03/14/1989 MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1989 - 1:30 PM
Members Present: Chairman Johnson, Ms. Nixon, Messrs. Ferrell, Green, and Schwob
Members Absent: Messrs. Ehrig and Hamilton
A. Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the minutes of the February 28, 1989 meeting as corrected. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
Chairman Johnson outlined the procedures for conditional uses and advised that anyone adversely affected by a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, with regard to conditional uses,
has two weeks from this date in which to file an appeal through the City Clerk's Office. Florida Law requires any party appealing a decision of this Board to have a record of the proceedings
to support the appeal.
ITEMS ARE LISTED IN AGENDA ORDER THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY DISCUSSED
IN THAT ORDER.
B. Conditional Uses:
1. M&B's 14.04 and 14.05, Sec. 17-29S-16E (2930 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard)
E & R Properties, Inc. (Tio Pepe Restaurant)/Frank Milano
CU 89-16
Request - 4-COP (On-Premise Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned - CG (General Commercial) AND CR-24 (Resort Commercial "Twenty-Four")
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages in the General Commercial zoning district and the Resort Commercial "Twenty-Four" zoning
district where the parking area is contained; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the specific request is for a proposed 184 square
foot expansion of storage area at Tio Pepe's Restaurant and there will be no increase in seating; the Traffic Engineer had no objection; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny
license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated the applicant will be required to obtain approval by the City Commission of a variance to the separation distance, which is scheduled to the held
on March 16, 1989. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Building permit be procured within 6 months; and, 2) That
the variance to the separation distance be approved by the City Commission.
Mr. Frank Milano, applicant, stated he is asking approval of his request for expansion of a storage room. He advised there will be no additional seating. After questioning by Mr. Schwob,
Mr. Milano advised there will be no change in the concept. He further stated the change is due to the taking of frontage by Florida Department of Transportation. He also stated he lost
480 square feet of seating area, which may be the subject of a later request.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the Building permit be procured within 6 months; and, 2) That the
variance to the separation distance be approved by the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
2. Lot 1, Cypress Point Shopping Center (2351 U.S. Hwy. 19 North)
Oxford/Concord Investments No. 1 (Home Depot)/Nathan Hightower
CU 89-17
Request - Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays and/or Storage
Zoned - CC (Commercial Center)
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for outdoor storage in the Commercial Center zoning district; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.025(b)
and (c)(22); and, the Traffic Engineer had
no comment. Ms. Harvey stated the request is the same request that was before this Board on December 15, 1987, which request was approved by this Board subject to the following conditions:
1) That an amendment to the site plan be submitted and approved that includes a minimum 6 foot opaque fence between the loading area and the residential area and landscaping be provided
at a minimum starting height of 8 feet on the east side of said opaque fencing; 2) That storage be no higher than opaque fencing; and, 3) That the use permit be procured within the time
frame set by certified site plan. She also stated that the storage was not completed within the time frame due to the expansion of the Home Depot facility. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended
approval of the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) That there be a minimum 6 foot opaque fence between the loading area and the residential area; 2) That landscaping
be provided at a minimum starting height of 8 foot on the east side of said opaque fence; 3) That storage be no higher than the opaque fencing; 4) That the building permit be procured
within 6 months; and, 5) That a revised site plan, reflecting the storage area, be submitted to the City.
Atty. Nathan Hightower, representative of applicant, stated this request was previously approved by this Board. He stated applicant is requesting the same conditional use with the same
conditions of approval. He also stated applicant has no objection to the additional conditions. Mr. Hightower asked for one additional condition as the result of conversations with neighbors;
that being, that the cedar fence be replaced with a fence of an identical quality. He advised the Development Code Adjustment Board approved a variance to the open space requirement
and a fence up to 8 feet tall. He stated the 8 foot fence was requested as a compromise to improve the looks of the property and to cut down on visibility and noise. After questioning
by Ms. Nixon, Mr. Hightower advised that a cedar fence is flimsy and he believes a chain-link fence with slats will be installed. He stated that changing the cedar fence has not been
discussed with neighbors but is more durable than is a cedar fence. He further stated the 8-foot landscape buffer will be between the fence and the road and the fence will be difficult
to see.
