The URL can be used to link to this page

LUZ02-02-03 (2) /... ) , ;:.;f';'>, , "~JK"^l':"'~~'!:t<'"' ':,'~ ,\';;"";C':I~O Pt"E\:.<?I't'\t~~~::, : :,f, ';" 'l~~~.~.1f{ ~~; 1,'~',10<)737:\~~~,S}.fe~)~,!' :,",: ,,,, ;:$ 'tn\no\e~)f\Or\da' ~~7.1& " ,/'(\ ;~::;;...~;~i.. ~.:?J~;;:l~: /\I'\'Ione[f~}7'l1) " ," :<E" "?';'ce\\'l'ho1:'e: ~7'l1) ~~,~_'l&<)S'<C~":~'" , . : ,':; Emall. robe~elf,o\'7.1',. ;" ~ ' '~~({:'~~;;C .J@i Gulf Coast consulting, InC. Robert I'ergo\\l'l". P.\CI' president BOA,lU) CJl:ItT1f'11!o1> Ctvu. 'l'lUAJ. )J~"" cJl."a/ f#-If/f S':rl!:.PJ:ll!:.~ psOl<E 1'1<}.'11 441-8966 ntBlloC'r 1'1<}.'7l444-1415 F~X 1'1<}.'7l44<J..84'10 O.COLl!:. M.~cF,l\.RLANE F1?oFGUSOl'l & }odcM.~l'l ~or-roJtlOl&YS AJW C01J1'lsEJPItS ~T )J~"" 6<}.5 CO'UllT S'l'l'EET. SUITE 200 :P.O. BOX 16691701l" 33'75'11 C~~TEJt. J!'LOJt11>~ 33'156 .~ SoC@c\w.tIl8C{ar.com ~e 4 SlC ,,~ . Off>> "-If/lab fi'-PJ/ fa . , " . 'I'j ""~ -,--','". . .,-~ ~ :~~ -;.., ,'~ '. A: ~.~ .;, :.~ :~~~~ "'t"f \~"--/i ' ,I ~ ,~_.. , ~;~ ,:0,: 't~ A ','. ",~' +&i , ~ [' F'IRST AVENUE N . " .1.' ~ ,A I , , . WII,,' I~- , I . ~ o /'1." "t~ .- " ~' "<':" "~~~ : '~Ci ~\e, "'5.,efb ,~~C>.' , ,:V ~-e; .!::'<,'-' ;, ,,~; iJP,,< ; '~''''',,~,:''' ~, " ~'"'' 1,~1 , ': " ' I" '1 : j ,,:'" " , , "" , " '," .' "W'--;'1 " "":,, "., ',; 4 , ,~. ~ 7 ~ I " I ", @ ~E~~l IlESIDEl'lTW. ',- '/,;,". LOW IIEDIUII .., (",,,'" ~J, , ' RESIDENTIAL IIEDIUII RESJDEl'lTW. HIGH RESIDEl'lTW. VERY HIGH FROM: TO: r--1 RS ~ L....J RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN ~ E:J ~RESERVATION W/DF _ ACREAGE: 23.0 l.&J :::> I-"~--~"'--- --- T -.,- -r- -~,. -,- -,.-~ ~ : ~ : : : : ; : ; ~ : : ~ > ::: ~ : ; : ~ : ~ : : <C( ............._..,__....._.,_.,......._.._""__,._ I . . f , _~ I . t , I I ~ I . I , , I I , t . I . 1 , . I I I' . I I , I I ". '~ .. l 1'.4 I . I F'OURTH , . t J I . t ' . . 4 1 t ' , . -.,-- -po-" . " , j , . t . . J . I t J "'-'/~', '1, , ,~'; : ; . ' , ' "'~ , ' . . , . . . :~ /~'-'--,.) -~,-I""...----'"I- ~ J 'I" , r,! " " n <C( SCC()Jo.(J .....e .6' ;:) < -... ;:) '. ~I '", CJ l " I , ~;1 ,~ " :) THIRD LEGEND RESIDENTIAL C. ,0, RESJD-" ~/ . ',.to ~..- ::-, + ' ,." RURAL D P.ESJDENTIAL ESTATE D RESJDEl'lTW. "_ SUBURBAN 0,'",< ~ ~c. ~,~ RESIDENTIAL ;'" " :'j LOW DRESlDENTIAL URBAN ~ :. I : . : . I , '. . I j . -; -;- ~u:_ '; 1 . . . . .' -~~_:__~_~_~J I, '~ ',I/r' --... -... -..-,- -,- I..; : : . , , , ~ "j I I F'IF'TH RESORT FACIUTIES OYEJU.AY D"" ,: RESORT " "" ' FAClUTIES " ,'- IIEDIUII . RESORT FACIUTIES HIGH RL RESIDENTIAL LOW P PRESERVATION W/DF .....1~. , "\'\ ,~~~~" ~ "~ :?> ~ "\' . , ,;f~' " , \'" . ~~~.~~.~ :: ~~"\.~~::.\ " ,< AVENUE COMMERCIAL D COIIIIERCIAL , NEIGHBORHOOD f"':": ': :'1 ~~CIAL .. COIIIIERCIAL ';. RECREATION .,. COIlIfERCIAL ~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL D INDUSTRIAL UIlITED ~ INDUSTRIAL GENERAL [ sc.~. ) H AV -'~ L ~ " -~--' --'---....... --........ -............-... L""'[ t........ i AVC"v.a _''-''''___'-J......'_,'...... __....... __ __/_ -' __'-"______.......\.....J'_..........~ _ .........,'_ -_'_.r_ ~ J...... J-.''-''___';J~ ""',-"',",,, ---- -',- ---,f' .. ~-_; ......',-,^ ,-,',-', J,,-, ~ '-" '-" vi'" ~ '- ~ '- - ......-'...... '-" - - ( _~_"'____"_ _ ..... ..l \ \ -~---- - -- -- -"-...-/"-,,,---'-- ......"'-"------------ -~- ..... -- - -- - -- ...... -. - .... ....... -'- --- - ....... -- -- --- -- --- ...... --- -- .. -- - -- .... _1_"'--""____'-----_...... ............... ------------_._~-- LA- E ......./- -~ -- '-.......... - -- '- -' -- - -- - - ...... ....... "'- -- ".. -- -'- -- '-' ---..... ....:;.,..:..'J:A'VO..;J.~ __ __ __ __ _ _ _..... ... '- --...... ..'" "- --- -- -- .... -- -- - - --- - ...... - - - -- ~ ------'----------- ----"--'"'------..-,- ------ .... ~-- --'- ---_..... PUBIJC/SEMI-PUBIJC SPECIAL DESIGNATION ~- WATER/ - -- DIWNJ.GE . _ _._~':"::::: FEATURE ~ SCENIC/ NON-CbIlIlERCIAL CORRIDOR L],. . ~ ACTIVITY CENTER/ . ., INSTITUTIONAL PRJIlARY .' SECONDARY ~' .,;.' .' TRANSPORTATlON/ D' COllI/UNITY , - unUTY REDEVELOPIIENT - --::=--. DISTRICT D, CENTRAL , . BUSINESS . " DISTRICT D RECREATlON/ OPEN SPAC2' [ MAP 4 CASE NO. CW03-22 ) PINEIJ..AS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPmcs PREPARED BY 11fE ornCE OF 11fE PINEWS cot"<n' PROPERTY APPRAISER 11I1 SIIITH GRAPHICS PREPARED CSINC )l2Drr VERSJOlll 2 I 0 ~est coPY A "a"a~'e GULF or MEXICO '" 4, ~1~ !~,.' i.; " I ~ ~~ kL"" Sf \.~ -~' I 1') II! I ' ~Ill, .... -. ID I-~;" ;' '---rol, l~ ~ r ! I __ ...~ f' I " .-v......... ..... ----~ 1,./--. l' ~. ~ !ft .... /I} 1(/ ~".' ~ '.... _\ ..., ..,.. ........ ~ ~ ~ 'J .", . .,,/ 'lc:e.' r;; ''t'b / ,~~ ' WlDfCII tDID' ~ }J' tJ/, '+ ~~ .,.- ~ --,.or"": ~ ~; \ "'.~' ~\~ ~- I i -l.' I! 'b , ...._-f;;. "~~ It ~ " , :z...'!"~ I -:-~ -::f~ 1 t -.... J l J ' . /. ~ ~J \~"'" '~~l<l{ -.... ,~i;r ~t '.~~ ,~f.' l'k '.."'.... ~ 0-<...., ." \!i. ; n. v ~..~&.. · e ...-7!J '".~...-., I".! :;!l ~ ~ :JW / .~.., l...'\....! ... a::J.~J. "~ \ -~, E ! ~f't:: l" ... ~-~ 't . - ... . ~- ~..-4'" '\ 'b I f 'U~~ ~ 'T" &\1[ .. ~_. -..., ~. ~:i1 ' , t4 ';;<r:-~ 1 . I ~ 'IIJ ~~ti~ '".). , :'~ J. ~\t: '~~k '-J -0 .;-(y A.~ ~ :~_. ;;;\"-~ -...as ,i 'f f~ " e~ ""-. y'~ \,r ~. ~ I' \ ,. " (I;, J ",I,' If ~~, I'. ~..:---' ~~ \~ Jd '''---.., '"'' .. TAMPA BAY CASE NO. CW03-22 MAP 1 ~ ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE ome! OF THE PINElJAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. 11M SMITH Produced by MEDIT V2.I. Copyrl,ht 11191.111112 PIDeU.. County, norlde Property Appreleer, All Rl,bll Resel"ged :r_" _~ ~"".4 -",,/." ~ ! '-~-"'--~~-"-'--'r'-.'-"-~-- ~ . >- ~:: ~ ;,~ f :.: : ~ ; __'\",;, C 4'.. L..'" ..... ~ ... . . I~ . -~~!;::r.~:!":~~:.-:-~~-:- ~._:.' ''o' f . " . ... ft :II . . . - ; ~ .: : : ~ : : ~ ~ : : .s I ' p . y~~~ \: ,~.,j:~ .~ ' .: ", .~. " . .' ,,~: .~~ ~ ... ~:~ '~i:' . ..,.. ~ . ~ ~"'": ...-. " . . :r;G ".: .: "".;:.' ':..-:.';:- ,r.:,:':, : 1'1'.:': ~i: : ; : ; : l . "N" _..... .~~. - , ..... .... '. l'" \ _....t.. ~ ..,.:' .-' .. ~... .. .-r~ -1-. -r-i ~~71:---:- . 't'l - ~ .., ~ . .' I . . . . .. , . . : r; ..- 4 :.- -...... '~~.: ~ ~ ; : : : : ~ . ~'''\- ;-$ c o f'OURTH AVENIX N ~" : . l ! I : : : : ~.-. I , - ....... .....- .. ':>:- - 'rJ,. ~ > : ~ ~ 1Il : J ; :.. "OlD : ,: )0 I . 1./: .,.. I t J . , . , .. . -.p F'IRST AVENJE N '. . "- "/~'_:-_~1l..",;,"'i~--~:..; .. as ' CG 8 WATER . ,;:.." ' ;:'-', . _.~ I, ... '".1 - R/OG n I 1 RS -a. ~ sw".,." C ~ ~ :x u - __ __ __ _ __ _ ":'~t..;.t.....,.~ _ .. AVE WATER THIRD 5 -1 : ~ , ! '~'''R~'.~'.: FOURTH AVE 5 : R/O!R , RS RH @ '...YEHUE T/U - ';RIDS RS DRIVE __.h.__ _~~:~-...-/ III '''-,. I l / ' " 1 1 J " CG '''.. .. -,..'"'-:-- =.. ,..;.... '.. MAP 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT CASE NO. CW03-22 FROM: Residential Suburban (RS) TO: Residential Low (RL) Preservation (P) Preservation (P) With Drainage reature With Drainage Feature D CITY OF CLEARWATER ~'I PI~~:.~~~.I~p~.~~~p:!.: APPRMSER, "" SWH GRAPHICS CREATED USING KEDIT VERSION 2.1 0 & SCALE: ." = 400' '" ~'" ~ .,~ <~~~' :',:' <'<~~~~\/;~~~~Y~'f::..,,~~~'~~;:< E 6 u = o ;> .. I : --~: :' :<~ ~,: ,i - "{~1 ~ ,-{~ (:\~,:~,\ r " '~'j .;~' _"\ ? 7'r~ :A',:\, '~I-~''''' ~ . \ ~.. I ."\~> '" . ,>,-' ~,~~:',~?:>~~~ :~)~"~:>" , "> ;, , ~ < , . .,/t. 1., :. <.~ :. l ~'- ',' . l " ~ , :'::~~~ (, C:;';:'., t': ',' ~.. 'l ,,' ,,~ 1 ~.~ .;,: ' -~.J. 1 "'- .~ : .~, , , ,:;,. ~ ~ i, . ~:-: <, .: 1'1. ; ,_,-':: "t, '<.~:. " _' f, ,~1r':' ~ ~ "'~'. " ~: !\~. ~ ! .' , , ~. ~... ~~JI ,~ :.. ,~ .,. ., > .. !! . .~~~~ ~~~ \_,,-~\ ,lr ," ~ :" ' -, <'.'; :-;..) , . ' '-- "" ~ h, ':.' ~ : ' ~ ~' ~; "....'. > ",,- . '. ; ," ~ ~ l': ::, M, l f,~_ ~ ;'t "'l' ~:~,::,~;:~ " ~ ~'~" :/,""" \', , " GULf iOf,....EXfco .,.."y " , f' ~ ,~~ , '. ,,' , " J'~ , '~ ~ '~, ~ :',J 't ' ~+' ~ . , ,,_ ',1 ~ ;;:: ~..~/"' ' -:< <} -:;~-' ; ',~:" ,-:~ " " '!' " ~, t ... ~. ': " -- < ~ ~, . ' ,-. ( ~'.' :I~" " \~ , . "1' '. ~~:: :~- \' r TAMPA BAY '; } ~. ~... c' . ',." ,': ',~:~/"_~::,:>~:.e:::,,':~, ">'~'l~~ >'_,'_.,~.~~1::,:"..;l~ "'-<::- (f ~':,,:f; ,,-,' ,-:' . vf~ t'!ll : . .' . :~, /:~. '.,.',.., ,", '-;;~?~~ ,: ~~/~l~" '. ,~~:, '-"<:' - ',: ',' , ~:S;' 'i:q~{~it::~"\<;'~~i i~,,,:<~~.,l.: '. <'.::~~;~~<i~:,.' - '. -;~'~:::JW:.:,,:_;: ~'( " " .. .': . . ~'...' .. -' :.: '-. ...> 'i 1 ~. 7v ;.~ ;, ~~1 .... ."~.. ~ ,. . ;:. . . ':;;",;, ~:' ;'1 ;Q: ~ ..: '.':' , ~. ',:~~'" ~ ~)' ::r. \ \, '..'>' '( ~ -, _",,:.. ~J- ,f', .. -~ ..:. _....,.., :' . , ., , t 'r~' ;t'l..~ . : _ ~I .::.....' .'. -- ~~~ ~ "\.. '.. ' ",'::"".~~ I ,~, ~ "':[- ;. . <. ~ . ~ ,.::.~- ~ . _ ,1' FIGURE 1 CASE NO. CW02-39 ~ ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPmCS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PINEWS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. JIW SMITH Produced by MEDIT V2.1, CopyrJ,ht 1991,1992 PJDellas County, FlorJda Property AppraJser. All RJ,bts Resf'rved, P R/OS , '\,,' --..---~--;-.... " ~ ",' '- . I I . . I . . I .. Ld ----..----1-- .. > ',', C . " . I I , . , I I ~S: . , . . , , -..--;-- , " . , . , , . . , . . , CG @ eJ THIRD A VENUE ;: :::::: l: its. : 1IJ I I I I . I I I , I L.J ----~-.- ----,- .-.---~- e: :: :W.ATER: en I'", I I I ......J____I.......J.J__ L.AKE CIiA.UT A\JD.JA J.J..JIJV'......'...-/......,"J~'J'___~..........".._;'.... ;..... WATER : '-" -.;.-.;......".,_,/-.......;...'-/ '-'" ........ J -./~ -....,,/.v.... e- 5 : : : : Rl:o/~ . I I I I , ' I fiRST AVENUE N RS CG WATER p! I I , " "'" . ~ I .--..../_------.........._----"-"''-''''-- ....,;'.................... ---.... _."-".___~.~.J__.J__..__...........'__l__,.__,."'_"_ _'~.............. : CL n , '__r_J-J_'_i_'-J_i"_I'~'JJ_'.J'......,...........__+_'_/'_ ......: R/OG RS . J- I' " ,LArKE,.. I' .. ' ---------~-.;~~--~~---~ C $[CQro(j All[ :l o :l 4( .... 4( ~ U '-"".'-"'J-.......,,_.J__I_I'~__._./-'_ __'_'_I_I'~ , , ' , , ' , , ' , , ' . ' . , ' . , ' , , ' , WATER ___ ~........,/_'__...__.........._..........__,____-...../........._ __ ...........'<o..../J_'..... THIRD 1.......,1"-..../......./ _..,'......."r_ ..........',-", "-.,/',-",_J-_ .........',-",'_ ___ _..'_ ~.~.... @ ; , : __~_l_J__:__~ - ~ : : : : I : I : I -~--'--~-~-~- .J--./J.J-.....,.;.........,t_ '..........l'v-.-l'JJ,_l_l_ """'_'_"-.-1-..-1"--: ...p'. .. .f" J A " 1- J ' ... . ill; ..I____~'_:--'""'_-......,..,r-~.....,;..................,..-- _ -- --- -"-':..... RH o RS , . , , A VENUE T/~ I !~/~I.~ R/OS RS I -- -RS' - -- I R/OS / / ____;n_ CASE NO. CW02-:39 PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM: Residential Suburban (RS), Preservation (P), Water/Drainage Feature (WATER) ~ TO: Residential Low (RL), Preservation (P), Water/Drainage Feature (WATER) SCALE: I" = 400' ACREAGE: 22.18 ~ FIGURE 2 PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF PINELLAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. JIM SMITH GRAPffiCS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 0 " MIXED USE COMMERCIAL PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL LOll KEIlIUIl RECREATlON/ OPEN SPAcI! ~FFsmrmf~D COIlllERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION RESIDENTIAL . OrnCE GEl>gRAL COIOlERCIAL lJIUTED RESIDENTIAL KEIlIUIl RESIDENTIAL HIGH . RESIDENTIAL/ OFFICE/RETAIL INSTITUTIONAL . . COIOlERCIAL RECREATION RESIDENTIAL VERY HIGH INDUSTRIAL RESORT FACllJTIES OVERLAY COIlIlERCIAL GENERAL ~ORTATlON/ D RESIDENTIAL URBAN RESORT FACIUTIES KEIlIUll . RESORT FACUJTlES HIGH INDUSTRIAL lJIUTED INDUSTRIAL GENERAL FIGURE 2A CASE NO. CW02-39 PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPHICS PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PINELLAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. ml SMITH GRAPHICS PREPARED USING IlEDlT VERSION 2,1 0 y, ~r, "('I OfANCERY "C~'''''''''''' : 1. '"I'd ,,\. " 'I." "" Ie i ; I I ~ I,' :, ;// 1:)1 > I 1 ";," i ' ; /1;, SPECIAL DESIGNATION ~ WATER/ DRAINAGE FEATURE ~ SCENIC/ NON-COIlllERCIAL CORRIDOR ~ ACTIVITY CENTER/ PRnlARY SECONDARY COIlllUNITY REDEVELOPIlENT DISTRICT CENTRAL BUSINESS DlSTmCT ( ~ SCALE 1" = 600' ] , . 08q~DQteJ\ \If i\:~O:) :D.S~8 . 'S ... , ~ ~ ~i o ~ L1 Qj \] 8'\ ~ ~ ~ {d :~ ~~ (J~ ',; '~ ~ '-'_I'-"'......;......,/'-..../"-".JJV..../'--^-'_____...., _ _....... -"......,.""^-"-.I......;J~'-"''-"~.......,;.....,/.......,v_....... _"_ _'... ._'.....,/V....,/......,.."-"'.,_/.J..._'lJ~\./__........,.'-"..._ '-"'.........~__' LAKE _ .'.....;~JJ~.JJ....,I......,/J.J'-''-'........."......,t'-''..., __ _ ~ '_I--,'",~~-"........JJ........',-,-./_"-,,~ WATER ~-~~~~~~~v~v~~~J_~~~~ '-./.....A./'-./"-"-./JJJ__"-^-""-"....I"-"-./__ _ ~ ..), -./J.....A./' -./ ....A../'.....A./'....A../'....A../'.....A./'-./ ,,-,'...,/ ~ ,,-,'..) FIGURE 4- CW02-39 CITY OF CLEARWATER ~ SCALE: 400' ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPffiCS PREPARED BY THE OrnCE OF PINELLAS COUNn' PROPERTY APPRAISER, JI)( SIiOTH GRAPIDCS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 0 " ~ 8 Best Copy Avafi~ab~e ~f) ~> ~~ W~ o f) ~ ~ u W \S) 8 o 8 ~ I I' ) ~Bm:' Cf) I I L.____ C <( , " ;lO I.J ' " - I: ': ~ t; ::: ~.._..- N ~ l/l 5:. ':to:.;, " " _~_~'~__,-,"l,-" '-" "-"'".---..'-"'-"'.........'-"''-'" _ _ ____.....,.,,/.J'-"-.....,/_J_____~._\.....!_'_J........., __ _'.........._ _; _,_JJ........ _........../JJ_ --'JJ~ __ ___ __ ___ --"..... _~ _._'_.._JJ..J..J~.._/J'_'............_..,_,,/_'__'_ _'.... " .;: ~_ -I..... , '- _JJ'...../_'J_l..........^.......... '-",_,...../.--/_'_.. -.-"........ _'_'_"":' LAKE _ '........._JJ___JJ'_........,/'J........,_.-...../_,_\_'____J_____....;..... _/_'...../'J'-""__ _..~,...../~_..J__._ _,_,_ I WATER '-'_.................".........'J_'__,,_ ............._..__1_._.._ __ __ __ _ __ __.:.... )::~~."'-' .. _"_ _,,/'~J_)'_'.._}J_.J_^_.../._.J..._/._ __ __ ....J..... ;-- -,.. :I~-''''* ,_ ",,'u_ ," ~~ :?:~';~j;i~ 1; .. ~ .. c ('" , -~,..;-~~~~~;' _.J'J'-"'_I'--./J'-JJ-^___._.\_,/._~_^_J___.____t _ _,~, , ..J_I._/.......-'._I-JJ__^_.JJ'_..__.___.._,,_I-.._/---./_..J..... FIGURE 4- CW02-39 CITY OF CLEARWATER ~ SCALE: 400' ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL GRAPffiCS PREPARED BY THE OFnCE OF PINELLAS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER. JIM SMITH GRAPHICS CREATED USING MEDIT VERSION 2.1 0 alq~I!~AV' i\do:) ~sas ., ~ ~ ~m o ~ ~ ~ N~ N I tf") = ~ ~ Q\ tf") . N = ~ U -t") ~~ ~~ rI1t.:) ~S -...., --.-.. -.-- ..... on...._ 'n :1......- -..-::::-' ~ ==...- 'IIIU.. -==:-.:.-:.::.~. --~::: ", .....:&:::= .:-.:1.... -;~~-__:.._:=-...-::=_:t:,~..:. _......=:-_a:.-::~...... 0'_ -~~~V- -.