Impact Fee be paid, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 17) That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 18) That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 19) That payment in lieu of stormwater facilities by paid, prior to the issuance of any permits; 20) That a final landscape which matches and complements the landscaping proposed for the Station Square Park redevelopment the Streetscaping Plan be submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 21) That a final Community Development 2004-01-20 6 . . . landscape plan for the west side Post Office site be submitted to and approved by staff prior to issuance of any permits, and including written permission by the Post Office; 22) That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be limited to attached signs on the canopies or attached directly to the building and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 23) That the furniture used for the outdoor seating component of the restaurant will be of the highest quality and that no signage of any kind will be included on any portion of the furniture including but not limited to the chairs, tables, planters and/or umbrellas (and submitted as part of a separate sidewalk cafe application); and 24) That all of the above conditions are applicable and fully enforceable for the life of the building. Concerns were expressed regarding the proposed elimination of required sight visibility triangles on either side of the driveway along Laura Street. Mr. Parry said adequate space on the side of the building and at the sidewalk will afford adequate views. It was stated vehicles will need to drive onto the sidewalk to see the street. It was suggested flipping the entire, symmetrical project, and locating the driveway at the current dumpster location would provide sight visibility triangles for exiting vehicles to view pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Concern was expressed staff imposes strict enforcement of sight visibility triangles in residential developments. Mr. Parry said the Downtown Redevelopment Plan encourages Downtown development and building construction to the lot lines. Traffic Engineering did not express concern regarding this issue. Concern was expressed staff had not considered an easy solution. Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce said staff had reviewed the project for compliance with many requirements. It was stated staff previously had expressed more concern regarding sight visibility triangles related to less dense projects. Concern was expressed the City is not treating all projects on the same level. Ms. Fierce said staff reviews every site separately. This project is part of urban development, where projects are built to property lines, without setbacks. The subject access will be gated and will provide sufficient room for drivers to view east/west traffic. Engineering Manager Scott Rice said a stop bar at the subject access will allow drivers to see the sidewalk and react to pedestrian traffic. It was stated the City is adamant regarding maintaining sight visibility triangles on streets with less traffic than Laura Street. It was felt the Code should be changed or other projects be treated equally. Ms. Fierce said the developer had requested this variance through the application. Staff thinks the request is justified but is requesting board approval. Concern was expressed the process needs review and sight visibility triangles need to be readdressed so that related requirements are not arbitrary. Development Review Manager Frank Gerlock said the City reviews Downtown core development differently, as the setting is urban and zero lot lines are permitted. There is no room at this project for sight visibility triangles. In response to a question, Mr. Rice said staff has had some discussion regarding adjustments to sight visibility triangles. Many issues need to be considered before changes are made so that loopholes are not opened. Mr. Parry reported a modification to recommended conditions had been distributed. The applicant agrees with the changes. In respons'e to a question, Ms. Fierce said the development will have owner occupied condominiums. A six-month minimum is required for the rental of Community Development 2004-01-20 7 . units. Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan Area Public Amenities Inceptive Pool units not used will be returned to the pool. In response to a question, Mr. Parry said Downtown design guidelines are being developed. This project will comply with the guidelines, including the requirement that commercial windows on Cleveland Street and Ft. Harrison not be completely covered by blinds or curtains. In response to a question, he said 100 spaces will remain available for the public. Acting Member Dennehy moved to approve Consent Agenda Item D2, Case FLD2003- 10056 for 628 Cleveland Street, with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. . 3. Case: FLD2003-12068/SGN2003-1 0020 - 500 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application Owner: Florida Clearwater Beach Hotel Company. Applicant: Hunter Hotel Company, Inc. Representative: E. D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A. (911 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727.461.1818; fax: 727.441.8617). Location: 5.5 acres located on the northwest corner of Baymont Street and Mandalay Avenue. Atlas Pages: 258A & 267 A. Zoning: T, Tourist District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit signage with a reduction to the front (east) setback along Mandalay Avenue from five feet to zero feet (to sign) and an increase to sign height from six feet to nine feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C and a Comprehensive Sign Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1807. Proposed Use: Existing sign age for the Clearwater Beach Hotel. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (Pres. David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone 727.446.5801). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner. Member Mazur declared a conflict of interest. This irregularly-shaped site of 5.5 total acres is at the northwest corner of Baymont Street and Mandalay Avenue. It includes 3.2 acres east of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and 2.3 acres west of the CCCL. A transfer of development rights (11.5 units) from that land area lying seaward of the CCCL was approved by the City Commission on November 6,1986, with five conditions. On March 5,1987, the City Manager certified minor revisions to the previously approved (by the City Commission) site plan with two additional conditions. The site is developed with eight overnight accommodation buildings, including seven, two-story buildings and the main, six-story building. The site is presently developed with 137 overnight accommodation rooms, whereas the maximum number of rooms permitted landward of the CCCL is 131 rooms. The density for the subject area is 41.6 rooms per acre, which exceeds the current land use maximum of 40 rooms per acre. On August 19, 2003, the CDB approved a Termination of Nonconformity for this site for density (41.6 rooms per acre) and the required number of parking spaces (95 spaces) (FLD2003-06026) with two conditions. Of relevance to this request, the following condition was adopted: "That existing freestanding signage be brought into conformance with Code requirements by October 19, 2003, or a . Community Development 2004-01-20 8 . Comprehensive Sign Program application shall be submitted to staff by October 19, 2003, to retain or modify these existing freestanding signs." The site presently has three freestanding signs: two signs located on and oriented toward Mandalay Avenue and one sign located on and oriented toward Baymont Street. The two signs located on Mandalay Avenue were approved through a sign variance granted on April 27, 1994 (SV 93-117; increase in number of signs to two signs). The sign located on and oriented toward Baymont Street was permitted in 1989. The applicant is requesting to retain existing signage in their present locations. Sections 3-1806. B.1. band 3-1806. B.2. b provide a five-foot setback for freestanding and monument signs. The sign in front (east side) of the hotel exceeds the five-foot setback, while the sign at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street is between 8.16 and 14.05 feet into the Mandalay Avenue right-of-way. The Comprehensive Sign Program does not provide the ability to reduce the minimum setback requirement. The applicant, therefore, has submitted the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application to reduce the setback requirement to zero feet for the sign at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street. . The applicant also is requesting to retain the existing signage at their present height. Section 3-1807.C.2Iimits the height of signage in the Tourist District to six feet. The height of the sign in front (east side) of the hotel is 6.08 feet. The height of the sign at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street is 9.08 feet. The height of the sign on Baymont Street is five feet. The Comprehensive Sign Program does not provide the ability