Ms. Harvey advised one letter of objection was received from Mr. Douglas Roach, property owner to the east, who made suggestions at the previous meeting and has again stated those suggestions.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the of the above request subject to the following conditions: 1) That there be a minimum 6 foot opaque fence between
the loading area and the residential area; 2) That landscaping be provided at a minimum starting height of 8 foot on the east side of said opaque fence; 3) That storage be no higher
than the opaque fencing; 4) That the building permit be procured within 6 months; and, 5) That a revised site plan, reflecting the storage area, bed submitted to the City. Motion carried
unanimously (5 to 0).
3. Lots 2A and 2B, Campus Walk Sub. (2551 Drew Street)
ABS Properties (Maximo Liquors, Inc.)/Nelson Powell
CU 89-18
Request - 3-PS (Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned - CH (Highway Commercial)
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for package sales of alcoholic beverages in the Highway Commercial zoning district; the specific request is for applicant to operate
a liquor store with a 3-PS State license in Campus Walk Shopping Center; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer
had no objection; and, the Police Department saw no reason to deny license to applicant. Ms. Harvey stated no variance to the separation distance will be required to be approved by the
City Commission. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months; and,
2) That the Occupational License be obtained within 6 months.
Mr. Nelson Powell, applicant, stated he proposes to move his liquor store from south St. Petersburg to Clearwater. After questioning by Board members, Mr. Powell advised he has been
operating in Maximo Plaza in St. Petersburg for one year and there will be no entertainment.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months; and,
2) That the Occupational License be obtained within 6 months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
4. M&B 31.07, Sec. 02-29S-15E
(1811 North Highland Avenue)
Highland Ventures, Inc. (We Make
U Bake Pizza)/Maxwell Goebel
CU 89-19
Request - 2-APS (Package Sales of Alcoholic Beverages)
Zoned - CC (Commercial Center)
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for package sales of alcoholic beverages in the Commercial Center zoning district; the applicant proposes a retail pizza establishment
at the Highland Square Shopping Center with a 2-APS State license; the governing sections of the Land Development Code are Sections 136.024 and 136.025(b); the Traffic Engineer had no
objection; and, the Police Department saw no reason to recommend denial. Ms. Harvey stated no variance to the separation distance will be required to be approved by the City Commission.
Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months; and, 2) That the Occupational
License be obtained within 6 months.
Mr. Maxwell Goebel, applicant, stated he is applying for a license for package sales of beer and wine. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Mr. Goebel advised as follows: He is new to this
area of business; there will be no eating or drinking in the establishment; and, there are nearby places that sell beer and wine.
Ms. Harvey advised one letter of objection was received from a nearby property owner.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That the alcoholic beverage license be obtained within 6 months; and,
2) That the Occupational License be obtained within 6 months. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
5. Lot 7, Cate's A.B. & Jennie Sub.
(407 North Osceola Avenue)
The Salvation Army/E. D. Armstrong
CU 89-20
Request - Transitional Residential Shelter including social service offices
Zoned - RM-28 (Multiple Family Residential "Twenty-Eight")
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for a family transitional residential shelter with social service offices in the Multiple Family Residential "Twenty-Eight" zoning district;
the request is being reviewed as a conditional use using Section 136.025(b) of the Land Development Code; the specific request is to utilize an existing building for 7 apartments for
short-term residential use and 2 offices for social service outreach and counseling to families living in the building; and, Chief Klein stated the Police Department is in support of
the request and felt there would be no adverse impact to the Police Department. Ms. Harvey stated this type of request is not specifically identified in the Land Development Code and
is reviewed under the special review section of the Code. Ms. Harvey also advised she requested the Salvation Army to notify people in the neighborhood, in addition to the notice of
public hearing, primarily for the neighborhood to be knowledgeable about the project. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the above request subject to the following: 1)
That there be no single adults in the facility; 2) That the Occupational License be procured within 6 months; and 3) That the offices provided be deemed accessory to the primary use
of the property and that the offices not be made available except to those living in the facility.
Atty. Ed Armstrong, representative of applicant, stated the request is to permit transitional housing with social service office. He stated the building is currently vacant and is proposed
to be remodelled. He also stated applicant will be spending approximately $95,000 to remodel and bring the building up to Code. Atty. Armstrong advised the following: The building will
be a benefit to the neighborhood and residents are expected to remain in apartments 4 to 6 months; a prerequisite for living in the apartments is that the residents have a responsible,
verifiable job; part of the residents' rent will be saved and refunded to resident upon departure for use for deposits on rent, electricity, etc; and, some personal counseling, such
as checkbook balancing, etc., will be made available. Atty. Armstrong felt the applicant complies with
the land use plan and the Code provisions. He stated applicant is meeting a social need and he felt the applicant is qualified to operate the program. Atty. Armstrong stated a task force
has been established to oversee the project and a seat on the task force has been offered to Harbor Bluffs for one of its residents.