-,... - ~'=F=;j= .:'5=:1' '. ----~"'7:: :-..-. --=~~~ -:.::: , --It;:!!I- ---'li' --=~:~~~: -..-.:.:: .-:. =_::::===~~-.:~r _. =:= ~; ==':=":=;:J': .....':.-=:~_ .~==:;V-""" ...:.:"'_-=: 1:: -." --. ---... 1~I!fli ---... .. --... .. --.... .. ..-... . -_-=-:: J: OH3031 ........'_.an" "'- ~ ~ ~ ~~~:GW'~--= ......--..- HOI.LY:lI.:l1.L1I3:l --1....._--....--_-..- ~ --....--.,----__=:.=.t.::=".=J:"'t ....:::.::=.....~.=t.~~~u"J! ......_-==::J=.~-:=~-= ---___ftt_.~:.~=~~ ........,;:-::.=~_-:.c-4-.::-r==.= =-waa ~-=-==aa:.~~~~ "-':''='"-=-.ft.:.:'&I:=-'=.a.''$I:~':; - - .-- .- -... = :::=::.::.-:' -. -::. ':.::': ...=-:~~~=~:.::::--..~.., .=--~~-;=..~~.i.1=:ta~ --....--............ . ....-==--=i1.i::===n:.=.=s:i.a~~ -.=.~AiM-I:::~~::"52:~.i;~ ~-'-w:===::=-.:.=-:..-____,. -..-....- -.....------.....-..--- ~ ..a_.____.. ~l":IN":rA':!.-=" ,,- --t~=';.-:..-=..~ S'3.l0H --.. ....~"===:".:u.~~.,.~:::IO:;: --..-... 1/"1__...._.. I"!._."'I-.- no.. .___.."ftJI ~_.~.:?:.'::.=- -\:'~Z:.-A~ .i,~~~ ~~~ -..== .::~= t':--:. ""<<,_""", ~..:r.::= -....-. -......._....__aa...._. ....._1-:.-.'" -::...~..~~"":'::=~~. .~*: '=5=~-=-~4 i:..~......... . ~l""" .'":'b. ~~~: --,..."- ~..ftu.:..::.':,..~~..:'=,~~...-=:..":'= ':'~~A=:;;''':==.e::.uii ..'ft -=~':'.:.::."='=.:..-=.'=.-:.:':.~ .,. .,.-...---....-.---"'-.--- ,. .- ~...-::--=.:-:.~'=I'==:.:s.It~='= --.... --=:Lft::.:..,.~',==:,~~::= -....--<11 _.._.................:='== ...,....--.. A"'" ,_.._....-....1 =~ ....A'J~.:'".~ r-a-,~:.raiWF~ 1/.. ___... . "l ~l\' HOI.ldI1l~S30 lOI!101.:l 'A.lHl1O:l SY"lNld ~NYll> 's Bt dlHStfAO.l 'tt NOIJ.~3S , , "' - 531'10 WnonwltMCl J.., tilt!: 11 "lIlI.lIl1WnJ .... II .lVMtOOt"ln S~ UMnIII _... RtO-f.. 111 tColtfWll.u1l ,",,.,..m .11.11..., OH .&1'" rull.,. "'WlIlna$U .,.....- SUjnOd Jj.- Im,l' ~.I "ii.;g I-" ~ r--I _.,J ~~ 1\1\;-"~ i.J "JIfk::'N. l~p~\1~~ !-I:' ~ ,," ~. ~I Ii ~:r . t' '~," j~ Vil')';~. ~i '. ,"... 4 0 .~( ,\./ =t I I J,f' 1 ,... .. ..) I :;). "II> I Y"~-'" J...5i# >.J, I . ~~ , 'M" "Jl, . 'l!...,' ".. , :l> i}J/{ fti .. e: ... illo//} II i I ... :l> :{ r < Ir I I . I ~ : V~ t " t /, , ! ",'./" ,0 ., i 'I v{ !" I v.',: · ~ . ~ :-:" . /. :l> ~. - .. I ~ 1-_'lJl~ .J }I~ I), / - .) .. -', \.; ....J? r./:.." J.. ".-(_ T~:-'-"~ ,,_ { ~p rIn ."L I~" j./-: "'", ~ s~v 01. ".. . I I ;t," l' ~ ,.:.".1(1 ,{.:1?" / .t ~ ~l" ,; I ,,," ~ ,., I · I' I I "" .. li ',t .IiE:',#:-I -:N.11 t ~ "\. 0 I Al-Al\I- 1'- .l, ~${ I i~~1 ~i~' ~~ '", 0 V ==' II, lnrrf~, ) I 1 I t: 1/ ., , .. II _ . '~~I":"':'~ ,.. i-J ". -.:j! ~).:.: ~I ,1<J>Dv~1 1 ~<(%"" - .{ _LI I "H III f I. ,4r " 'N'tf:-A .I..,: .~ "t~if:/1. '- L . ~- ~-_...., V " ~~.~'I' \.., '""'( ~ ~~;., .... "i. AI ; ti' ;;:::::''''; "I,~~ i--7._:l !...,~::..' .1). t~ .' ..(" II ~ . '~'\ '~rr # "t IS; r=:~. ~ ~f"n ~ ,Ft3lJ ' r--",-- J ~iP> L4 ~ ~'-I ! .. v, '.~-:y:- "'r: 7' . "~ : 1"'-". 'I MMa_;r .. 1..J Y.lYO 3o\~1l:I ( , . .. ,. t":'::\ '-;;I' . I ! ~~ ' . .. .. .~ -'5_ ,. " - ~~ ~ -. I , ,"J,' L.' ;V' .. . I' D U .. 1~~Jn,..,... =.iE--:Ii t~-=-= ..:::::-~ w.... ww__J.IH1I UUCM . HI< -;;rJ, r a I'- k-'~ t.:: ~" ~:: 'L' :{~i=I, " t-'~ Itl "It j; 110 ~ .. .. . >';'- fI I I. ;,/. "-'"'It"": ... t I 1...1I11W.......... , ~1nIQ.\" sw I ,-ei' ~ e\o.-e~. sa~ ~oo~ 1Q () , - 1 ,.U:=V :I: ( 'r", -l .t :l> I I j' ! ..... I) 'Ie ~ 1I u: .t,~ ~ :'~ ..' , " ..."; ... , :.;;:-~:.. /"\. , ~.l \r--' --= \w_m...__ ... Jnt4\., &flI4 --~ , ~ "~C:r - - /, ,""; -;), i ~ 1t J "'i ", I · \. I~ ! r) , 1 ~I;I- d 1.. 1 .. f ~ c (~r:.~ ,JJ .::\ 'i' ~ t , 1 ; , ~I ,'" u r- i I J '" ~ :1"~ , " ' ; ::0 . I"." ,,..~ " , ,~:= .. I,. II: ':f' '~~;~ '.. ;'; .~, 1: il" , ., ..r~. 'i" '} ~~ . ,I" I r.o I' , , . I .. · ..Il.., ~ J1 ,,~d-'\o - .. }~r;~jt' tv 't l~ " I " 'N"_:'~~' I!; )~l ", /j--t"', -- ~ ....1 , ..- ~ '- j~I-~ ;I\~~ .' i 'I"~~. r ~ ". " In.. fti r;.. ";y:~ ~,- L 1 ... "~e ~' o~..".~..... ....... 1 p, t 7- ..._............ , r t r. f. ~ . \ ,II~ I I ___ ..I" I,::;:;;. "~I(~.....,:iV,, I-:~l - i .If!} '.... J " , 1 ... . t;i'::\ ,~ . - . I' . (C~ " .. II .. \. .. I ::::...2.i~~_:.:.. ~__ - ....... -. --- .. .... - .,u~u.!~ ...-. T . .. OC-.I"'Jl'I)'I ,......... . It . f .. r \- \2: l~ \0 \) 1m ,,, ,Ul / CW 03-22/CW 02-39 ...--;....,. .a. .. ,-..; "1a. T UUAtl Lase r~o.. 03-1500 PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL [=:, g 1/1,-<\ , t"P. [>.. '-' """ II ~~ "",'-3 "" '\ ~~ V Jnr~ d I \ ~\J\)t ~ Ul C Z ~ Z m Ul ^ '~ f ~~ !J h^ ---~ - -~ .z- MILES .J ~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL October 3,2003 RECE\VED ac r 07 200'3 PLANN'\NG t?~~ARTME.NT CJMP.:9W-&N;pWA1ER COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor Robert H, DINicola, Chm, Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph,D" Vice Chm, Mayor Frank DiDonato, DC, Treas, Commissioner Calvin D. Hams, Sec, Vice-Mayor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Council member Sandra L Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare Councllmember Bill Foster School Board Member Jane GalluccI Commissioner Bob Hackworth CommiSSioner Hoyt Hamilton Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR David P Healey, AICP Executive Director AMENDMENTOFCOUNT~EPLAN The Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), will conduct public hearings on proposed land use plan amendments to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan (Countywide Plan) for Pinellas County, pursuant to the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, As Amended (Plan Rules), as identified in the accompanying copy of the Notice of Amendment. Please refer to the case(s) and information pertinent thereto, including the date, time and place of the public hearings, as set forth on the accompanying Notice of Amendment. The noted amendment(s) include property: "" within the jurisdiction of your local government; o which may be of interest to your local government; " Please contact us at the address or telephone number listed below with any questions. ~ 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 . CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212 www.cQ.plnellas.fl.us/ppc " ,#/' NOTICE OF AMENDMENT OF COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN The Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), will conduct a public hearing to consider the Recommended Order of the Administration Law Judge on a proposed land use plan amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for Pinellas County (Countywide Plan), pursuant to the Rules Concerninq the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, As Amended (Plan Rules) and Resolution No, 90-205 for the following case: DOAH Case No. 03-1500 City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, iii, and Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., as Trustee, PETITIONERS vs. Pinel/as County 8'oard of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority, RESPONDENT The CPA public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 4.2003. at 9:30 AM. in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. The CPA will consider the Recommended Order on the proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan submitted by the City of Clearwater in accordance with Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, the Plan Rules and Resolutiqn No. 90-205. . The proposed plan amendment is as follows: JUrisdIctIon (PPC Case No ) Proposed Amendment ApproxImate Acreaqe Subiect Property Clearwater From: Residential Suburban; #CW 03-22/#CW 02-39 PreservatIon; Water/Drainage Feature To: ReSidentIal Urban, PreservatIon; Water/DraInage Feature 23,0 East Side of Chautauqua Ave, from 103 ft, south of 2nd Ave, N, to 2nd Ave. S, The public hearing by the CPA shall be confined to the Recommended Order which includes a Statement of the Issue, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations, The Recommendation of the Administrative L3W Judge is as follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining thatthe plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 and that the amendment should be denied. The CPA may consider any written exceptions that have been duly filed to the Recommended Order by October 15, 2003 and shall then render a deciSion based on the Findings, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation and any exceptions thereto that the {\- '. ~ CPA determines to be valid, The public is hereby advised that the effect of any proposed amendment may significantly impact the type and intensity of use of the subject property and be of interest to neighboring property owners. ' The details of the proposed amendment, ~,the Recommended Order, and any filed exceptions thereto, are available at the office of the PPC, 600 Cleveland St., Ste. 850, CJearvvater, Florida, 33755; further information about the proposed amendments can be obtained by calling (727) 464-8250, Interested parties are invited to attend the hearings to present facts or express views on the cases shown in this advertisement. If a person substantially affected decides to pursue any further legal remedy based on the decision oUhe CPA at this hearing, they will need a record oftne proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the petition for the hearing is to be based. If you ,are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitfed, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Within two (2) working days of your receipt of this notice, please contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 S. FI. Harrison Ave., Ste. 300, Clearwater, FL 33756. (727) 464-4062 (V/TDD). r~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBERS Apri123,2003 rr~~(Q;\tuW~ID) APR 1 ~ 2003 CITY ATTORNEV Mayor Robert H. DiNicola, Chm, Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph,D" Vice Chm. Mayor Frank DiDonato, D.C., Treas, Commissioner Calvin D. Harris, Sec, Vice-Mayor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Councilmember Sandra L Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare Councilmember Bill Foster School Board Member Jane GalluccI Commissioner Bob Hackworth Commissioner Hoyt Hamilton Commissioner Nadme S, Nickeson Deputy Chief Judge James W. York State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Re: City of Clearwater, Florida, vs. For the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, And Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., As Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners .Binellas County Board of County Commissioners, as Countywide Planning Authority, Respondent Dear Judge York: In accord with our Administrative Law Judge Service Contract, this is to request the services of an Administrative Law Judge for the above referenced matter. I have enclosed the following materials relevant to the request: · Attachment 1 - Administrative Law Judge Service Contract between DOAH and the Pinellas Planning Council · Attachment 2 - copy of Chapter 88-464, Section 10 (4), Laws of Florida Re: Administrative Hearings · Attachment 3 - Copies of the Countywide Plan Rilles (Article 5, Plan Amendment) and Countywide Planning Authority Resolution No. 90-205 (V and VI) Re: Administrative Hearing Process · Attachment 4 - Above Referenced Petition for Administrative Hearing and attachments thereto Received Apri121, 2003 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212 www.co.pinellas.fl.us/ppc Page two April 23, 2003 . Attachment 5 - Pinellas Planning Council Agenda Memorandum and minutes for meeting of September 18, 2002 ' . Attachment 6 - Countywide Planning Authority Agenda Memorandum and minutes for meeting of October 15, 2002 . Attachment 7 - Pinellas Planning Council Agenda Memorandum and minutes for meeting of March 19, 2003 . Attachment 8 - Countywide Planning Authority Agenda Memorandum, minutes, and Resolution No. 03-55 for meeting of April 1, 2003 I believe this is a complete list of relevant information needed to initiate this process. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to coordinate the scheduling of the administrative hearing process and identify anything further we can provide to you by way of background information. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. RECEIVED APR 2 5 2003 CITY ATTORNEY Sincerely, ~~~~~ Executive Director cc: Commissioner Karen Williams Seel, Chair, Countywide Planning Authority Stephen M. Spratt, Pinellas County Administrator Susan Churuti, Pinellas County Attorney Members, PinelIas Planning Council Jewel White Cole, Pinellas Planning Council Legal Counsel Mayor Brian Aungst, City of Clearwater Williani B. Home, City of Clearwater City Manager Pam Akin, City of Clearwater Attorney Hany S. Cline, Esq., Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen Stephen o. Cole, Esq., Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen PINELLAS COUNTY BOA:R..-D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER-S ~~ \ , PHONE 17271484.3279 . FAX 17211464-3022 . 3115 COURT STREET. CLEARWATER. FLORIDA 337158 KAREN WIUIAMS 8EEL CI1AIflMAN Aprill, 2003 REceIVED The Honorable Brian Aungst, Mayor City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 APR 0 ~ 2D03 . PlANNING DEPARTMENT CIlY OF ClEARWATER DearMa~ At its April I , 2003 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the CPA, took action to approvo Cases #CW 03-19, #CW 03-20, and #CW 03-21, which were initiated by your City. At its April I, 2003 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the CPA, took action to deny Case #CW 03-22. This is to notify you, pmsuant to Section 5.1.3 of the Countywide Rules, of your right to apply for Administration Hearing within 21 days of the date of denial as set for in the attached copy of the Rules outlining the Administration Hearing process. The Ordinance and Resolution associated with these actions arc attached. Sincerely, ~()AV-' Karen Williams Seel Chairman PineUS3 County Commission Attachments cc: Cyndi Tarapani. Planning Director CPA\Com:II' ck PI ~ EXHIBIT b I " A" Q .PINEUAS COUNTY IS AN eaUAL OPPORTUNITY i:t\i ",1/1"0 ON IIICYCWl flUt1l ,/"" ./ Healey, Executive Director, 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850, Clearwater, FL 33755-4160, Pinellas County, Attn: Susan Churuti, Esq., County Attorney, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; City of Clearwater, Attn: Brian Aungst, Mayor, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758- 4748; City of Clearwater, Attn: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748; City of Clearwater, Attn: Pam' Akin, Esq., City Attorney, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 and by Federal Express to Division of Administrative /jaringS, The Desoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060, this day of April, 2003. MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 727 /441-8966 (Phone) 727/442-8470 (Fax) Attorneys for Petitioners BYH~~ 0 ~ SPN # 41047 / Florida Bar # 0133526 Stephen o. Cole SPN # 170518 / Florida Bar # 198250 h:\data\aty\soc\dimmitt\administrativehearing.req,doc " f presented to the Respondent CPA which would allow it to ignore the repeated favorable recommendations, including that of its own staff, by denying the requested change. 