to increase the maximum sign height. The applicant, therefore, has submitted the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application to increase the sign height for the two signs located on and oriented toward Mandalay Avenue to their present heights. The front portion of the hotel facing Mandalay Avenue was reconstructed in 1987 with habitable space above ground level parking. A porte-cochere was constructed on the first floor with ramps for vehicular access from ground elevation. This elevation provided for a terracing landscape effect along Mandalay Avenue. The sign in front (east side) of the hotel is located within this terraced landscape area. The height was measured at the sign location, even though the sign is located approximately six feet above the sidewalk within the Mandalay Avenue right- of-way. This sign is well integrated into the landscape design on this side of the hotel and does not detract from the overall visual appearance along Mandalay Avenue. The sign at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street is 9.08 feet high and is restricted in its ability to be relocated. The height of the sign was lowered from its prior height of 11 feet after the approval of the sign variance in 1994, but is a nonconforming sign height according to current Code provisions. This portion of the site is angled, as Mandalay Avenue bends to the east at this point. Some of the actual parking surface is at a zero feet setback to this property line. A sewer lift station is located close to this intersection and is screened by shrubbery to obscure the above ground structures. A mast arm traffic signal structure, pedestrian crosswalk signal structure, and traffic control pedestal structure are located at this intersection. Various trees are also located at this intersection. The sign is positioned to be viewed by northbound vehicular traffic only. This orientation of the sign and the existing obstructions restrict the ability to relocate this sign. Signs must be located on-site at a five-foot setback and outside the sight visibility triangle. This sign's location within the Mandalay Avenue right-of-way has been reviewed by the City's Engineering Department. The Engineering . Community Development 2004-01-20 9 . Department does not object to the existing sign location within the right-of-way, until such time the City Engineer determines the sign must be relocated. Should future relocation of this sign, more than normal maintenance of this sign, or a change of use of the property be necessary, the sign will need to be reconstructed in compliance with Code provisions in effect at that time (setback, height, etc.). Due to the construction and materials of this sign, refacing (change of sign message or panel) of this sign is not possible and such change would require compliance with Code provisions. The three freestanding signs meet sign area requirements under the Comprehensive Sign Program. The sign in front (east side) of the hotel is 6.08 feet high and a total of 48 square feet (not 39.96 square-feet as submitted by the applicant). The sign at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street is 9.08 feet high and is a total of 37 square-feet (not 44.4 square-feet as submitted by the applicant, due to allowances for the street address). The total sign area for these two signs is 85 square-feet. Section 3-1807.C.4.ii provides that the maximum area of all freestanding signs cannot exceed that permitted by the street frontage or building fa<;:ade calculations set forth in Section 3-1806.B.1.c.i and ii. Based on the linear street frontage calculation, the sign area of these existing two signs located on Mandalay Avenue is 85 square-feet, which is less than the permitted sign area. The sign on Baymont Street is five-feet high and a total of 15 square-feet (not the 12.72 square-feet as submitted by the applicant), which is less than the permitted sign area. All freestanding signs are of a consistent/coordinated style and color (green background with white/beige lettering). . The request meets the criteria of the Comprehensive Sign Program, as these signs are not unattractive and have been integrated into the design of the site and architecture of the buildings. Additionally, due to the site constraints on the sign at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street, the request complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project and General Applicability Criteria. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit signage with a reduction to the front (east) setback along Mandalay Avenue from five feet to zero feet (to sign) and an increase to sign height from six feet to nine feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C and a Comprehensive Sign Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1807 for the site at 500 Mandalay Avenue, with the following bases and condition: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area; and 4) The proposal is in compliance with the criteria as a Comprehensive Sign Program per Section 3-1807 AND Condition of Approval: 1) That the existing sign at the intersection of Mandalay Avenue and Baymont Street be allowed to remain in its current condition within the street right-of-way under the following provisions: a) Such location shall be allowed until such time the City Engineer determines the sign must be relocated. The City shall provide a 30-day notice to the owner that the sign must be relocated; b) The owner shall submit a completed right-of-way permit to the City within 30 days of the CDB decision; c) In the event future relocation is required by the City or requested by the owner, the sign shall be reconstructed to meet Code provisions at that time (setback, height, etc.); d) Any improvement beyond normal repair and maintenance, including any refacing of the sign, shall require compliance with Code provisions (setback, height, etc.); and e) Any future change of use shall require compliance with Code provisions (setback, height, etc.). . Community Development 2004-01-20 10 . Member Moran moved to approve Consent Agenda Item 03, Case FLD2003-12068/ SGN2003-10020 for 500 Mandalay Avenue with Bases of Approval and Condition of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Doran, Moran, Plisko, Milam, Acting Board Member Dennehy, and Chair Hooper voted "Aye": Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. Case: ANX2003-10025 -1416 Satsuma Street Owner/Applicant: Remzi Dalip (727.461.5039). Location: 0.21-acre located on the north side of Satsuma Street, approximately 500 feet east of South Hillcrest Avenue. Atlas Page: 307 A. Request: a) Annexation of 0.21-acre to the City of Clearwater; b) Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to the Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from the R3, Single Family Residential District to the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Existing single-family dwelling. Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. Item pulled from Consent Agenda Level Three Application 4. . Planner Marc Mariano reviewed the request. The subject property is at 1416 Satsuma Street on the north side of the street, approximately 500 feet east of South Hillcrest Avenue. The applicant is requesting this annexation to receive City solid waste service. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the north; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is approximately 0.21 acre in area and is occupied by an existing single-family detached dwelling. It is proposed that the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. If sewer service becomes available to the site in the future, the applicant is aware of the assessment and impact fee payments required for sewer connection. The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Pinellas Planning Council's Countywide Plan Rules with regard to both the Future Land Use Map and the goals and policies. The existing and proposed use of this site as a single-family detached dwelling 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 concentration. Based on its analysis, staff recommends approval of the annexation of property at 1416 Satsuma Street, approval of the Residential Low (RL) category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, and approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. . Community Development 2004-01-20 11 . One resident spoke in opposition to the request. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the request meets all requirements for voluntary annexation, adding the City does not pursue involuntary annexations. It was stated this annexation has no bearing on the status of neighboring properties. Member Dennehy moved to recommend approval of Consent Agenda Item 04, Case ANX2003-1 0025 for 1416 Satsuma Street. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. Case: ANX2003-10026 -149 Baywood Avenue Level Three Application Owner/Applicant Chunilall & Yvonne Singh. Location: 0.16-acre located on the east side of Baywood Avenue, approximately 250 feet south of Drew Street. Atlas Page: 290A. Request a) Annexation of 0.16-acre to the City of Clearwater; b) Land Use Plan amendment from the RU, Residential Urban Category (County) to the RU, Residential Urban Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from the R3, Single Family Residential District (County) to the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Existing single-family dwelling. Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. . The subject property is on the east side of Baywood Avenue, approximately 250 feet south of Drew Street. The applicant is requesting this annexation to receive City sewer. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the south, east and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is approximately 0.16-acre in area and is occupied by a single-family dwelling. It is proposed that the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential. The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The applicant has paid the required sanitary sewer impact fee and assessment fee and is also aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City sewer system. The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan with regard to both the Future Land Use Map as well as the goals and policies. The existing and proposed use of this site as a single-family detached dwelling 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. Based on its analysis, staff recommends approval of the annexation of the property at 149 Baywood Avenue, approval of the Residential Urban (RU) category pursuant to the City's . Community Development 2004-01-20 12 . Comprehensive Plan, and approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. AND 6. Case: ANX2003-1 0027 - 24698 U.S. Highway 19 North Level Three Application Owners: George C. Clark Investments, LTD. Representatives: Keith A. Lawes, Global Financial Investments, LLC (300 6th Street North, Suite 7, Safety Harbor, Florida 34695, email: klawes@tampabaV.rr.com; phone: 727.723.0038; cell: 727.515.7070); Todd Pressman, Pressman & Associates, Inc. (28870 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 300, Clearwater, Florida 33761; phone: 727.726.8683; fax: 727.669.8114). Location: 10.67 -acres located on the east and west sides of Lawson Road, approximately 350 feet west of U.S. Highway 19 and 1,200 feet north of Sunset Point Road. Atlas Page: 254B. Request: Annexation of 13.03-acres to the City of Clearwater to be included as part of a pending land use and zoning case (LUZ2003-10011). Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Association: On Top of the World Homeowners Association (Ken Colen, President, 8700 SW 99th Street, Ocala, Florida 34481, phone: 904.854.0805). Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. . This annexation involves a 13.03-acre portion of a parcel located on the east and west sides of Lawson Road and the north side of Sunset Point Road, approximately 350 feet west of U.S. Highway 19 and 1,200 feet north of Sunset Point Road. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the south and east; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation to include the site as part of a development project planned to be developed with attached dwellings. All required impact fees will be paid at the time building permits are issued. A companion application to change the Future Land Use Plan category of this site from Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) (County), Residential Urban (RU) (County) & Water/Drainage Feature (County) to Residential Medium (RM) (City) & Water/Overlay Feature (City), and to rezone it from the CP1, Commercial Parkway District (County) and the R6, Residential, Mobile Home Parks and Subdivision District (County) to the MDR, Medium Density Residential (City) District also is being processed. 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 proposed annexation is consistent with both the City's Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and eliminates an enclave. Based on its analysis, staff recommends approval of the annexation of property at 24698 U.S. Highway 19 North. . Community Development 2004-01-20 13 . . . AND 7. Leve/ Three Application Case: LUZ2003-10011 - 2520 Sunset Point Road and 24698 U.S. Highway 19 North Owners: George C. Clark Investments, LTD. Representatives: Keith A. Lawes, Global Financial Investments, LLC (300 6th Street North, Suite 7, Safety Harbor, Florida 34695, email: klawes@tampabaV.rr.com; phone: 727.723.0038; cell: 727.515.7070); Todd Pressman, Pressman & Associates, Inc. (28870 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 300, Clearwater, Florida 33761; phone: 727.726.8683; fax: 727.669.8114). Location: 24.05-acres located on the east and west sides of Lawson Road and the north side of Sunset Point Road, approximately 350 feet west of U.S. Highway 19. Atlas Page: 2548. Request: a) Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) Classification (County), the Residential Urban (RU) Classification (County), the Water/Drainage Feature (County), the Commercial General (CG) Classification (City) and the Residential Low Medium (RLM) Classification (City) to the Residential Medium (RM) Classification (City) and the WaterlDrainage Overlay (City) (pending ANX2003-10027); and b) Rezoning from the CP1, Commercial Parkway District (County), the R6, Residential, Mobile Home Parks and Subdivision District (County), the C, Commercial District (City) and the MHP, Mobile Home Park District (City) to the MDR, Medium Density Residential District (City) (pending ANX2003-1 0027). Proposed Use: Attached dwellings. Neighborhood Association: On Top of the World Homeowners Association (Ken Colen, President, 8700 SW 99th Street, Ocala, Florida 34481; Phone: 904.854.0805). Land Use Plan Amendment Category: Large Scale. Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. This Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning application involves two parcels of land, approximately 24.05-acres in area, containing 138 mobile home units. The applicant is the landowner of the entire site and rents the majority of the mobile home units on a monthly basis, with approximately 30 units being owned by separate persons. The applicant's representative has indicated that a Mobile Home Park Relocation Specialist has been acquired to handle the relocation of the residents of the park, as required by Florida Statute, Chapter 723, Mobile Home Park Tenancies. The site has Future Land Use Plan designations of Residential/Office/ Retail (R/O/R) (County), Residential Urban (RU) (County), WaterlDrainage Feature (County), Commercial General (CG) (City), Residential Low Medium (RLM) (City) and WaterlDrainage Overlay (City), as well as zoning classifications of the CP1, Commercial Parkway District (County), the R6, Residential, Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions District (County), the C, Commercial District (City) and the MHP, Mobile Home Parks District (City). The applicant is requesting to amend the Future Land Use Plan designation of this site to the Residential Medium (RM) and WaterlDrainage Overlay classifications and to rezone it to the MDR, Medium Density Residential District to allow the development of approximately 300 attached dwellings. A companion application to annex a portion of this property into the City of Clearwater is being processed concurrently with this land use plan amendment and rezoning (ANX2003-10027). In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting as the Community Development 2004-01-20 14 . Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the acreage and density involved in this plan amendment, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs is required. An amendment to the Future Land Use Plan from the Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) (County), Residential Urban (RU) (County), Water/Drainage Feature (County), Commercial General (CG) (City), Residential Low Medium (RLM) (City) and Water/Drainage Overlay (City) to the Residential Medium (RM) (City) and Water/Drainage Overlay (City) and a rezoning from the CP1, Commercial Parkway District (County), the R6, Residential, Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions District (County), the C, Commercial District (City) and the MHP, Mobile Home Parks District (City) to the MDR, Medium Density Residential District (City) (pending ANX2003- 08021) for the subject property is requested in order to develop attached dwellings on the site. The site is surrounded by retail and restaurant uses to the south; Progress Energy high-tension power lines to the immediate west, with multi-family dwellings beyond; retail, outdoor recreation/entertainment, warehouse and multi-family dwelling to the east; and multi-family dwelling uses to the north. The proposed Residential Medium (RM) and Water/Drainage Overlay Future Land Use Plan classifications and MDR, Medium Density Residential zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor affect the provision of public services, is compatible with the natural environment, and is consistent with the development regulations of the City. . The Planning Department recommends approval to amend the Future Land Use Plan designation for 2520 Sunset Point Road and 24698 US 19 North from the Residential/ Office/Retail (R/O/R) (County), Residential Urban (RU) (County), Water/Drainage Feature (County), Commercial General (CG) (City), Residential Low Medium (RLM) (City) and Water/Drainage Overlay (City) to the Residential Medium (RM) (City) and Water/Drainage Overlay (City) (pending ANX2003-1 0027) and amend the zoning district designation for 2520 Sunset Point Road and 24698 US 19 North from the CP1, Commercial Parkway District (County), the R6, Residential, Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions District (County), the C, Commercial District (City) and the MHP, Mobile Home Parks District (City) to the MDR, Medium Density Residential District (City) (pending ANX2003-08021). AND 8. Case: ANX2003-10028 - 2941 & 2945 Sunset Point Road Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Spear and Shirley Johnson. Representative: Philip Rogers, Realty Executive (3090 Charles Avenue, phone: 727.726.3333 ext. 103; fax: 727.726.8190). Location: 3.25-acres located on at the southeast corner of Sunset Point Road and County Road 193. Atlas Page: 255B. Request: a) Annexation of 3.25-acres to the City of Clearwater; b) Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to the Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and c) Rezoning from the AE, Agricultural Estate Residential District (County) and the R2, Single Family Residential District to the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District (City of Clearwater). . Community Development 2004-01-20 15 . Proposed Use: Single-family dwellings. Neighborhood Association: Forest Wood Homeowners Association (Ed Beck, President, 1850 Oak Forest Drive South, Clearwater, Florida 33759; phone: 727.769.1459). Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. The subject property is at 2941 and 2945 Sunset Point Road, at the southeast corner of Sunset Point Road and County Road 193. The applicant is requesting this annexation to receive City services and develop the site with single-family detached dwellings. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the east; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is approximately 3.2 acres in area and is occupied by an existing single-family detached dwelling. It is proposed the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential. The proposed annexation can be served by City services, including sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The applicant is aware of the assessment fee and impact fee payments required for sewer connection, as well as any additional costs to extend City sewer service to the property. The proposed annexation and existing and proposed uses are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Pinellas Planning Council's Countywide Plan Rules with regard to both the Future Land Use Map, as well as the goals and policies. The proposed use of this site as single-family dwellings is consistent with the LMDR zoning district. The proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County law regarding voluntary annexation. . Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of the annexation of the property located at 2941 & 2945 Sunset Point Road, approval of the Residential Low (RL) category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, and approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code. AND 9. Level Three Application Case: ANX2003-12033 - First Street East road Right-of-Way Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department (100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727.562.4567; fax: 727.562.4865). Location: 0.22-acre of road right-of-way located at the southerly most section of First Street East, approximately 100 feet south of Second Avenue North and 600 feet east of Chautauqua Avenue. Atlas Page: 233A. Request: Annexation of 0.22-acre of road right-of-way to the City of Clearwater. Proposed Use: Vacation. Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. . The subject site is at the southerly most portion of the First Street East right-of-way, approximately 100 feet south of Second Avenue North and 600 feet east of Chautauqua Avenue. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to vacate this unimproved section of First Street East and include it as part of their proposed development of 46 single-family Community Development 2004-01-20 16 . attached dwellings (FLS2003-1 0054/PL T2003-00013). The right-of-way is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the south, east and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is approximately 0.22-acre in area and only provides access to the current property owner's site. As the property would be annexed in as road right-of-way, no Future Land Use Plan designation or zoning category would apply. The road right-of-way proposed for annexation will be serviced and maintained by the City of Clearwater, without any adverse effect on the service level. As application only proposes to annex road right-of-way, no sanitary sewer or water connection is required. The proposed annexation and proposed use are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan. The proposed annexation is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and is compact in concentration. Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of the annexation of the First Street East road right-of-way. Member Doran moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 01, Case: FLD2003-08037 for 3080 Allen Avenue, with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, and to recommend approval of 05, Case: ANX2003-10026 for 149 Baywood Avenue, 06, Case ANX2003-10027 for 24698 US Highway 19 North, 07, Case LUZ2003-10011 for 2520 Sunset Point Road and 24698 US Highway 19 North, 08, Case ANX2003-1 0028 for 2941 and 2945 Sunset Point Road, and 09, Case ANX2003-12003 for First Avenue East road right-of-way. . The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. NON-CONSENT AGENDA (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2003-09042 - 1575 South Highland Avenue Level Two Application Owners/Applicant: Griffin International, Inc. (186 Bayside Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727.444.4495; fax: 727.444.4496; e-mail: D4444495@aol.com). Location: 8.5 acres located on the northeast corner of Belleair Road and Highland Avenue. Atlas Page: 315A. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages on a parcel of land contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residentially-zoned property in the Zoning Atlas, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C. Proposed Use: Alcoholic beverage sales within a 2,100 square-foot tenant space located in an existing shopping center. Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner Planner Bryan Berry reviewed the request. This case was continued from the December 16, 2003, meeting by the applicant due to a conflict in the proposed store hours between the applicant and City staff. . Community Development 2004-01-20 17 . . . The 8.5-acre site is on the east side of South Highland Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of Seabreeze Street. The proposed use (alcoholic beverage sales) will occupy 2,100 square-feet of space in the LaBelle Shopping Plaza. There is a mixture of retail and office currently within the plaza. Adjacent to the east are attached dwellings in the Low Medium Density Residential District as designated in the Zoning Atlas. The first criterion regarding the proposed use is that the location of alcoholic beverage sales is not to be contiguous to a parcel of land, which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas. Because the applicant cannot meet this criterion, the application is being filed as a Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Project under Section 2-704.C. The LaBelle Plaza is at the intersection of South Highland Avenue and Belleair Road. The parcel can be accessed from South Highland Avenue, Belleair Road and Nursery Road. There currently are 501 parking spaces on the parcel at an average of 5.