After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Harvey stated she would be concerned if the offices were available to serving a larger community as there would be more traffic than just residential
traffic. She stated there would also be concern if the office portion were expanded to accommodate more people than the residents. She also stated she would like to see that the location
not be advertised so that anyone can walk into the building. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Atty. Armstrong conferred with applicant and advised that applicant would not be in opposition
to the condition that limited social service needs to residents.
After questioning by Mr. Ferrell, Ms. Harvey advised the site would not be subject to formal site plan review but would be under the guidance of the Building division of the City.
After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Donald Canning, Captain in the Salvation Army, advised as follows: The building was used as rental apartments and was vacated because of not meeting the
Building Code; some of the previous tenants would be considered low-income residents; he doesn't think there were many children; there were no problems with or complaints from neighbors;
and, the play area would be to the east of the main entrance.
Ms. Harvey advised a letter of support was received from Mrs. Lois Cormier (see attached).
In support of the above request, the following persons appeared to give their comments:
Donald Canning, Captain, Salvation Army, stated the Salvation Army has been an integral part of Clearwater for many years and has had a significant impact on the lives of individuals
who are helped. He stated this project is not a shelter but is apartments. He stated a rental agreement must be signed. He felt the "homeless" is the fastest growing element of society
and is a problem that must be addressed. He stated that it costs several hundred dollars to move into an apartment and the Salvation Army is offering an important service to Upper Pinellas
County. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Captain Canning stated the Belcher Road facility will primarily be administrative offices, religious programs, and program services for the community.
He stated the facility is not intended for the homeless or the indigent person.
Robert Burwell, President, First National Bank, Vice-Chairman of Advisory Board, stated many people are excited with the idea that the downtown area is not being abandoned.
After questioning by Ms. Nixon, Jay Myers, Architect, stated there are three floors in the building and three apartments on each floor. He advised there is one apartment in back and
two offices on the first floor and three apartments on each the second and third floors. He stated there will be 4 two-bedroom apartments and 3 one-bedroom apartments.
Atty. Armstrong advised there were many people present in support of the above project. Chairman Johnson asked those persons in support of the project to stand and advised, for the record,
there were several people in attendance who support the above project.
Ms. Harvey advised one letter of opposition was received from Harbor Bluffs Condominium Association.
In opposition to the above request, the following persons appeared to give their comments:
Atty. Elizabeth Eddy, representative of Harbor Bluffs Condominiums, stated the residents are not as much in opposition as they were previously but the residents are concerned about a
Level III congregate care facility which is not permitted in the RM-28 zoning district. She felt the length of stay indicated a more transitional atmosphere. She expressed concern that
a playground may indicate a day care center and suggested more restrictive conditions be placed on the playground. She felt this kind of use is not appropriate for the property.
Joseph Beno, 500 North Osceola, stated the subject property was previously a retirement home for Salvation Army persons and has been empty for three years. He stated there is a playground
being built on the back of the property. He expressed concern about the number of persons in an apartment.
Edward Berry, 500 North Osceola Avenue, expressed concern about what will be going on at the property. He stated
that until recently he was told a social service agency would be in the building, and he expressed concern that the area would become another Ft. Harrison. After questioning by Board
members, Mr. Berry advised as follows: He is not as opposed since counseling services will not be provided to the public; he is unsure what to do about the offer of a Harbor Bluffs'
resident being offered a position on the advisory board; Harbor Bluffs is not a rental building and the minimum lease for those who do rent is for three months; and, there are approximately
15 of 82 units that are rented.
Ms. Nixon advised that if a day care center would be located at the subject property, the applicant would be required to have conditional use approval for a day care center at the location.
In support rebuttal, Lois Phillips, 734 34th Street, St. Petersburg, stated she will be the person to run the apartment building and added she will cooperate with Harbor Bluffs residents.
She also stated she has already talked to HRS and will meet any guidelines that are required. She advised there is no day care center proposed for the location and if any day care is
needed, it will be provided at the Belcher Road location. She also advised the residents will be supervised, screened for drugs and alcohol, and immediately evicted if any are found.