11. The action which the DIMMITTS contend requires reversal is the denial by the CPA of the requested amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, notwithstanding the multiple levels of approval recommended by the staffs of the reviewing agencies of the affected agencies and authorities, and notwithstanding the total lack of any evidence to justify the CPA having ignored the staff, PPC and PCA recommendations in denying the application. 12. The relief sought by this petition is for an administrative hearing to establish as conclusive and binding the facts established by the evidence already available in the record of this proceeding, and thereafter for the matter to be returned to the CPA for approval of the Petitioners' request. WHEREFORE, Petitioners CITY OF CLEARWATER for use and benefit of LA WRENCE H. DIMMITT, III, and LA WRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, pray that an administrative hearing be granted for the purpose of affuming the controlling facts in this matter, and that the matter thereafter be returned to the Respondent PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, acting as the COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, for the purpose of approving the requested amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as it affects the , Subject Property. Petitioners further request that they have such additional relief as may be just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by hand delivery and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to: Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, acting as Countywide Planning Authority, Attn: Karen Williams Seel, Chairman, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33756 PineIlas Planning Council, Attn: David P. /.., '1 . "A" and is incorporated by reference. A copy of the letter was furnished to the DIMMITTS' counsel on April 10, 2003. 7. lbis petition for an administrative hearing is timely made, in accordance with the applicable rules, within twenty one (21) days of the date of denial of the request relating to the Subject Property. 8. The case before the CPA embodying the request of the DIMMITTS for the amendment to the future land use change, identified by the CPA as Case Number CW 02-39/03- 22, was a request for an amendment of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as it affects the Subject Property, from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) to Residential Low (RL) and Preservation (P). The amendment was passed on the first reading at the June 20, 2002 City Commission meeting for the CITY OF CLEARWATER. A copy of the application to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as it relates to the Subject Property is attached, marked Exhibit "B," and is incorporated by reference. 9. There are no known disputed issues of material fact. No competent evidence was presented' to or otherwise before the CPA to contradict the approvals and recommendations for the requested change. 10. A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts which the DIMMITTS contend warrant reversal of the agency's proposed action are as follows. The requested amendment to the Countrywide Future Land Use Plan was favorably reviewed and approved by the CITY OF CLEARWATER, in which the Subject Property is located, as well as by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC), the Planners Advisory Committee (PAC) which serves the PPC, and by the staff of PINELLAS COUNTY. No competent evidence was ~ ~ US Highway 19 North (the Subject Property). This property consists of approximately 22.18 acres, and is owned by the DIMMITTS. 3. The City of Clearwater is a nominal party only for the use and benefit of the real parties in interest, the DIMMITTS. TIle DIMMITTS are represented by the undersigned counsel and service upon the DIMMITTS may be made by service upon the undersigned counsel. 4. The respondent agency affected by this request for an administrative hearing and for the determination of conclusive and binding findings of fact is the PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS in its capacity as COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY (CPA). 5. The DIMMITTS, as owners of the Subject Property, are persons who are substantially affected and who therefore have standing to bring this petition. Their substantial interests which are affected by the ultimate agency determination to be based upon the findings of fact determined by the administrative hearing is due to their ownership of the Subject Property. They have and will suffer an adverse financial loss due to the effect upon their rights to use and benefit from the Subject Property which has resulted from the agency determination sought to be corrected by this petition. 6. The DIMMITTS received notice of the adverse agency decision on an informal basis by being present, through their counsel, at the hearing of April 1,2003 of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, acting as the CPA, when it acted upon the petition of the CITY OF CLEARWATER relating to the DIMMITTS and the Subject Property seeking to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as it affects the Subject Property. Formal written notice of the decision was made by letter dated April 1, 2003, received April 9, 2003, by the Planning Department of the CITY OF CLEARWATER. A copy of the letter is attached, marked Exhibit ~ ~. , traffic problems, and brought the matter back to the PPC. Again the PPC staff recommended approval and PAC unanimously recommended approval of a land use plan amendment. It proceeded to the PPC, and by a vote of 9-3 on March 19,2003, the PPC recommended approval to the County of Pinellas, 'sitting as the CPA. During the pendency of these applications, the Department of Community Affairs indicated that it had no objection to the land use plan amendment, and the Florida Department of Transportation indicated it had no concerns relative to traffic on U.S. Highway 19, the only State Road in the area. The matter thus came to the CPA on April 1, 2003, with recommendations of approval from all reviewing professional plmmers and governmental bodies, but following a brief hearing, the CPA unanimously rejected the City of Clearwater's request to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan to Residential Low. The DIMMITTS now appeal that decision in this Petition for Administrative Hearing. PETITION In support of this petition, these parties state: 1. This petition for an administrative hearing is made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5.1.3.8 of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as Amended, and in accordance with the provisions of Ch. 120, Fla. Stat. 2. The real parties of interest in this matter are LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, III and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, owners of the property which is the subject of this action. The property is known as 2301 Chautauqua Avenue, Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, and is generally located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, west of Lake Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of ~.: I~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBERS MEMORANDUM Mayor Robert H. DINicola, Chm, Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph.D., Vice Chm. Mayor Frank DiDonato, D.C., Treas. Commissioner Calvin D, Hams, Sec. Vice-Mayor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Council member Sandra L. Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare Council member Bill Foster School Board Member Jane Gallucci Commissioner Bob Hackworth Commissioner Hoyt Hamilton Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson TO: Stephen M. Spratt, County Administrator FROM: David P. Healey, Executive Director ~ A/ Pinellas Planning Council ~ . SUBJECT: Transmittal ofPPC Items for the Countywide Planning Authority David P. Healey, AICP Meeting of April!, 2003 - Re: Parts 1. n. and ill - Public Hearing Agenda Executive Director DATE: March 20,2003 I am transmitting herewith the sixteen (16) agenda packets of the agenda items to be considered by the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) at their meeting of April 1, 2003. Attached to this memo is the listing of the CPA items, Parts I, n, and ill for incorporation in your complete agenda, which has also been transmitted separately by E-mail. The CPA items to be included on the agenda are as follows: · Part I - Public Hearing Agenda: Subthreshold Plan Map Amendments, Exhibits I-A through I-H. · Part II - Public Hearing Agenda: Regular Plan Map Amendments, Exhibits II-A through II-C. · Part ill - Public Hearirig Agenda: Rules Amendment Re: Vested Rights, Exhibit ill. Part I - Public Hearing Agenda Re: Subthreshold Plan Map Amendments The proposed subthreshold amendments to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, attached as Exhibits I-A through I-H include requests from Clearwater, Largo, and Pinellas County, identified as follows: · Exhibit I-A: Case #CW 03-19, City of Clearwater- a 0.84 acre parcel located on the northeast comer of Drew Street and Anna Avenue proposed to be amended from Commercial General to Residential/Office General. · Exhibit I-B: Case #CW 03-20, City of Clearwater - a 0.87 acre parcel located on the southwest side of Windward Passage, 310 feet north of Marina Way, proposed to be amended from Commercial General to Residential Medium. · Exhibit I-C: Case #CW 03-24, Pinellas County - a 0.72 acre parcel located on the northeast corner of U.S. Alternate Highway 19 and Blue Moon Boulevard, proposed to be amended from Preservation to Residential/Office Limited. 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212 www.co.pinellas.fl.usjppc . ., " , , . Exhibit I-D: Case #CW 03-25, City of Largo - a 3.44 acre parcel located on the east side .. of Highland Avenue North, 230 feet north of East Bay Drive, proposed to be amended from Commercial General to Residential/Office General. . Exhibit I-E: Case #CW 03-26.... City of Largo - a 1.5 acre parcel located 1,960 feet south of East Bay Drive, 1,610 feet west of Starkey Road, proposed to be amended from Residential Medium to Recreation/Open Sp~ce. . Exhibit I-F: Case #CW 03-27, City of Largo - a 8.65 acre parcel located on the west-side of Seacrest Drive and north and south sides of Bamsdale Drive, Camelot Drive, and Sherwood Drive, proposed to be amended from Residential Medium to Residential Low Medium. . Exhibit I-G: Case #CW 03-28, City of Largp - a 8.28 acre parcel located on the north and south sides of Sherwood Drive and east ap.d. west sides of Jody Court and Debby Court, proposed to be amended from Residential Medium to Residential Urban; Water/Drainage Feature Overlay. ' I . Exhibit I-H: Case #CW 03-29, City of Largo - a 5.37 acre parcel located 110 feet south of 122nd Avenue North, 695 feet east of Vonn Road, proposed to be amended from Institutional to Institutional; Water/Drainage Feature Overlay. The PPC has recommended that Cases #CW 03-19, #CW 03-20, #CW 03-24, #CW03-25, #CW03-26, #CW03-27, #CW03-28 be approved as subthreshold amendments and Case #CW03- 29 be continued to the April 16, 2003 PPC meeting, and be subsequently considered at the May 6, 2003 CPA meeting. Part IT - Public Hearin~ Agenda Re: Regular Plan Map Amendments The proposed regular amendments to the Countywipe Future Land Use Plan, attached as Exhibits II-A through II-C, are requests from the City of Clemwater and Pinellas County, identified as follows: ' . Exhibit II-A: Case #CW 03-21, Clemwater - a 1.83 acre site located on the northeast side I of Windward Passage, 230 feet north of Marina Way, proposed to be amended from \ Commercial General to Residential High. .'-'Exhibit,ll-B: Case,#CW,02-39/03-22, Clearw;at~r - a 22.18 acre site located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, from 103 feet south of 2nd Avenue N. to 2nd Avenue S., proposed' to be amended from Residential Suburban; Preservation; Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation;,Water/Drainage Feature. I, . Exhibit ll-C: Case #CW 03-23, Pinellas County - a 0.14 acre site located on the west side of Belcher Road, 80 feet south of 14th Avenue S.E., proposed to be amended from Residential Low to ResidentiallOffice Limited. .., ,,-~'<<iff." ~ >>N ;;;X}/' "'{i The PPC has recommended that CasesJCW 03-21~ #CW 03:~2~ and #CW 03-2~;,p~,;approved as regular am~dm)n~~", , .. '.. " : r~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBERS MEMORANDUM Commissioner Nadine S. Nickeson, Chm. Vice-Mayor Janet Henderson, Vice Chm. Mayor Robert H. DiNicola, Treas. Mayor Robert Jackson, Sec, Mayor Jerry BeverlantJ Councilmember Sandra L. Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare Mayor Frank DiDonato, D.C. Councilmember Bill Foster School Board Member Max R. Gessner Commissioner Hoyt Hamilton Commissioner Calvin D. Harris Mayor William B. Smith TO: Stephen M. Spratt, County Administrator David P. Healey, Executive Direct~ 101 <' Pinellas Planning Council V:fo JJr"v FROM: SUBJECT: Transmittal ofPPC Items for the Countywide Planning Authority Meeting of October 15, 2002 - Re: Part I Regular Agenda and Parts IT, III, & IV -Public Hearing Agenda DATE: October I, 2002 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director I am transmitting herewith the sixteen (16) agenda packets of the agenda items to be considered - -, by the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) at, their meeting of-October 15, 2002. Attached to ibis memo'is'the-1isting of the CPA items, Parts I, II, III, & IV for incorporation in your complete agenda, which has also been transmitted separately by E-mail. The CPA items to be included on the agenda are as follows: · Part I - Regular Agenda: Wireless Facilities Study, Exhibit I-A. · Part II - Public Hearing Agenda: Subthreshold Plan Map Amendments, Exhibits II- A through II-E. · Part ill - Public Hearing Agenda: Regular Plan Map Amendments, Exhibits III-A through ill-F. · Part IV - Public Hearing Agenda: Planning Area Map Amendment, Exhibit IV-A. Part I - Regular Agenda Re: Wireless Facilities Study The CPA item to be included under the regular agenda as Exhibit I-A is a Wireless Facilities Study for the Boards receipt and concurrence. · Exhibit I-A: Wireless Facilities: Plar.ning for the Next Generation of Technology - The report identifies issues and strategies to address wireless facilities from a countywide planning and economic perspective. The PPC has approved the report and recommendation to host a countywide wireless facilities workshop and authorized PPC Resolution No. 02-4 to forward the report and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the CPA. 