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of the total building area. This provides a sufficient amount of parking for all retail and office uses. A Publix Supermarket anchors the 87.357 square-foot LaBelle Plaza. The proposed use (sale of alcoholic beverages) will occupy approximately two percent (2,100 square-feet) of the total square footage of LaBelle Plaza. Given the scale of the proposed use in relation to the size of the existing commercial shopping plaza, the use of alcoholic beverage sales is subordinate in nature. Located along the east property line is a six-foot high, solid wooden privacy fence that buffers the existing plaza from adjacent residential properties. This buffer along the property line and scale of the proposed use in relation to the plaza establishes the proposed use (sale of alcoholic beverages) as a compatible use with adjacent land uses. The sale of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, and liquor) will provide a retail service that is presently not available to the surrounding community. The Pinellas County Property Appraiser records reveal the current assessed property value to be $7,200,000 (LaBelle Plaza). The proposed use should have no effect on existing neighboring property values. , The proposed hours of operation by the applicant are 10:00 a.m. to midnight, Monday through Saturday, and 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. The hours of operation for the Publix Supermarket (anchor tenant) located in LaBelle Plaza are from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. The department is requiring the hours of operation be limited to no later than 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. The applicant is proposing one sign in red channel letters to be attached to the building fagade above the store frontage. This is characteristic of existing signage at LaBelle Plaza. The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review Committee on October 30, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages on a parcel of land contiguous to a parcel of land designated as residential in the zoning atlas as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under Section 2-704.C., on the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Project per Section 2-704.C.; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913.; and 3) The use is compatible with the surrounding area; AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That the attached signage meet the requirements of Code including red channel letters and any tenant panel on the freestanding signs be compatible with similar style, color, material and other characteristics Community Development 2004-01-20 18 . to provide a sense of uniformity with LaBelle Plaza; and 2) That the proposed business (sale of alcoholic beverages) hours of operation not extend beyond 9:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday. Dushyant Gulati, owner of LaBelle Plaza, said the shopping center is well buffered from the roads. He said the shopping center features a mix of tenants but there is a demand for a liquor store. He said alcohol has been sold at the site for many years. This request is for a package liquor store. While he has no one line up for the store, he said he has received many requests to open a liquor store in this location. In reference to resident concerns, he said sales of alcohol to teenagers is a separate issue. Three people spoke in opposition to the request. Staff will review mailing labels used to notice this meeting, to verify that all residents within 500 feet of the shopping center were sent notices. In response to a question, Mr. Gerlock said the Code combines regulations related to many types of liquor licenses. Staff felt a package store is compatible, as no consumption of alcoholic beverages will occur onsite. Publix already offers wine and beer for sale. A six-foot privacy fence separates the neighborhood from the shopping center, which requests a small amount of space for the proposed use. Ms. Fierce recommended a reduction in the proposed hours of operation be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Mr. Gulati said there have no problems at the Walgreens at Missouri and Belleair, which sold liquor and is not buffered from nearby residences. He agreed to recommended hours of operation. The application limits the size of the liquor store to 2,100 square-feet. . Member Mazur moved to approve Agenda Item D1, Case FLD2003-09042 for 1575 South Highland Avenue. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Member Doran moved to approve the Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed regarding Agenda Item D1, Case FLD2003-09042 for 1575 South Highland Avenue. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL ONE APPEALS (Items 1-2) 1. Case: APP2003-00006 - 18627 US Highway 19 N Owners: Steak 'n Shake, Inc. Applicants/Appellants: Steak 'n Shake, Inc. Representative: Todd Pressman (28870 US Highway 19 N, # 300, Clearwater, FL 33761, phone: 727.726.8673, fax: 727.785.3179). Location: 1.207 acres, located on the east side of US Highway 19 North, south of the intersection with Nursery Road. Atlas Page: 318A. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Proposed Use: The existing restaurant is proposed to remain. Request: Appeal of the decision of a Comprehensive Sign Program (SGN2003-07025) to deny an application proposing one freestanding sign (monument-style), 56 square-feet, 12 feet in height. All other existing signs are proposed to remain on site. Neighborhood Association: Bay Aristocrat Village (Ron Barnes, 18675 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater, FL 33764, phone 727.531.4906, e-mail patbar@aol.com). . Community Development 2004-01-20 19 . Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Senior Planner. The site is 1.207 acres, on the east side of US 19 North, south of the intersection of Nursery Road. It has approximately 180 feet of frontage on US 19 North. The site also fronts on a private road, which leads to Bay Aristocrat Village. The site has been developed with a 3,960 square-foot restaurant (Steak In Shake). The design of the building is typical of other Steak In Shake restaurants in the Tampa Bay region (white building, flat roof, red awnings and black and white awnings). The site has two curbs cuts, one on US 19 North and the other on the private access roadway leading to Bay Aristocrat Village, and is zoned C, Commercial District. This case is an appeal of a Level One decision that denied a Comprehensive Sign Program application proposing one freestanding sign (monument-style), 56 square-foot, 12 feet in height. . The appellants filed this appeal on December 1, 2003. Section 4-501.A.3 of the Community Development Code states that the COB has the authority to hear appeals from Level One approval decisions. Section 4-502.A provides that an appeal of a Level One approval (Flexible Standard Development) may be initiated by an applicant or property owner within the required notice area and who presented competent substantial evidence in the Level One review within seven days of the date the Development Order is issued. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. Section 4-504.B states that upon receipt of the application/notice of appeal, the COB shall place the appeal on the Consent Agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the COB. Notice of the date of such meeting shall be provided the applicant and the appellants by mail and by telephone. The appeal may be removed from the Consent Agenda only by a vote of at least four members of the COB. If the appeal is not removed from the Consent Agenda, the decision of the Community Development Coordinator is confirmed as part of the Consent Agenda by a vote of the majority of the members of the COB. If the appeal is removed from the Consent Agenda, the COB shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application in accord with Section 4-206 (notice and public hearings) and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206.0.5 granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal. Pursuant to Section 4-504.C of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the COB shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Community Development Code; 2) That the decision will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the lease on the on-site billboard is up in August 2004. The City has not heard from the billboard company's attorney regarding this lease. Staff supports permitting the requested signage only after the billboard has been removed. Representative Todd Pressman said Steak In Shake owns the subject parcel, controls the billboard, and has a window of opportunity to remove the billboard. He reviewed the location of the restaurant at the intersection of US 19 North and a private roadway accessing . Community Development 2004-01-20 20 . Bay Aristocrat, a mobile home park. He proposed installing a 12-foot by 8-foot freestanding sign at the center of the property. He said the 400 square-foot billboard on the edge of the property will be removed. He said Steak In Shake filed notice with Viacom in March 2003 to pursue termination of the billboard lease as of August 31, 2004. Mr. Pressman said the owner wants to erect the sign now to improve business as the site's production is far below the average Steak In Shake restaurant. He said the site is difficult, on a high-speed highway, and requires a high degree of visibility. Nearby businesses have closed. He said the restaurant inherited the billboard lease when it purchased the property. He could not guarantee the restaurant will remain in business for another six months. In response to a question, Senior Planner Michael Reynolds said the restaurant was constructed in 1997. The billboard was onsite at that time. Mr. Pressman said Steak In Shake wants to erect the new sign now, and will accept a condition requiring removal of the billboard on August 31,2004. He said Steak In Shake does not intend to retain 456 square-feet of signage onsite. He said staff would not accept the premise that the billboard signage will come down. Development Review Manager Frank Gerlock said staff reviews what exists on a property. . Ms. Dougall-Sides said this billboard is protected by law and can stay up. She expressed concern a legislative provision could delay the billboard's removal. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said Steak In Shake may have the best intentions to remove the billboard in seven months, but the City cannot be certain the restaurant will remain at the location until then. Steak In Shake has not provided the City with a written statement from the billboard company indicating the billboard will be removed. Steak In Shake can begin the process to add signage in July. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Community Development Coordinator can determine the appropriateness of the requested signage once the billboard is removed. In response to a suggestion that the board require Steak In Shake to post a performance bond to remove the sign, Ms. Tarapani indicated the billboard owner is not at the table. The requested signage exceeds the maximum permitted on site by more than 5%. Mr. Pressman suggested a condition could specify the signage is for Steak In Shake only, not for another user. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said temporary signage is limited to 30 days for grand openings and special events. In response to a suggestion that Steak In Shake rent its own billboard to advertise its location, Mr. Pressman said that would pull visibility away from the site. It was noted the requested signage probably would be approved if the billboard was not present. Ms. Tarapani said staff supports the right for people to submit applications. Concern was expressed the billboard company may not allow the billboard to be removed. It was stated staff had made their decision based on Code. It was stated the City cannot afford to deal with the unknown. Acting Member Dennehy moved to uphold staff's decision and deny the appeal, Agenda Item F1, Case: APP2003-00006 for 18627 US 19 N. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. Case: APP2003-00007 - 333 Midway Island Owners/Applicants: Charles and Judy Melges (333 Midway Island, Clearwater, FL, 33767; phone: 727.447.5324; fax: 727.442.6523). Location: 0.22 acre on the east side of Midway Island, approximately 1,800 feet north of Windward Passage. Atlas Page: 211 B. . Community Development 2004-01-20 21 . . . Zoning: IEOD, Island Estates Overlay District; LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District. Proposed Use: Six-foot wooden fence within the waterfront sight visibility triangle. Request: Appeal of the decision of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) that denied an application to permit a six-foot solid wooden fence along the side (south) property line at 333 Midway Island and terminating eight feet from the rear (southeast) property line within the waterfront sight visibility triangle, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1602. E.2 Neighborhood Association: Island Estates Civic Association Attn: John Bosmosky (PO Box 3154 Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727.461.7037). Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner. The 0.22-acre site is on the east side of Midway Island, approximately 1,800 feet north of Windward Passage. The parcel is in the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential Zoning District and the IEOD, Island Estates Overlay District. This case is an appeal of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) that denied an application to permit a six-foot, solid wooden fence along the side (south) property line at 333 Midway Island and terminating eight feet from the rear (southeast) property line within the waterfront sight visibility triangle, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1601.E.2 Case FLS2003-1 0052. The application was considered by the Development Review Committee at its meeting on December 4, 2003. A Development Order was issued denying the request on December 8, 2003. The appellants filed this appeal on December 17, 2003. Section 4-501.A.3 of the Community Development Code states that the COB has the authority to hear appeals from Level One decisions. Section 4-502.A provides that an appeal of a Level One approval (Flexible Standard Development) may be initiated by an applicant or property owner within the required notice area and who presented competent substantial evidence in the Level One review within seven days of the date the Development Order is issued. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. Section 4-504. B states that upon receipt of the application/notice of appeal, the COB shall place the appeal on the Consent Agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the COB. Notice of the date of such meeting shall be provided the applicant and the appellants by mail and by telephone. The appeal may be removed from the Consent Agenda only by a vote of at least four members of the COB. If the appeal is not removed from the Consent Agenda, the decision of the Community Development Coordinator is confirmed as part of the Consent Agenda by a vote of the majority of the members of the COB. If the appeal is removed from the Consent Agenda, the COB shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application in accordance with Section 4-206 (notice and public hearings) and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206.0.5 granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal. Pursuant to Section 4-504.C of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the COB shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Community Development Code; 2) That the decision will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose Community Development 2004-01-20 22 . of the Community Development Code; and 3) Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. In response to a question, Planner Bryan Berry said to comply, the fence must adhere to the visibility triangle by being non opaque and not exceeding three feet in height within 20 feet of the seawall property line. Mr. Gerlock said 20 feet of the fence exceeds 36 inches in height. Staff discussion ensued to determine the visibility triangle's dimensions. The meeting recessed from 3:19 to 4:26 p.m. Mr. Berry said the fence must be non-opaque but can be 48 inches in height, as it abuts a swimming pool. . Applicant Judy Melges said in 1997, she had contracted with DeFence to construct a 6- foot fence. The City issued a permit for the fence, which extended from her gate and tapered down toward the sea wall. She said her neighbors had discussed with her their desire to install a fence next to their new swimming pool. Ms. Melges said her neighbors never advised her of the style or height of PVC fencing they had chosen. She said on or about June 1, 2003, when she and her husband were out of town, a fence company hired by her neighbors had removed her fence. She said the following day that fence company began to install a PVC fence. She said removal of her wooden fence has impacted her privacy and allows neighbors to look into one of her bedrooms. She said the PVC fence was erected without a permit, had to be adjusted to meet Code, and encroaches on her property. She said she contacted her fence company and had her fence replaced on July 10, 2003. She said the City then cited her neighbor for installing a fence without a permit and also cited her for installing an illegal fence. She displayed photographs of her previous fence that was installed prior to her neighbors' purchase of their property and indicated she only wants to replace what was destroyed. She said her fence met Code when installed. She said the City had indicated this is a civil case. In response to a question, Mr. Gerlock said the previous fence did not meet current Code requirements and was nonconforming. The City could not have ordered the property owner to remove it. Island Estates has many nonconforming properties. In response to a question, Ms. Melges said if her request is denied, she could sue her neighbors for damages. Discussion ensued regarding fence location requirements for waterfront property in Island Estates, an NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District). It was noted that someone had removed the Melges' fence without their approval or knowledge and constructed a fence on her property. Mr. Gerlock said the location of the fence is not the City's issue. James Lathrup, Ms. Melges' next-door neighbor, said his new fence conforms to Code and NCOD requirements. He said the Melgeses had requested he repair a portion of their fence that was damaged during construction of his swimming pool. He said he had discussed replacing the subject fence with the Melgeses. He said Mr. Melges was at home when the subject fence was removed. He said he had not obtained a permit to install his fence upon advice of his fence company. He found that to be false and paid a triple fine to obtain the permit. He said the wooden fence later installed by the Melgeses obstructs his northward view of the water. Michelle Lathrup said the wooden fence lowers her property value as it blocks a desirable view. It was observed there is little difference in the water view from the Lathrup property between the Melges' previous and current fences. Mr. Lathrup said he paid $4,000 to install the new fence, stating the PVC fence is more desirable than the wooden one it replaced. . Community Development 2004-01-20 23 . . . He said he would not have invested in a new fence if the old wooden fence was not removed. Mr. Lathrup suggested the bedroom mentioned by Ms. Melges is not used by her daughter and would be afforded privacy if blinds were installed. He thought the previous wood fence had been removed by mutual consent. In response to a question, staff indicated they will report on the minimum setback required for a six-foot fence on waterfront lots in the Island Estates NCOD. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed the Code related to fences. If more than 50% of a fence is destroyed, its replacement must meet current Code. Fence panels may be replaced for maintenance as long as the posts are not removed. The posts for the original wood fence had been removed and the fence is 100% gone. She said the property owner has no right to replace a nonconforming fence, regardless of the reasons for its destruction. Discussion ensued regarding neighborhood fences. Ms. Melges said other properties on Midway Island feature six-foot fences that extend to the waterfront. In response to a question, Ms. Melges said her neighbor's fence company had removed her entire fence, which she objected to. In response to a question, Mr. Gerlock said the City permits two fences to be installed next to one another. Concern was expressed the City inspector had not looked closely for the "X" on the seawall, which identifies property lines, to determine if the location of the fence was appropriate. It was recommended the inspector reevaluate the location of the fence. It was stated when the Code was drafted, it did not consider vigilante Code enforcement. Concern was expressed denial of this request will encourage neighbors to destroy nonconforming uses that impact their properties and similar actions will continue. It was stated this issue is troubling. It was felt Ms. Melges should have the right to replace her fence but Code will not allow that action. It was felt the Melgeses have been wronged. Acting Member Dennehy moved to uphold staff's decision and deny the appeal, Agenda Item F2, Case: APP2003-00007 for 333 Midway Island. The motion was duly seconded. Members Doran, Mazur, Milam, Acting Board Member Dennehy, and Chair Hooper voted "Aye"; Members Moran and Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried. G. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: Next meeting date - February 17, 2004 Deborah Groen Soboleski Appeal Ms. Dougall-Sides reported Christopher Mariani has indicated he will not pursue an appeal of the Order granting a Petition for Certiorari to Deborah Groen Soboleski but may submit a new application in the future. The City has decided not to appeal this action but will address concerns by Code amendment. Procedures In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said appeal hearings should adhere to time restrictions and procedures established for quasi-judicial hearings. Community Development 2004-01-20 24 . ADJOURNMENT . . The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. ~7YldJ-w Board Reporter Community Development 2004-01-20 Chair Community Development 25 o ELECTIVE . 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, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a votin~ conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure inwhich you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which .. ures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- Ire which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the ~arent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associ.i'lte. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 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 "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, 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 officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate 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 conflict: 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 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voti~g in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made .YOU or at your direction. I . YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CEFORM8B-EF~1~OOO PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting atter the form is filed. .. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE M!;ETING: · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of th meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting atter the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I. d~oj /11 j .,r ..r.. . hereby disclose 'ha. on 0/ (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ~nured to the special gain or loss of ~ whom I am "retained; or ~ ,20~ 'f4:,YY\ ~ 51 Vc.("'G- de, , by inured to the special gain or loss 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 conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: ,which Jfe~ fL)) Z-O(l 3 - Joo5S ~ 2001}174-1 64!;" b~ 8td . 1J.~ C--r:o rLL~;r- ~4 LH.4 -ft;. ~-f ~ -tt!.. .:..::t:I ~ tL~. .. ;-- Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACH.;r REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, .. A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS THE BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WH CH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: o ELECTIVE MY POSITION IS: . 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, councill commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a votin~ conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. I Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure inwhich you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly dependin on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form befor completing the reverse side and filing the form. - INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which 'nures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- Jre which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the arent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special. private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 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 "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, 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 officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate 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 conflict: 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 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes 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 matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made ..YOU or at your direction. YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . · You must disclose orally the nature of your contlict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of th meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. I, _ Sthk. LL/, DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST /Y} tJ /t /J-JJ ,hereby disclose that on F c6 I ? ,2cl)L (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of 131::::.( -I<.l~T L.rt .J!.E whom I am retained; or Do .6 tIS /;.J ~~ CA.J I 'r7T. :f- LtJ o("\. t<.yt~- , by inured to the special gain or loss 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 conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: . which . Date Filed ~/ 17/tJLj NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACH~.'J' REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, ,~ CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 86 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 - FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS /tJ;;:- THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: o ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE MY POSITION IS: 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, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a votin~ conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. ' Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. ' INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which 'nures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local ()fficer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- ue which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 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 "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, 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 officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate 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 conflict: 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 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes 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 matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made .' you or at your direction. YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: . You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF, 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of th meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, S'th1<-L7' IYJ 0 ~ I1-'A.../ ,hereby disclose that on Fet1 /7 ,20 Q!L (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, :i inured to the special gain or loss of (l1)/'Y'J/'1(uv /;-y ~ SL-7: LI; " (-/.,':=- 10 t:oJOn-l/ dttl whom I am Fetailled; or R- --r--/<.. ~ .