She stated the proposed residences are for people who don't know how to handle a checkbook and the residents will not be transients. After questioning by Mr. Schwob, Ms. Phillips stated
she has been with Salvation Army for 13 years and she does all social service work. She added she has worked with Everybody's Tabernacle, Stepping Stones, etc.
In support rebuttal, Captain Canning stated the apartment building was not a retirement center and, though there may have been some retired Salvation Army people living in the building,
young couples also lived in the building. He stated the building has been vacant for about 1 1/2 years because it did not meet Building Code requirements. A child care facility will
not be located at the facility. He added the Salvation Army would be happy to have a resident from Harbor Bluffs on the advisory board. After questioning by Mr. Ferrell, Captain Canning
stated the playground is a small portion of the area and is for children who would be living in the building.
In support rebuttal, Mr. Myers stated the playground is only large enough for possibly a sand box or a swing set but it would not be a large-scale playground.
In opposition rebuttal, Yolette Frey, 500 North Osceola, expressed concern about the look of downtown Clearwater as a whole. She expressed concern that the building will not be monitored
after 5:00 PM. She stated she understands there may be warehousing of food at the location.
In opposition rebuttal, Harry Burdette, 500 North Osceola, expressed concern that property values would be lowered.
Lee Long, 1454 Palmetto, stated he owns property across the street to the north. He stated he neither supports nor opposes the request but he is concerned about parking.
In opposition rebuttal, Alice Ritington, Palm Harbor, property owner in Harbor Bluffs, questioned if there will be any day services offered to those who reside in the building. She also
questioned how many of those people in support of the project live closest to the project.
In opposition rebuttal, Florence Driggs, 500 North Osceola, expressed concern about taxes not being paid on the property.
In final rebuttal, Atty. Armstrong advised as follows: The property is not proposed to be a Level III group home; the use requested is proper; the playground is for residents of the
building; any day care services needed will be provided on Belcher Road; the property has not been on the tax rolls for some time; twenty-four hour supervision is not valid; the Salvation
Army is serving a social need; applicant would still like to have a resident from Harbor Bluffs on the advisory board; the applicant is willing to commit to residents being required
to stay a minimum of three months; there is adequate parking at the subject location; there is no evidence that shows property values would be decreased; and, applicant does meet requirements.
After questioning by Board members, Atty. Armstrong advised as follows: It is possible some canned food will be in the offices in closets; families will have their own kitchens; and,
there will be no sign on the front of the building, there will only be an address.
Ms. Nixon felt anything done to better the property will be an improvement and she doesn't feel there will be too many children at one time. She felt the request by the Salvation Army
to have someone on the advisory board should be taken
up by the residents of Harbor Bluffs. She also felt the Salvation Army has taken care of its properties and projects.
Mr. Green felt the project will be indistinguishable from the street from other apartment houses and felt the apartment would have a better impact than would vacant property.
Mr. Schwob felt applicant met Code requirements.
Discussion followed and it was determined that "single adults" did not mean single parents with children but meant a man or woman without children. The Board felt a single parent with
children should not be prevented from being allowed to reside at the location.
Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Green, to approve the above request subject to the following: 1) That there be no single adults in the facility; 2) That the Occupational
License be procured within 6 months; and 3) That the social service offices provided are deemed accessory to the primary use of the property and that the offices will serve residents
only. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
C. Annexation and Zoning:
1. Lot 6, Glen Ellyn Estates (Located at 2166 Burnice Drive)
(Brooks)
A 89-01
Request - Annexation and Zoning, RS-6 (Single Family Residential "Six")
The above property is located at 2166 Burnice Drive.
The applicant was not present.
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation and RS-6 (Single Family Residential "Six") zoning; the Land Use Plan classification is Low Density Residential; City sewer
is being extended to serve the subject lot; and the property is presently vacant and is proposed to be developed with a single family residence. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended
approval of the request for annexation and RS-6 (Single Family Residential "Six") zoning.
Mr. Johnson advised that the house is built.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schowb, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to recommend approval for the request for annexation and RS-6 (Single Family Residential "Six") zoning. Motion carried unanimously
(5 to 0).
2. Lot 6, Blk. A, Clearwater Highlands, Unit B (Located at 1851 East Drive)
(Brenner)
A 89-02
Request - Annexation and Zoning, RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight")
The above property is located at 1851 East Drive.
The applicant was not present.