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755~160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212 www.co.pinellas.fl.uS/ppc 1& .. ..; Part IT - Public Hearing Allenda Re: Subthreshold Plan Map Amendments " The: proposed subthreshold amendments to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, attach~ as Exhibits IT-A through IT-E, include requests from Pinellas County, Madeira Beach, and Pinellas Park, identified as follows: I '. Exhibit IT-A: Case #CW 02-33, Pinellas County - a 0.39 acre parcel located on the northeast comer of Hamlin Boulevard and 117th Avenue North proposed to be amended from Residential Low to Residential/Office General. II Exhibit IT-B: Case #CW 02-34, Pinellas COlinty - a 0.54 acre parcel located 550 feet north of 58th Avenue North and 200 feet west of 49th Street North proposed to be amended from Institutional to Residential/Office General. I <<. Exhibit IT-C: Case #CW 02-35, Pinellas County - a 1.34 acre parcel located on the east side of 34th Street North and 300 feet north of 46th Avenue North proposed to be amended from Industrial Limited to Commercial General. M' _!.. E~biJ IT-D: Case #CW' 02-42, Mad~ira,B~'a.ch - a 0.77. acre parcel located on the south ---- - - --.-, '-. ,side-of 140th Avenue and 124 feet east ofMiramar Avenue proposed to be amended from Residential Urban to Residential Medium. ' , . · Exhibit IT-E: Case #CW 02-43, Pinellas Park - a 0.48 acre parcel located on the west side of 65th Street North and 214' feet north of 62Dd Avenue North proposed to be amended from Residential Low Medium to Commercial General. , ' I The PPC has recommended that Cases #CW 02-33~ #CW 02-34, #CW 02-35, #CW 02-42, and #CW 02-43 be approved as subthreshold amendments. Part ill - Public Hearing Allenda Re: Regular Plan Map Amendments The proposed regular amendments to the Countywide Future Land Use Pl~ attached as Exhibits ill-A through ill-F, are requests from Clearwater, Largo, Safety Harbor, Seminole, and Tarpon Springs, identified as follows: " · Exhibit ill-A: Case #CW 02-36, Clearwater -:- a 10.14 acre site located on the south side of S.R 590 and 770 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road proposed to be amended from Industri~ Limited and Water Drainage Feature to Residential High and WaterlDrainage F~e. ' · Exhibit ill-B: Case #CW 02-37, Largo - a 9.70 acre area site located on the east side of 58th Street North and approximately 920 feet north of Ulmerton Road to be amended from Industrial Limited; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature to Institutional; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature. 2 " · Exhibit ill-C: Case #CW 02-38, Safety Harbor - a 41.20 acre area site generally located between the east end of Cypress Hollow Court and the west end of Green Springs Drive, and approximately 150 feet north of the Florida Power Corporation tram:mi~sion lines to be amended from Residential Low and Preservation to Institutional and Preservation. · Exhibifill-D: <lase #CW 02':39; Clearwater -'a 22.18 acre area site located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue from 103 feet south of Second Avenue North to Second Avenue South to be amended from Residential Suburban; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature to Residential LoW; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature. · Exhibit ill-E: Case #CW 02-40, Seminole - a 7.63 acre area site located on the north side of 102Dd Avenue North and 300 feet west of Seminole Boulevard to be amended from Institutional to Commercial General. · Exhibit III-F: Case #CW 02-41, Tarpon Springs - a 9.47 acre area site located on the south side of Gulf Road, 1,725 feet east of Florida Avenue to be amended from Commercial Neighborhood to Institutional. The PPC has recommended that Cases #CW 02-36, #CW 02-37, #CW 02-38, and #CW 02-41 be approved as regular amendments, subject to the specific conditions and supplemental ,- ,- recommendations noted for the respe'ctive case'S'.- The PPC also recommended that Case #CW 02-39 be:denied and Case #CW 02-40 be continued. Part IV - Public HearmS! Agenda Re: PlanninS! Area Map Amendment The proposed Planning Area Map Amendment to EXhibit 1 of Ordinance No. 00-63, attached as Exhibit IV-A, is a request submitted by Pinellas County, identified as follows: · Exhibit IV -A: Pinellas County - a request to amend the Planning Area Map Delineating Eligibility for Annexation (Exhibit' 1- Pinellas County Ordinance No. 00-63) for an unincorporated area adjoining Kenneth City within the Lealman Special Fire Control District. The Pinellas Planning Council has recommended the requested amendment be continued and approved a supplemental recommendation that a settlement agreement be utilized to resolve the conflict resolution process between Pinellas County and Kenneth City. ~J ut~= Subsequent to the September PPC meeting, an agreed-upon approach was outlined at the conflict resolution mediation session on September 18th and this item will be heard by the Council on October 16th and the CPA on October 29th as part of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 02-48.] The agenda package for each of the above-referenced items, including the advisory recommendation of the PPC, is attached in the accompanying exhibits. The complete record of the public hearing held by the Pinellas Planning Council is on file with the Clerk and is available for review by the Board or any interested party. 3 '~ REGULAR AGENDA , .. k COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY a. Wireless Facilities Study SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY - Consideration of the Following Proposals to Amend the Adopted Countywide Future Land Use Plan: SUBTHRESHOLD AMEND:MENTS a. Case #CW 02-33 - Pinellas County Location - 0.39 Acres Located on the Northeast Corner of Hamlin Boulevard and 117th Avenue North Amendment from Residential Low to Residential/Office General .. - --, - b~ Case #CW 02-34 - Pinellas-Coun1y Location - 0~54 Acres Located'S50 feetNorth'of 58th Avenue'North-'and 200 feet West of 49th Street North. Amendment from Institutional to Residential/Office/General. :- Co Case #CW 02-35 - Pinellas County Location - 1.34 Acres Located on the East Side of 34th Street North and 300 feet North of 46th Avenue North. . Amendment from Industrial Limited to Commercial General. d Case #CW 02-42 - Madeira Beach < Location - 0.77 Acres Located on the South Side of 140th Avenue and 124 feet East of Miramar Avenue. Amendment from Residential Urban to Residential Medium. e. Case #CW 02-43 - Pinellas Park Location - 0.48 Acres Located on the West Side of 65th Street North and 214 feet North of 62Dd Avenue North. Amendment from Residential Low Medium to Commercial General. I REGULAR AMENDl\1ENTS a. Case #CW 02-36 - Clearwater Location - 10.14 Acres Located on the South Side of S.R. 590 and 770 feet West of McMullen-Booth Road. Amendment from Industrial Limited and WaterlDrainage Feature to Residential High and WaterlDrainage Feature. 4 ..... r~] PINELLAS PLANNIN~~8~~ffi October 3, 2003 COUNCIL MEMBERS Mr. Winston E. Needham 2670 3rd Avenue N. Clearwater, FL 33759 Mayor Robert H DINicola, Ch'm . ,-' Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph,D , Vice Chm Mayor Frank DIDonato, D,C" Treas Commissioner Calvin 0 Hams, Sec Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare CW #03-22/CW#02-39/DOAH Case No. 03-1500 Councilmemb.er Bill Foster City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt. III, and School Board Member Jane GalluccI L H D. . J T PETITIONERS Vice-Mayor Bob Hackworth awrence . 1illID1tt. r.. as rustee, Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton VS. Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority. RESPONDENT OCT 07 2003 PLANi\UNG DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Re: David P Healey, AICP Executive Director Dear Mr. Needham: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Recommended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning Council. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinel/as County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3. 5. 6 and that the amendment should be denied The basis for the final decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15,2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ~~4 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212 www.cQ.pinellas.fl. usjppc [~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL October 3, 2003 COUNCIL MEMBERS Mr. Donald M. Sutton 2693 3rd Avenue N. Clearwater, FL 33759 Mayor Robert H DINicola, Chm , Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph D, Vice Chm, Mayor Frank DIDonato, DC, Treas, CommisSioner Calvin D Hams, Sec, Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L. Bradbury # / # /D C Mayor Tom De Cesare CW 03-22 CW 02-39 OAH ase No. 03-1500 Councllmember Bill Foster City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, and School Board Member Jane GallUCCI Lawrence H Dimmitt Jr. as Trustee PETITIONERS Vice-Mayor Bob Hackw.orth . " , Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton vs. Commissioner Nadine S, Nickeson Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority, RESPONDENT David P Healey, AICP Execulive Director Re: Dear Mr. Sutton: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Recommended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning Council. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5,6 and that the amendment should be denied. The basis for the final decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15, 2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, y-r/P 4 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 . FAX (727) 464-8212 www,co pinellas.fl us/ppc I~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL October 3, 2003 COUNCIL MEMBERS Ms. Linda L. Ganglehoff 2678 3rd Avenue N. Clearwater, FL 33759 Mayor Robert H DINicola, Chm, Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph D , Vice Chm Mayor Frank DIDonato, DC, Treas Commissioner Calvin D, Harris, Sec Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L, Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare CW #03-22/CW#02-39/DOAH Case No. 03-1500 Councilmember Bill Foster City of Clearwater. for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt. III. and School Board Member Jane Gallucci . . Vice-Mayor Bob Hackworth Lawrence H. Dllnmltt. Jr.. as Trustee. PETITIONERS Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton VS. Commissioner Nadme S Nickeson Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority. RESPONDENT David P Healey, AICP Executive Director Re: Dear Ms. Ganglehoff: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Recommended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning Council. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinel/as County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5,3.5,6 and that the amendment should be denied The basis for the final decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15, 2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. ( :elease let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ~??4 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212 www.co.pinellas.fl.us/ppc r~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBERS October 3, 2003 Mayor Robert H, DINicola, Chm Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph D , Vice Chm Mayor Frank DiDonato, DC" Treas Commissioner Calvin D Hams, Sec Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L. Bradbury , Mayor Tom De Cesare CW #03-22/CW#02-39/DOAH Case No. 03-1500 Councllmember Bill Foster City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III. and School Board Member Jane GallUCCI Lawrence H Dimmitt Jr as Trustee PETITIONERS Vice-Mayor Bob Hackworth . , ., , Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton vs. Commissioner Nadine S, Nickeson Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority, RESPONDENT David P Healey, AICP Executive Director Mr. Stephen E. McConihay 2350 Lakeshore Drive Clearwater, FL 33759 Re: Dear Mr. McConihay: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Recommended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning Council. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5,6 and that the amendment should be denied. The basis for the final decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15,2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ~A4 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 . CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 . FAX (727) 464-8212 WWW.co.pInellas.fl.us/ppc r~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL October 3, 2003 COUNCIL MEMBERS Mr. Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire 2435 US 19, Suite 350 Holiday, FL 34690 Mayor Robert H, DINicola, Chm Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph D" Vice Chm Mayor Frank DIDonato, D.C" Treas, Commissioner Calvin D Hams, Sec Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L. Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare CW #03-22/CW#02-39/DOAH Case No. 03-1500 Councllmember Bill Foster City of Clearwater. for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt. III. and School Board Member Jane GallUCCI H D. . J T PETITIONERS Vice-Mayor Bob Hackworth Lawrence . rmrmtt. f.. as rustee. Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton vs. Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority. RESPONDENT David P Healey, AICP Executive Director Re: Dear Mr. Figurski: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Recommended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning CounciL The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 and that the amendment should be denied. The basis for the final decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15, 2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, 74'~ 4 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director ~oo CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 . CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 ' TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212 www.cQ.pinellasfl.us/ppc ~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL October 3, 2003 COUNCIL MEMBERS Mr. Joe Burdette 618 Pineland Avenue Belleair, FL 33756 Mayor Robert H, DiNicola, Chm, Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph,D" Vice Chm Mayor Frank DIDonato, D.C , Treas Commissioner Calvin 0 Hams, Sec, Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare CW #03-22/CW#02-39/DOAH Case No. 03-1500 Councilmember Bill Foster City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, and School Board Member Jane GallUCCI L H D. . J T PETITIONERS Vice-Mayor Bob Hackworth awrence . Immltt, r., as rustee, Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton vs. Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson Pinellas County Board ofCountv Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority, RESPONDENT David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Re: Dear Mr. Burdette: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Recommended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning Council. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3,5,6 and that the amendment should be denied The basis for the fmal decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15,2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. Please let me know if you have any que~tions or require additional information. Sincerely, ~;44 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director I 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 . CL:EARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212 wwwcQ,pinellasJl.us/ppc (~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL October 3, 2003 COUNCIL MEMBERS Mr. Ed Hooper 430 Larboard Way Clearwater, FL 33767 Mayor Robert H, DINicola, Chm Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph,D" Vice Chm Mayor Frank DIDonato, D,C" Treas, Commissioner CalVin D Hams, Sec Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L. Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare CW #03-22/CW#02-39/DOAH Case No. 03-1500 Councllmember Bill Foster City 'of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, and School Board Member Jane GallUCCI . . ONERS Vice-Mayor Bob Hackworth Lawrence H. Dmumtt, Jr., as Trustee, PETITI Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton vs. Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority, RESPONDENT DaVid P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Re: Dear Mr. Hooper: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Recommended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning Council. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 and that the amendment should be denied The basis for the final decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15, 2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ;74'A 4 David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 . FAX (727) 464-8212 www.co.pinellas.fl.us/ppc (~] PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL October 3, 2003 COUNCIL MEMBERS LHD Properties, Ltd. 25485 US Highway 19 N. Clearwater, FL 33763 Mayor Robert H, DiNicola, Chm Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph D , Vice Chm. Mayor Frank DIDonato, DC, Treas, Commissioner Calvin D, Harris, Sec Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare CW #03-22/CW#02-39/DOAH Case No. 03-1500 Councllmember B," Foster City of Clearwater. for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt. III. and School Board Member Jane GallUCCI L H D. . J T PETITIONERS Vice-Mayor Bob Hackworth awrence . nnmItt. r.. as rustee. Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton vs. Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority. RESPONDENT David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Re: To Whom It May Concern: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Recommended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning Council. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as 'follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 and that the amendment should be denied The basis for the final decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15,2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ~??4 David P. Healey, AlCP Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 . CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 . FAX (727) 464-8212 www.co.pinellas.fl.us/ppc r~j PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL October 3, 2003 COUNCIL MEMBERS Mr. Harry S. Cline, Esquire PO Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 Mayor Robert H DINicola, Chm Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph.D. Vice Chm Mayor Frank DIDonato, DC" Treas Commissioner Calvin D, Hams, Sec Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L, Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare CW #03-22/CW#02-39/DOAH Case No. 03-1500 Councllmember Bill Foster City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III. and School Board Member Jane Gallucci L H D. . J T PETITIONERS Vice-Mayor Bob Hackworth awrence . mnrutt, r., as rustee, Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton vs. Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority, RESPONDENT David P Healey, AICP Executive Director Re: , Dear Mr. Cline: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Reco~ended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning Council. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as follows: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 and that the amendment should be denied The basis for the final decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15, 2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ~A dL.__ ,"vidP."Heale~,~ Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Cle~ater Planning Director 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 . FAX (727) 464-8212 www.co.pinellasfl.us/ppc ~ PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL October 3, 2003 COUNCIL MEMBERS Mr. Larry H. Dimmit, Jr. 25485 US Highway 19N. Clearwater, FL 33763 Mayor Robert H, DINicola, Chm Mayor Robert Jackson, Ph D , Vice Chm, Mayor Frank DIDonato, D.C" Treas Commissioner Calvin D. Hams, Sec, Councilor Pete Bengston Mayor Jerry Beverland Vice-Mayor Sandra L Bradbury Mayor Tom De Cesare CW #03-22/CW#02-39/DOAH Case No. 03-1500 Councllmember Bill Foster City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, and School Board Member Jane GallUCCI L H D. . J T PETITIONERS Vice-Mayor Bob Hackworth awrence . munltt, r., as rustee, Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton VS. Commissioner Nadine S Nickeson Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority, RESPONDENT David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director Re: Dear Mr. Dimmit: A public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners, in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), to consider the Recommended Order in the above-referenced matter is advertised for November 4, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. and will be held in the Board of County Commissioners Assembly Room, 5th Floor, Pinellas County Courthouse, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida. A copy of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in the above-referenced case has been received and is available for your inspection at the office of the Pinellas Planning Council. The recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge reads as follows: - Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3,5,6 and that the amendment should be denied The basis for the [mal decision of the CPA is limited to the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto that have been duly filed by October 15,2003 and determined by the CPA to be valid. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, ~A6 - David P. Healey, AICP Executive Director cc: Vice-Mayor Hoyt Hamilton, Pinellas Planning Council Representative Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director 600 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 850 0 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755-4160 TELEPHONE (727) 464-8250 · FAX (727) 464-8212 wwwcQ,pinellas fl.us/ppc ~ ....__ _ l' ----::-:......~ PINELLAS COUNTY BOA~D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER..,S .,>-:..~-:...q-, ~ . ,/_-'- ," ....~ .,,-; / __ ,:J -:- f ~" ! '-- /_. "J _, ___-/ PHONE (727) 464-3278 . FAX (727) 464-3022 . 315 COURT STREET. CLEARWATER. FLORIDA 33756 KAREN WILLIAMS SEEL CHAIRMAN November 4, 2003 REC[E~V[ED The Honorable Brian Aungst, Mayor City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 Dear M~gst: ~ (tA'l- NOV ,I. Z 2003 PLANN~NG DEPARTMENT erN OF CLEARWATER At its November 4, 2003 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the CPA, took action to approve the resolution of denial for Case #03-22, which was initiated by your City. The Resolution associated with this action is attached. Sincerely, f)CLl.V '-- Karen Williams Seel Chairman Pinellas County Commission cc: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director CPA \Corresp ck pg 4 , "PINELLAS COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" o PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER RESOLUTION NO. 03-_ A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE DENIAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ACTION ON CASE NUMBER CW 03-22 INITIATED BY THE CITY OF CLEAR\VATER. WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, which is an element of the Countywide Comprehensive Plan of PinelIas County, Florida, had been presented at a public hearing on April 1, 2003 to the Board of County Commissioners in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority ("Board"); WHEREAS, the Board, in PineIlas County, Resolution No. 03-55, voted 7 _ 0 to deny the proposed amendment initiated by the City of Clearwater; WHEREAS, on April 17, 2003, the City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of the applicants, Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III and Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., as Trustee, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing for the propose of making conclusive and binding fmdings of fact in this matter, and requesting that this matter be returned to the Board for the purpose of approving the proposed amendment; WHEREAS, on September 8, 2003, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order recommending the Board deny the proposed amendment; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1 0(4) of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, and Section V(k) of PineIlas County Resolution No. 90-205, the Board shall review the Recommended Order and any exception filed thereto at a public hearing, and make a final decision on this matter; WHEREAS, the basis of the Board's final decision approving or denying the proposed amendment is limited to the findings of fact of the Recommended Order; Page 1 of2 WHEREAS, notices and advertisements of public hearings have been accomplished as required by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended; WHERE{\S, the Board held a public hearing on the Recommended Order on the proposed amendment, adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order, which is incorporated in the Final Order, which is attached as Exhibit "A", and denied the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by The Board of County Commissioners of Pinc::1las County, Florida, acting as the Countywide Planning Authority in a regular meeting duly assembled on November 4, 200j, that the proposed amendment be denied, for the reasons spec:ified in the attached Final Order. Furthermore, the Board of County Commissioners of Pine:1las County, Florida, acting as the Countywide Planning Authority, approves the attached Final Order, authorizes the Chairman to execute said Final Order, and directs that the Final Order be filed with the Clerk of the Board. CW 03-22 22.18 acres located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, from 103 feet south of 2nd A venue North to 2nd A venue South, from Residential Suburban; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature. Commissioner offered the foregoing Resolution and moved its adoption, which was seconded by Commissioner , and upon roll call the vote was: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: F IUSERS\A1TY\A1YKBIIIWPdocsIDaVld\ResolulIons\Res C.W Future Land Use Plan doc Page 2 of2 EXHIB IT "A" BEFORE THE PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY CITY OF CLEARWATER, for the use and benefit of LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, III, and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as TRUSTEE, Petitioners, v. Case No. CW03-22 DOAH Case No. 03-1500 PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS as COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, Respondent. / FINAL ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Board of County Commissioners of Pine lIas County, Florida, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority ("the CPA''), upon the Recommended Order pursuant to Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, and Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, in the Division of Administrative Hearings Case no. 03-1500. ISSUE STATEMENT The issue raised on Petitioners' application is whether a proposed amendment to the Pinellas County Countywide Future Land Use Plan ("FLUP") changing the land use designation __....Qrt~)2.18 aC,~~cellocated at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue in the City of Clearwater, from Residential SuburbanlPreservation to Residential Low/Preservation should be approved. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 1, 2003, Respondent, CPA, voted 7-0 to deny the proposed amendment to the -f.LUP--for the subject-parceLbased,on advers_e iml2licJ.~JmJransportation and the character ,of the Page I of3 neighborhood. On April 17, 2003, Petitioners filed a Petition for an Administrative Hearing for the purpose of making conclusive and binding findings of fact in this matter, and requesting that this matter thereafter be returned to the Respondent, CPA, for the purpose of approving the proposed amendment to the FLUP as it affects the subject property. On September 8, 2003, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order recommending that the CPA enter a final order determining that the proposed amendment to the FLUP is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6. of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended, and that the amendment should be denied. CPA REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(4) of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, and Section -'\[(k) of eincllasili1.IDty,R~~9IutiQn no_~ 90-20~, the CPA shall review the Recommended Order and any exception filed thereto at a public hearing. The proceeding shall not be a de novo review but shall be confined to the Recommended Order and any filed exceptions thereto. The CPA, in its final action subsequent to any administrative hearing, may consider the Recommended Order in its entirety, but shall base its decision upon the findings of fact in the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto determined by the CPA to be valid. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS No exceptions were filed by either party in this matter. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein and upon review of the record, the CPA hereby adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order, which is incorporated herein and attached hereto as Exhibit "1". It is therefore ORDERED and Page 2 of3 ADJUDGED that: Petitioners' proposed amendment to the FLUP for the subject property is denied. NOTICE OF RIGHTS Any party to this Final Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Final Order in a court of competent jurisdiction within thirty (30) days of the day this Final Order is filed with the Clerk of the CPA. DONE AND ORDERED this _ day of November, 2003, in Clearwater, Florida. ATTEST: KARLEENF.DeBLAKER,CLERK PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, acting in its capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority By: Deputy Clerk By: Chairman Approve as to Form: Office of the County Attorney F \USERS\A TTY\A TYKB 11 \ WPdocs\David\DSS\DIMMIT FILE\Proposed Fmal Order doc Page 3 of3 , I ~ EXHIBIT "1" STJi.TE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF Jl~MINISTRJl_TIVE cE~~INGS CITY OF CLEARWATER, for the use ) and benefit .of LAWRENCE H. ) DIMMITT, III, and LAWRENCE H. ) DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioners, Case No. 03-1500 V:5"<. PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS as COUNTYWIDE pLANNING AUTHORITY, Respondent. RECOMMENDED ORDER pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on July 10, 2003, in Clearwater, Florida. APPEARANCES For Petitioners: Stephen O. Cole, Esquire MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, Florida 33757-1669 For Respondent: David S. Sadowsky, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756-5165 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The issue is whether a proposed amendment to the pinellas County countywide Future Land Use plan (FLUP) changing the land use designa~ion on a 22.18-acre parcel located at 2301 Cnautauqua Avenue in the city of Clearwater (City) from Residential suburban/preservation to Residential Low/Preservation should be approved. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter began on February 21, 2002, when Petitioner, Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, and Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., as Trustee (the Trustee) for an Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated December ,I, 1998, which owns certain real property in the City, filed an application (which was later amended) with the city seeking to change the land use on a 22.18-acre parcel of property from Residential Suburban (RS) and preservation (p) to Residential Low (RL) and P. The effect of the change will be to increase the density of development allowed on the property from no more than 2.5 residential units per acre to 5.0 units per acre. Under the process established by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, that change requires an amendment to the FLUP, which is administered by Respondent, pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the countywide Planning Authority (CPA). The special act also sets out the process for review and approval of the amendment, beginning with review and approval by the City, then an intermediate review and approval by the pinellas Planning council (PPC), a countywide land planning agency, and ending with a review and final decision by the CPA. 2 By virtue of the city's approving the amendmenc on June 20: 2002, the city became the nominal party in this appeal, acting on behalf of the Trustee. The matter was then considered by the PPC on september 18, 2002. After the PPC recommended denial of the application by a 6-5 vote, mainly because of traffic concerns, the case was forwarded to the CPA. At the request of the Trustee and the city, the proposal was remanded back to the PPC to reconsider the matter after new traffic mitigative measures were proposed. Thereafter, by a 9-3 vote, the amendment was approved by the PPC on March 19, 2003. Finally, on April 1, 2003, by a 7- o vote, the CPA denied the proposed change because of adverse impacts on transportation and the character of the neighborhood.' Under section 5.1.3.9 of the countywide Plan Rules (countywide Rules), the Trustee filed its Petition for Administrative Hearing with the PPC on April 18, 2003, requesting a hearing' to contest the CPA's decision. pursuant to a contract with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) , the matter was forwarded to DOAH on April 28, 2003, with a request that an Administrative Law Judge be assigned to conduct a hearing. By Notice of Hearing dated May 8, 2003, a final hearing was scheduled on July 10 and 11, 2003, in Clearwater, Florida. At the :final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of David P. Healy, Executive Director of the PPCi Michael Willenbacher, president of Rottlund Homes of Floridai cyn tin a 1 ar apar~~ , '-- ...,j .I.. _ c..:-...:..._:-..:::. - ' - ~.... ..- - ,-...~ - - - ':: ... ' \.. G~~ ccce~red 2= ap- 3 ex~erti ~nd ~obert C. Pergolizzi} ~ certified planner and ~ccepted as an expert. Also} they offered Petitioners' Exhibits 1-36} which were received in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Steven B. McConihay} who resides near the subject propertYi Brian K. Smith} Director of the Pinellas County (County) Planning Department and accepted as an expertj and Paul T. Cassel, Director of the County Development Review services Department and accepted as an expert. Also, it offered Respondent's Exhibits 1-19, which were received in evidence. The Transcript of the hearing (two volumes) was filed ,on August II, 2003. proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed by Respondent and Petitioners on August 12 and 14, 2003, respectively, and they have been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order. FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: a. Background 1. In 1988, the Legislature provided the County with countywide planning authority (see Chapter 88-458, Laws of Florida). That same year, the Legislature enacted Chapter 88- 464, Laws of Florida, which amended Chapter 73-594, Laws of Florida, and required the County to develop "a countywide future land use plan" and "other [necessary] elements}" also known as CI'J.C CGi..ml:.y.....~c.;:, C-:::'.~:c::-"c::-_5::.-\.c =-c.::~ 1."",,," ~~c.::: c.~ Finella:: County. 4 , f Among other things, Chapter 88-464 prescribes the process by which changes to land use designations are made within the County. und~r that process, all local government comprehensive plans, including the city's, are required to be consistent with the FLUP. Presumably, the laws were enacted because of the county's dense development (it is one of, if not the most, densely developed counties in the state), the large number of incorporated cities and towns (24) within the County, and the desi:r-e to have some degree of countywide uniformity in land use planning decisions. The law goes on to provide that amendments to the FLUP "relating to land use designation for a particular parcel of property may be initiated only by a local government that has jurisdiction over the subject property." In this case, the subject property lies within the city; therefore, the proposed change was initiated by the city. 2. Under the review process in place for adopting an amendment to the FLUP, the proposed amendment is first presented to the city, then to the PPC, which consists of 13 representatives from various towns and cities in the County, the School Board, and the County, and finally to the pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CPA. 3. The subject property is located at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Chautauqua Avenue (also identified as Main Street on some maps) runs for a short distance in a no r t.I:l- sou t. 1_ C. _:... C:: .:. ..... - .::. -. ,t::' c..:: '- - - ~ ~ c~~ ~~~- E2~- of U.S. Highway 5 19 in the northeastern part of the Cicy, Excepc for two houses, some tennis courts, and assessory buildings, the 22.18-acre tract of land is_largely undeveloped. The land also includes a small pond located in the northwest quadrant and wetlands along its eastern side, which fronts on Lake Chautauqua (the Lake) . Mr. Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, one of the two co-trustees, acquired ownership of the southern half of the property in January 1986, while the remainder of the parcel was not acquired by the Trustee until December 2001. In June 2002, the property was annexed by the city pursuant to a request by the Trustee (to enable city water and wastewater services to be extended to the property). The property is now under con~ract to be sold to a developer (The Rottlund Company, Inc.), who desires to construct 90 town homes in 34 buildings, assuming the amendment is approved. 4. since July 21, 1982, the upland po~tion of the property (16.22 acres) has been classified as RS, which allows 2.5 residential units per acre. The wetlands and some adjacent land totaling around 4.6 acres'on the eastern portion of the property next to the Lake are classified as, and must remain, pres~rvation. In addition, a small pond (1.35 acres) on the property is classified as Water/Drainage Feature. The proposed amendment does not affect the classifications of the wetlands and pond. 6 5. All of the surrounding property (except =~e property imrrlediately to the west between Chautauqua Avenue and U.S. Highway 19, which is classified as Commercial Limited) also carries an RS land use designation. The other nearby property along U.S. Highway 19 is classified as some form of commercial or mixed office/residential use. Countrywide Mall, the County's only regional shopping mall, is situated on U.S. Highway 19, less than a mile away. 6. The property is located approximately 700 feet east of U.S. Highway 19 between Second Avenue South and Second Avenue North. U.S. Highway 19 is six lanes wide, was described by' witnesses as being the most heavily traveled roadway in the county, and has intense commercial or mixed use development on both sides of the highway. Immediately to the west of the property (between U.S. Highway 19 and Chautauqua Avenue) is a Chevrolet automobile dealership and repair facility owned by the Dimmitts. A Cadillac dealership (also owned by the Dimmitts) is just south of the Chevrolet dealership. The entire eastern boundary of the property fronts on the Lake, while perhaps a dozen or so single-familY homes, mainly constructed in the 1990s, sit on large lots scattered throughout the area immediately north of t.he property. From that area to Enterprise Road, a major arterial east-west roadway approximately 2,000 feet north of the Trustee's property, the land is largely undeveloped. The prop~=~i ~~~e~~~~-~ ~~_ ~c~:~ "c cJ~c c1assified as RS and is 7 t' also largely vacant at the present eime, except for a few single- family dwellings. The land which lies southeast of the property and the Lake is also designated RS and consists of a series of upscale, large, single-family residential subdivisions. 7. The local roads adjacent to and near the property are substandard and do not meet the city or County standards. The main access to the property (from the west) is from U.S. Highway 19 using First Avenue North, which intersects with u.s. Highway 19 next to the car dealership. Because of a median in the middle of u.S. Highway 19, however, cars entering u.s. Highway 19 from First Avenue North can only turn right (northbound).l The only access from the property to an intersection allowing vehicles to turn north or south on u.s. Highway 19 is provided by traveling south on a series of narrow, meandering, residential County roads (e.g., Third Avenue South, Second Street East, Fourth Avenue South, Union Street, and Soule Road) and eventually reaching Sunset Point Road (State Road 588), an east-west roadway intersecting with u.S. Highway 19 to the west. There is nO access to the property from the north-:- The evidence shows that partly because of the poor road access, the nearby car dealerships and other commercial development, and the commercial lighting at the car dealerships which remains on throughout the night, the property has never been developed. ~~other contributing factor is that the former long-time owners of the no.r;:.r.eI:. _-..:._: c: :...~.'- F:-c:;::e:-::' (~:::'.::. ~ :.:- \~-c.