$7C.c: () F 77T E: ,t5 0 ~ I . by inured to the special gain or loss 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 conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: ,which . Date Filed c2f 7/0 Y NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACH.;r, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, . A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR li lAST<?9~~!AM~~M~~NN!CI~AL AND OTH~~F~~~}~C~~~~~R~~~I~o/RS , ,. t/(L ;:: we::. rof ., . , V/f'",h, - f5d a. ~G ADDRESS IS I . t-' , C THE BOARD, COUNCil, COM ISSION, AUTHORI OR COMMITTEE ON _ ':? /1 0. C> ./' '/7 WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ./V V'I , A. e- VL ''''C vi fY';A NTY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY /\ Ie.., . / L). / NAME OF POWhAl SUBDIVIShO : c...- t^- r HI'\. c/v C. e. ., L~ r-- ." ""r_ ~ t DATE ON WHICH VOT OCCU RED MY POSITION IS: I '2 -; 0 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE . 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, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a . ' which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (includin ' -. ,t organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or .le special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 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 "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, 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 officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate 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 conflict: 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 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the utes 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 matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made hv you or at your direction. . a,I ,~~: INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILLe · You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) CE FORM 86 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. - · You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You. must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, ~ ;V/c,) VV , hereby d;sclose thai on /'2-"',;" <l- (a) A measure cam~r will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, /" j :f::. inured to the special gain or loss of .6 /;/1/ n ~ i/z; 6/' Co, whom I am retained; or ,~_: , by inured to the special gain or loss 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 conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: ,which ~ (~~7r ~O'~) Mo ~7J/ ~~ ~~ ~t: ~V~~~_ri~j-~ ~JJd ~ ~ ~ "Y~~-<-L- e Date Filed ~V/j)L/ / / / NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT ::MOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, (' a CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. ,. CE FORM 88 . EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 ~ i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: January 20" 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 3080 Allen Avenue FLD2003-08037 Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen yes .>( no 1575 S Highland Avenue FLD2003-09042 Griffin International, Inc. ~ yes no 628 Cleveland Street FLD2003-10056 CRA, Tone 40, Ltd./ Station Square, LLC ~yes no 500 Mandalay Av FLD20Q3-12068/ SGN2003-10020 Florida Clw Beach Hotel Co. 1yes no Page 1 of3 Community Development Board: 1416 Satsuma Street ANX2003-10025 yes '^ no 149 Baywood Avenue ANX2003-10026 yes ~no 24698 U.S. Highway 19 N ANX2003-10027 yes ~ no 2520 Sunset Point Road & 24698 U.S. Highway 19 N LUZ2003-10011 yes '^ no 2941 & 2945 Sunset Point Road ANX2003-10028 ~ yes no ~ L Meeting Date: JanUary 20.. 2004 Rernzi Dalip Chunilall & Yvonne Singh George C. Clark Investments, LTD. George C. Clark Investments, LTD. Spear and Shirley Johnson Page 2 of3 Community Development Board: First Avenue East Road Right-of-Way ANX2003-12033 yes ~ no 18627 U.S. Highway 19 N APP2003-00006 yes K no 333 Midway Island APP2003-00007 yes K no Signature: S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check Iist.doc Meeting Date: J anuarv 20.. 2004 Page 3 of3 City of Clw Planning Department Steak 'n Shake, Inc. Charles and Judy Melges Date: ,- 20-0 '3 . \ . . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: January 20" 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 3080 Allen Avenue FLD2003-08037 Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen yes -4-no 1575 S Highland Avenue FLD2003-09042 Griffin International, Inc. yes --X- no 628 Cleveland Street FLD2003-l0056 CRA, Tone 40, Ltd.l Station Square, LLC yes 4-no 500 Mandalay~.:; FLD2003-l2068 / SGN2003-l0020 Florida Clw Beach Hotel Co. yes --\- no Page 1 of3 Community Development Board: 1416 Satsuma Street ANX2\~3-1 0025 J\ no yes 149 Baywood Avenue ANX2003-10026 yes lno 24698 U.S. Highway 19 N ANX2003-10027 yes lno 2520 Sunset Point Road & 24698 U.S. Highway 19 N LUZ2003-10011 yes ~no 2941 & 2945 Sunset Point Road ANX2003-10028 yes *no . Meeting Date: January 20.. 2004 Remzi Dalip Chunilall & Yvonne Singh George C. Clark Investments, LTD. George C. Clark Investments, LTD. Spear and Shirley Johnson Page 2 of3 . Community Development Board: First Avenue East Road Right-of-Way ANX2003-12033 yes -1-00 18627 U.S. Highway 19 N APP2003-00006 yes -+-00 333 Midway Island APP2003-00007 yes ;\ / \ no , Signatur : S:\Planning Department\C D B\C investigation check list.doc Meeting Date: January 20.. 2004 Page 3 of3 City of Clw Planning Department Steak 'n Shake, Inc. Charles and Judy Melges Date: ftt;0 f . . .. " ; . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: Januarv 20" 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 3080 Allen Avenue FLD2003-08037 Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen yes / no 1575 S Highland Avenue FLD2003-09042 Griffin International, Inc. j' yes no 628 Cleveland Street FLD2003-19'056 ji CRA, Tone 40, Ltd./ Station Square, LLC yes no 500 Mandalay A v FLD2003- 1'2068 / i SGN20j 1 0020 Florida Clw Beach Hotel Co. yes no Page 1 of3 Community Development Board: 1416 Satsuma Street 149 Baywood Avenue ANX20j025 yes no ANX2003-10026 yes , ~no 24698 U.S. Highway 19 N ANX20q3-10027 J 2520 Sunset Point Road & 24698 U.S. Highway 19 N 2941 & 2945 Sunset Point Road yes no LUZ20jl00ll yes no yes ANX2070::S , . Meeting Date: January 20., 2004 Remzi Dalip Chunilall & Yvonne Singh George C. Clark Investments, LTD. George C. Clark Investments, LTD. Spear and Shirley Johnson Page 2 of3 . ~ J Community Development Board: First Avenue East Road Right-of-Way ANX2003-12033 j yes no 18627 U.S. Highway 19 N APP2003-p0006 J yes no 333 Midway Island , i APP20100007 yes no Signature: S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check Iist.doc Meeting Date: January 20" 2004 Page 3 of3 City of Clw Planning Department Steak 'n Shake, Inc. Charles and Judy Melges Date: , \ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: January 20, 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 3080 Allen Avenue FLD2003-08037 Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen ~yes no 1575 S Highland Avenue FLD2003-09042 Griffin International, Inc. ~es no 628 Cleveland Street FLD2003-10056 CRA, Tone 40, Ltd./ Station Square, LLC ~yes no 500 Mandalay A v FLD2003-12068/ SGN2003-10020 Florida Clw Beach Hotel Co. ~es no Page 1 of3 Community Development Board: 1416 Satsuma Street ANX2003-10025 ~yes no 149 Baywood Avenue ANX2003-10026 yes c....----rlo 24698 U.S. Highway 19 N ANX2003-10027 ~es no 2520 Sunset Point Road & 24698 U.S. Highway 19 N LUZ2003-10011 L----y;; no 2941 & 2945 Sunset Point Road ANX2003-l0028 ~s no t Meeting Date: January 20., 2004 Remzi Dalip Chunilall & Yvonne Singh George C. Clark Investments, LTD. George C. Clark Investments, LTD. Spear and Shirley Johnson Page 2 of3 Community Development Board: Meeting Date: January 20., 2004 First Avenue East Road Right-of-Way ANX2003-12033 City of C1w Planning Department yes .....--- no 18627 U.S. Highway 19 N APP2003-00006 Steak 'n Shake, Inc. ....---yes no 333 Midway Island APP2003-00007 Charles and Judy Melges yes ~o Signature~ Date: \\ Z~\ 10t S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDS, property investigation check list.doc Page 3 of3 , . I l i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: January 20.. 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 3080 Allen Avenue FLD2003-08037 Robert Hupp and Allen McMullen ,/ yes no 1575 S Highland Avenue FLD2003-09042 Griffin International, Inc. /' V/ yes no 628 Cleveland Street FLD2003-l0056 CRA, Tone 40, Ltd./ Station Square, LLC vi yes no 500 Mandalay Av FLD2003-l2068/ SGN2003-l0020 Florida Clw Beach Hotel Co. J yes no Page 1 of3 Community Development Board: 1416 Satsuma Street ~/ yes 149 Baywood Avenue v yes ANX2003-10025 no ANX2003-10026 no 24698 U.S. Highway 19 N ANX2003-10027 J' yes 2520 Sunset Point Road & 24698 U.S. High:j?y: 2941 & 2945 Sunset Point Road j no LUZ2003-10011 no ANX2003-10028 yes no 1 Meeting Date: J anuarv 20.. 2004 Remzi Dalip Chunilall & Yvonne Singh George C. Clark Investments, LTD. George C. Clark Investments, LTD. Spear and Shirley Johnson Page 2 of3 . Community Development Board: First Avenue East Road Right-of-Way ANX2003-l2033 I no yes 18627 U.S. Highway 19N I APP2003-00006 no yes 333 Midway Island APP2003-00007 v' no yes Signature: frVvn I ,~ property investigation check list.doc Meeting Date: January 20.. 2004 Page 3 of3 City of Clw Planning Department Steak 'n Shake, Inc. Charles and Judy Melges Date: \ 1{) \ b ~