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for annexation and RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning; the Land Use Plan classification is Low Density Residential; City
water and sewer are available; and the property developed with a single family residence. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for annexation and RS-8 (Single
Family Residential "Eight") zoning.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schowb, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend approval for the request for annexation and
RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") zoning. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
D. Zoning Atlas and Land Use Plan Amendment and Local Planning Agency Review:
1. South portion of Lots 3 and 10, Bamboo Sub. (Located east and west of Bamboo Lane, south of Gulf-to-Bay-Boulevard)
(SDS Investments)
Z 89-01 LUP 89-01
Zoning Atlas:
FROM: RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight")
TO: CG (General Commercial)
Land Use Plan:
FROM: Low Density Residential
TO: Commercial/Tourist Facility
The above property is located east and west of Bamboo Lane, south of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Atty. Emil C. Marquardt, representative of applicant, stated applicant thought the subject lots were zoned Commercial General. He added the portion of the lots currently zoned Single
Family Residential is the south 34 feet.
Ms. Harvey advised as follows: This is a request for zoning atlas amendment from RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") to General Commercial zoning and a Land Use Plan amendment from
Low Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities; a condition of site plan review and conditional use approval was that the portion of the subject property currently zoned Single
Family Residential be rezoned to General Commercial; and the above request is being made in order that the southerly portion of the lots will have the same zoning designation as the
northerly portions of the lots. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the request for zoning atlas amendment from RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") to General Commercial
zoning and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the above request.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Green, to recommend approval of the request for zoning atlas amendment from RS-8 (Single Family Residential "Eight") to General Commercial
zoning and a Land Use Plan amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial/Tourist Facilities. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
E. Land Development Code Text Amendment and Local Planning Agency Review:
1. Chapter 136, Section 136.024 (PROPOSED ORDINANCE)
To provide that an application for a variance from the separation requirements for an alcoholic beverage establishment shall be filed with the development code administrator rather
than the City Clerk. (LDCA 89-04)
Ms. Harvey advised this City-initiated request is being made because applications for a variance to the separation distance are currently submitted to the City Clerk's Office because
it was the City Commission who wanted the variance requirement. She stated all other alcoholic beverage related applications are accepted in the Planning and Development Department.
She also stated the variances are presented by the Planning and Development Department, which is most familiar with the variances, at City Commission meetings. The proposed ordinance
changes the submission location from the City Clerk's Office to the Code Administration division of Planning and Development. Ms. Harvey advised staff recommended approval of the proposed
ordinance that provides that an application for a variance from the separation requirements for an alcoholic beverage establishment shall be filed with the development code administrator
rather than the City Clerk.
No persons appeared in support of or in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
Motion was made by Mr. Schwob, seconded by Mr. Ferrell, to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance that
provides for an application for a variance from the separation requirements for an alcoholic beverage establishment shall be filed with the development code administrator rather than
the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
G. Director's Items
Ms. Harvey dvised that John Ehrig has been appointed as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board and will attend the workshop on March 21, 1989.
H. Board and Staff Comments
Motion was made by Ms. Nixon, seconded by Mr. Schwob, to recommend that the City Commission consider amending the alcoholic beverage ordinance to require review for request for expansion
of only alcoholic beverage service areas. Motion carried unanimously (5 to 0).
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting adjourned at 3:32 PM.
I. WORKSHOP: Comprehensive Plan - Goals, Objectives and Policies and Needs Summary for: Utilities Element, Recreation/Open Space Element, Transportation Element.
RECREATION and OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Mr. Pruitt explained the Recreation and Open Space Element and the Goals, Objectives and Policies. He explained neighborhood parks, community parks, and mini-parks. He also explained
where there is a need for parks and the City's Recreation and Open Space Land Dedication Requirements. Discussion followed regarding existing and future levels of service in regard to
the City's parks. Discussion followed concerning the possible difficulties of meeting the goals as they are stated. Mr. Pruitt explained how the City's Parks and Recreation Department
uses advice from citizens regarding future placement of parks in the City. The Board requested the year "1995" be added to Policy 14.3.1.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Ms. Papandreas explained the Traffic Circulation Element and the Goals, Objectives and Policies. She explained computerized traffic signalization, Levels of Service (LOS), and Special
Transportation Areas (STA). She also explained the need for commitments by developers who propose development on backlogged facilities. She further explained dedication of future rights-of-way.
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of the City getting involved in litigation with developers regarding the policies for dedication of rights-of-way and for requirements for
development on backlogged facilities.
Workshop adjourned at 4:40 PM.
______________________________________________
Paula Harvey
Acting Director
Planning and Development