~ Eclc tc tbe Dimmitt E 8 2n December 2001) had no wish to develop the prope=ty wh~le they retained ownership. b. The Land Use Categories and History of the Area - 8. When the County1s first comprehensive plan was adopted in 1974/ three residential categories were established: low density (up to 7.5 units per acre); medium density (up to 15 units per acre); and high density (up to 30 units per acre). At that. time, the Trustee's property and most of the surrounding residential properties were designated the least intensive residential use category and remained unchanged until 1982. In response to the state Growth Management Act, in 1980 the PPC developed more specific residential categories to manage population growth. The low density category was further defined to include five residential categories: Preservation (0.5 units per acre); Residential conservation (1.0 units per acre); Residential Suburban (2.5 units per acre); Residential Low (5.0 units per acre); and Residential Urban (7.5 units per acre) 9. As noted above/ in 1982 the County reclassified the upland portion of the property/ as well as the propertfesto its north and south/ and west of the Lake, as RS. Some other areas to the southeast and northwest of the Trustee's land were reclassified at 5.0 dwelling units per acre, which category is now known as RL. 10. In September 1984, two zoning requests "in the ~E:?:-:bc:--:::oc:: rc~ the 'Trustee's property]" to allow "multifamily 9 development: at 5.0 ll.'TJ.its/acre" were denied by che County, mainly because the area contained "very low density single-family housing, with houses sitting on large lots (mostly about 2 acres in size), used in a residential/agricultural manner." At the same time, the County instructed its staff to "review zoning and Land Use plan designation in the area to insure protection of the existing character of the land." That same year, the County amended the land use classification on these properties from RL, which permitted 5.0 units per acre, to RS, which permitted only 2.5 units per acre. 11. In 1987, the city annexed a 17.4-acre vacant tract of --land directly south of the Lake (and southeast of the Trustee's property). Before annexation, the property was classified as Residential/Open Space. According to a PPC recommendation presented to the County, the city filed an application with the County seeking to amend the CLUP (now known as the FLUP) by changing the land use to RS so that the vacant land would "be compatible with the existing land use pattern in this vicinity." The change was approved by the County. 12. In all, at least thirteen parcels in the Lake Chautauqua area have been reclassified since 1980. Many of these are downzoning changes which merely reflect what had actually been planned, developed, and built pursuant to the dictates of the m~rketplace. In other words, the change reflected existing ~E~E2c=~E~~ c~ ~C~ r2TF tha~ 2 ~ U~it8 Der acre, There are also 10 . two instances when tbe Commission upzoned parce:s in the area, that is, increased the allowable density from Recreation/open Space to a higher category (7.5 units per acre), but these properties are outlying parcels and not in the immediate area. 13. Most recently (early 2003), a developer proposed (and has pending a request) to develop six lots 130 feet by 600 feet in depth with single-family dwellings on property lying on the western shore of the Lake just north of the Trustee's property. These large lots would be consistent with the development now existing immediately to the west (and just north of the Trustee's property) . 14. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the County's intent over the last 25 years or so has been to restrict development in the area around the Trustee's property to single- family residences with a density of no more than 2.5 units per acre. c. The Application 15. On February 21, 2002, the Trustee filed an applic~tion with the city for a change in land use designation on its property from RS and p to RL and P (so as to increase density from 2.5 to 7.0 units per acre). Although not a part of this proceeding, the Trustee also filed an application seeking to rezone the property from Rural Residential to Low Medium Residential and Preservation. 11 16. ,....,}, c' . ~_e ley's ZODlng Department reviewed the applicatio~, found that all applicable criteria had been met, and recommended approval. The application then proceeded to a public hearing before the city's community Development Board (CDB) on May 21, 2002. Following the public hearing, the CDB recommended approval of both applications. 17. On June 20, 2002, the matters were taken up by the city commission. The staff's detailed report recommending approval is found in petitioners' Exhibit 2. Because of neighborhood opposition, however, the Trustee agreed to amend the application by reducing the density from 7.5 units per acre (RL) to 5.0 units per acre (RS). Thereafter, the city approved the application. This approval was formalized through the adoption of Ordinance No. 6978-02. At that point, the city became the nominal applicant for the amendment. 18. A copy of the amendment was then forwarded to the Department of community Affairs (DCA). The DCA's review was completed on October 3, 2002, when it advised the city by letter that it had "no obj ec"tlons to the propose-d amendment It and that its letter would serve as the DCA's objections, Recommendations and Comments. 19. The application was submitted to the PPC on August 13, 2002. Following its review, the PPC staff, together with the staff of the Professional Advisory Committee (PAC), which is CCwpcsec c: ~~C:E~=:C~~- ;la~~~~c ~:c~~ membeY8 fyom the variou~ 12 municipalities throughouc ~ho L___ County, recommended that the application be approved. 20. on,Septernber 18, 2002, the PPC, by a 6-5 vote, recommended denial of the application, mainly because of traffic issues. Under the review process, the matter then carne before the CPA. However, the city and the Trustee requested that the matter be remanded to the PPC to enable the Trustee to address the traffic issues. A remand was approved by the CPA on October 15, 2002. 21. After reconsideration of the matter, which included proposed changes by the city to mitigate the traffic impact, the PPC staff and PAC unanimously recommended approval of the application. The application then proceeded to the PPC, and by a 9-3 vote on March 19, 2003, the PPC recommended approval. 22. Although land use amendment? recommended for approval by the PPC are "rarely" overturned or changed by the CPA, on April 1, 2003, the Board of County commissioners, sitting as the CPA, unanimously rejected the proposed amendment. The same date, Resolution No. 03-55 was adopted which memorialized this action and indicated that the decision was based "upon the facts presented at the hearing, which included the character of the neighborhood and transportation impacts." ACCording to the parties' pre-Hearing stipulation, the rejection was "due to [the amendment's] incompatibility with and negative impact on the E~:c~~i8hEC charactET of the neichborhood and the precedence 13 [sic] of allowing multi-family development into an overwhel~ing single-family residential area." This appeal followed. d. The issues in the case 23. Under the Countywide Rules, which were adopted in 1989 and govern changes to the FLUP, depending on their size and nature, plan amendments are classified into two categories: subthreshold amendments and general amendments. The former type of amendment is minor in natur~ and entails a less rigid review process while general amendments (those that do not qualify as subthreshold amendments) must be evaluated according to six "Relevant countywide Considerations" (considerations) found in sections 5.3.5.1 through. 5.3.5.6. Because the proposed amendment falls within the general amendment category, the six Considerations must be reviewed to determine if any corne into play. If an amendment adversely impacts a Consideration, it is not consistent with the FLUP. In denying the amendment, the CPA determined that only two considerations were relevant and would be impacted - section 5.3.5.2 (Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) standard) and Section 5'.3.5.6 (Adj~cent tp or Impacting an Adjoining Jurisdiction). All other considerations were determined to be inapplicable. 24. Although the County's Resolution indicated that the traffic Consideration played a part in its decision to deny the amendment, the parties' prehearing stipulation reflects that the C~~ ~c JC~CE~ co~~ider~ that Consideration to be in issue. 14 However, because evidence c oncerni~g traffic was presented -~ a~ hearing, albeit more in the context of impacts on the character of the neighborhood than on LOS standards on U.S. Highway 19, a discussion of that Consideration is appropriate. 25. section 5.3.5.2 provides in part that "the amendment must not be located on or impact a roadway segment where the existing Level of Service (LOS) is below LOS 'D', or where projected traffic resulting from the amendment would cause the existing LOS to fall below LOS 'D'." Here, however, the evidence shows that the portion of U.S. Highway 19 (directly west of the property) between Enterprise Road and Sunset Point Road is already operating at LOS "F". 26. Under the existing land use classification (RS), the Trustee (or developer) can construct as many as 46 single-family homes. At hearing, the developer acknowledged that the property can be successfully developed in that mode. Assuming that the maximum number of homes would be built, regardless of which type of development occurs, the traffic impacts would be essentially the same since a town home generates only 60 percent of the traffic of a single-family home. The evidence also shows that any additional traffi~ generated by development will have a negligible overall impact (less than three-tenths of one percent of the existing capacity) on U.S. Highway 19, which is already at LOS "F". The Florida Department of Transportation concurs in 15 this finding, and has concluded chat the development will not cLdversely impact that road,. 27. As noted above, the plan amendment was initially rejected by the PPC by a €-S vote, mainly because of traffic issues, and a concern that the additional traffic onto U.S. Highway 19 at First Avenue South might have a negative impact on that roadway. The city and Trustee then requested that the CPA l~emand the application to the PPC so that traffic issues could be further addressed. At that time, the city considered two alternatives to alleviate traffic concerns and provide a different access route to the area. 28. First, it considered the possibility of extending Second Avenue South to the east and southeast to connect with, cend widen, Lake Shore Drive (a County road), which runs around parts of the northwestern and southwestern sections of the Lake, a.nd eventually provides access to Sunset point Road, which then runs west to U.S. Highway 19. However, the County declined to parti'cipate in that effort and 'thus this proposal was not U C'OlisIdered to be feasible. 29. The City also considered extending Chautauqua Avenue north (over city right-of-way) to Enterprise Road, a main arterial east-west roadway that also intersects with U.S. Highway 19 (and enables the driver to turn either left or right at that intersection) . If the road is extended in that fashion, it would =~C~~=E ~e~~~E~:r ~~ an6 nE2~ t~F ~~t~Ect nroperty with access to 16 Enterprise Road, and also provide other area residents with access to a city park that may be built just south of Enterprise Road. As to this alternative, even though the developer's share of costs (using the city's calculations) is only 17 percent, the developer has agreed to pay one-half of the cost of the road improvements. with this improvement, both parties now agree that the traffic Consideration has been resolved. 30. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the plan amendment is consistent with the transportation Consideration and wil] not adversely impact LOS standards on U.S. Highway 19. Two of the County witnesses conceded as much at the final hearing. 31. section 5.3.5.6 generally provides that if the property adjoins another jurisdiction, the plan amendment must not adversely impact that jurisdiction. In determining whether the plan amendment is consistent with this Consideration (and does not impact the adjoining County land), reference to the goals and policies within the Countywide Comprehensive Plan is necessary. The Land Use Element Goal provides in part that" [t]he land ,uses associated with development should be compatible and reasonable in terms of both the land, surrounding uses, and the public interest." Two unnumbered policies within the same Element further provide that "land development patterns should recognize and support coherent neighborhoods, n and that "land planning should weigh heavily the established character of predominately 17 devel~ped a=eas when chanaes of use or intensity of developme~t ~ - lS contemplated.1I 32. In this case, there are enclaves of County land lying on the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries of the Trustee's land. The County contends that the proposed change is inconsistent with the Consideration because it adversely affects the IIcharacterll of the adjoining County land in two ways: (a) by the creation of a new access road to the north through a quiet, residential neighborhood, and (b) by the construction of town homes in an area historically classified as RS, which only allows the construction of single-family homes. 33. If the plan amenument is approved, the city has decided to extend Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road, giving the new (and existing) residents an outlet to the north. This alternative was chosen since the County has declined to participate in the southern alternative. The extensioti will pJ~ovide access to a new city park, and the developer will pay more than his fair share' to aid in the construction of the road. AccorcH,ng to-the City, tne- extension is necessary to mi'tigate the increased traffic from the new project. 34. Currently, the roads in the area around where the extension will be built can be characterized as secluded and rural, with only a small amount of traffic. Besides the automobiles of the existing residents, the only other vehicles l.:~:'::'~ :r-,;: 2:'CcC~ c2:'f :2:C'~~ bei~s:- te~tec t-,- the necrtv Chevrolet 18 dealership after being repaired, If the plan amendment is approved, and the town homes constructed, the projec~ will generate hundreds of new trips per day. Understandably so, existing residents of the area (as well as the County) fear that if the road is extended, it will become a "cut-through" street for non-resi~ents traveling north on U.S. Highway 19 to Enterprise Road and who wish to avoid that intersection. Given the current level of traffic on U.S. Highway 19 (LOS "F"), it is fair to infer that this fear is well-founded. Accordingly, by extending Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road, the character of the existing neighborhood will be adversely impacted by the increased traffic generated by new residents seeking an outlet and non-residents using the street as a cut-through. 35. It is true that some form of traffic mitigation will still be required if the plan amendment is not approved, and single-family homes are built on the Trus~ee's property. However, when or if the property will be developed, and the extent of 'such development, is not known, and there is no indication in the-record that the City will still seek to mitigate this traffic by extending Chautauqua Avenue. 36. The evidence shows that the established character of the neighborhood is quiet, secluded, and low density residential, with many of the homes having large, oversized lots. As noted earlier, a proposal is now pending before the County to develop :~~ c~c~ c~~ec~}y ~c~~~ c~ the TT~8tee'8 ~YODeYtv alonq the Lake 19 w-:Lth six single-family dwellings on "large escate locs behind a gated wall. 11 By doubling the density on the Trustee's property f]~om 2.5 to 5.0 units per acre, the character of the area would be changed, and the new density would be inconsistent with the historic land use and development pattern of the area. 37. The evidence also shows that the residents who live immediately north of the Trustee's property purchased their land, and built their homes, with the expectation that the area would be "a detached single-family residential community within the 2.5 units per acre limitation. 11 For more than 20 years, the County's land use decisions have been consistent with this expectation. 38. petitioners' witnesses contend, however, that the town homes will (a) serve as a buffer between the commercial uses which lie on the western side of Chautauqua Road and the existing single-family homes which lie on the eastern side, and (b) pr-ovide a transition or gradual stepdown in intensity from the commercial uses along U.S. Highway 19 to town homes to single- fa,mily homes, which practice is consistent with good land use planning. However, the area maps and site plan introduced into evidence clearly show that the town homes would not buffer anything except the Lake, since the town homes would run from the Lake all the way westward to the rear of the Chevrolet dealership. In other words, to provide a buffer, logically it would be necessary that the town homes be placed between the cc~.iUe:-c:.c.: c.=-Ec.~ c.:::: :hE ~in~lf--fc.'7':.J~\- home~, The residential 20 property to the north and south (which purportedly would ~e buffered) is already located adjacent to} and directly eas~ aI, the commercial development along U.S. Highway 19} and the town - hon1es would simply increase the density of the property between the two residential areas by 100 percent. For the same reasons, the construction of town homes would not provide a transition or step down in the intensity of development from west to east since they would not be built between the existing homes and u.S. Highway 19. 39. Based on the foregoing facts} it is found that the proposed amendment will advers~ly affect the character of the neighborhood (and impact the adjoining County land) and is therefore inconsistent with section 5.3.5.6 of the Countywide Rules. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 40. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto pursuant to Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, and sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 41. section 5.1.3.9 of the Countywide Rules provides that "[i]f the CPA denies an amendment which was recommended to be approved by the PPC, any substantially affected person may apply for an administrative hearing within twenty-one (21) days of denial." utilizing that provision} Petitioners have filed their 2:E:;'.jE:~: :C7 c hEc.~ins:. 21 42. The Countywide Rules are silent as co the standard of proof to be used in this type of hearing. However, section 5.1.3.4 provides that all applications for an administrative hearing nwill be in a form for consideration under, and subject to the procedures of, Chapter 120, F.S.n Under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, a request for a hearing commences a de novo pLoceeding, which is intended to formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily. See, e.g., F.Ia. Dep't of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Therefore, Petitioners' suggestion that this case does not corne to DOAR as an appeal or for the review of the CPA's decision of April I, 2003, is correct.:2 43. The more persuasive evidence shows that the plan amendment will be inconsistent with section 5.3.5.6 by adversely ./ in~acting the character of the adjoining County land. This being so, the request to amend the FLUP should be denied. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of pinellas county, sitting as the countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with section 5.3.5.6 and that the amendment should be denied. 22 DONE ~_~ ENTERED this 8th day of Sepcember, 2003, In Tallahassee, Leon Councy, Florida. ~cu4 (L o.;~ DON~~D R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The ~eSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 2003. ENDNOTES 1/ Maps and drawings received in evidence also reflect that residen~s of the area can apparently access u.S. Highway 19 by traveling'south on Chautauqua Avenue, to Lake Shore Drive, to Soule Street, and then turning westbound on McCormick Drive until it dead ends on u.S. Highway 19. Even if this assumption is correct, however, vehicles can still only turn right (northbound) at that intersection. 2/ Respo~dent's contention that the fairly debatable standard applies to this proceeding has been rejected. Unlike Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which specifically adopts that standard for plan amendment hearings arising under that Chapter, the countywide Rules provide that this type of hearing is "subject to the procedures of Chapter 120, F.S." COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Healy, Executive Director pine lIas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, suite 650 Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160 23 . , " stephen O. Cole, Esquire MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1669 Clearwaterr Florida 33757-1669 David s. Sadowsky, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court street Clearwater, Florida 33756-5165 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the pinellas County Planning Council. ,& " 24 EXHIBIT itA" BEFORE THE PfNELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORlTY CITY OF CLEAR WATER, for the use and benefit of LA WRENCE H. DIMMITT, III, and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as TRUSTEE, Petitioners, v. Case No. CW03-22 DOAH Case No. 03-1500 PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS as COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORlTY, ,I " 'I :i I Respondent. II / FINAL ORDER TI:iIS CAUSE came before the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, " II Florida, s~tting as the Countywide Planning Authority ("the CPA''), upon the Recommended II Order pw;suant to Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, and Sections 120.569 and I: II 120.57(1~, Florida Statutes, in the Division of Administrative Hearings Case no. 03-1500. ISSUE STATEMENT The issue raised on Petitioners' application is whether a proposed amendment to the Pinellas ~ounty Countywide Future Land Use Plan ("FLUP") changing the land use designation :j , _9n a ~.J~ acre parcel located at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue in the City of Clearwater, from - - --- - ... " Resident,al SuburbanlPreservation to Residential Low/Preservation should be approved. " , PROCEDURAL HISTORY II dn April 1. 2003, Respondent, CPA, voted 7-0 to deny the proposed amendment to the :! I FLUP for the subject parcel based on adverse imp-a.c~~_on transportation and the character of the Page 1 of3 neighborhood. On Aprill7, 2003, Petitioners filed a Petition for an Administrative Hearing for the purpose of making conclusive and binding findings of fact in this matter, and requesting that this matter thereafter be returned to the Respondent, CPA, for the purpose of approving the proposed amendment to the FLUP as it affects the subject property. On September 8, 2003, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order recommending that the CPA enter a final order detennining that the proposed amendment to the FLUP is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6. of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. as amended, and that the amendment should be denied. CP A REVIEW OF RECOMMENDED ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(4) of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, and Section -Y.(k) of pjneUas DUIDty R~S9Iu~Qn no~, 90-205, !he CPA shall review the Recommended Order and any exception filed thereto at a public hearing. The proceeding shall not be a de novo review but shall be confined to the Recommended Order and any filed exceptions thereto. The CPA, in its final action subsequent to any administrative hearing, may consider the Recommended Order in its entirety, but shall base its decision upon the findings of fact in the Recommended Order and any exceptions thereto determined by the CPA to be valid. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS No exceptions were filed by either party in this matter. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein and upon review of the record, the CPA hereby adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order, which is incorporated herein and attached hereto as Exhibit "1". It is therefore ORDERED and Page 2 of3 ADJUDGEI:> that: II Petiqoners' proposed amendment to the FLUP for the subject property is denied. ~I I' NOTICE OF RIGHTS " ,I Any::party to this Final Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Final Order in a 'I court of cOdlpetent jurisdiction within thirty (30) days of the day this Final Order is filed with the Ii I Clerk of the, CPA. DONE AND ORDERED this _ day of November, 2003, in Clearwater, Florida. ArrEST: :: KARLEEN: F. DeBLAKER, CLERK PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, acting in its capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority By: Deputy': Clerk By: Chairman 'I Approve as to Form: Office of the County Attorney 'i F IUSERS\A 11i\'\A TYKB 11 IWPdocs\Davui\DSS\DIMMIT FILE\Proposed Final Order doc - ____ --1--- I Page 3 of3 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE DENIAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TIlE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE -LAND USE PLAN OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ACTION ON CASE NUMBER CW 03-22 !NITIA TED BY THE CITY OF CLEAR\VATER. !I I WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, which is I ,I II an element of the Countywide Comprehensive Plan of Pinellas County, Florida, bad been i presented~ at a public hearing on April 1, 2003 to the Board of County Commissioners in their II capacity ~ the Countywide Planning Authority ("Board''); WHEREAS, the Board, in Pinellas County, Resolution No. 03-55, voted 7 - 0 to deny the proposed 'amendment initiated by the City of Clearwater; I VliHEREAS, on April 17, 2003, the City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of the I, applicants, Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III and Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., as Trustee, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing for the propose of making conclusive and binding fmdings of fact in this matt~r, and requesting that this matter be returned to the Board for the purpose of approving the propo,sed amendment; , I WHEREAS, on September 8, 2003, the Administrative Law Judge issued a ,I :i Recomrn~nded Order recommending the Board deny the proposed amendment; ~EREAS, pursuant to Section 10(4) of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, " and Sedion V(k) of Pinellas County Resolution No. 90-205, the Board shall review the :' Recomrnbnded Order and any exception filed thereto at a public hearing, and make a final , :, decision on this matter; WHEREAS, the basis of the Board's final decision approving or denying the proposed II I, I amendm~nt is limited to the findings ,of fact of the Recommended Order; Page 1 of2 WHEREAS, notices and advertisements of public hearings have been accomplished as required by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended; WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the Recommended Order on the proposed amendment, adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order, which is incorporated in the Final Order, which is attached as Exhibit "A", and denied the proposed amendment. NOW, THERl::.tORE, BE IT RESOLVED by The Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, acting as the Countywide Planning Authority in a regular meeting duly assembled on November 4, 200j, that the proposed amendment be denied, for the reasons specified in the attached Final Order. Furthermore, the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, acting as the Countywide Planning Authority, approves the attached Final Order, authorizes the Chairman to execute said Final Order, and directs that the Final Order be filed with the Clerk of the Board. CW 03-22 22.18 acres located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, from 103 feet south of 2nd A venue North to 2nd A venue South, from Residential Suburban; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature. Commissioner offered the foregoing Resolution and moved its. adoption, which was seconded by Commissioner , and upon roll call the vote was: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: F IlJSERS\ATIY\ATYKBII\WPdoc:sIDaVld\ResolullonslRes Cow Future lAnd Use Plan doc Page 2 of2 _-.e:~_. I , , " " ( - I PTh'"ELL6.\S PL~~",,~lNG CO~L AGEKD,A ~IEMORA'J)I~ I "'- ~ :1 I AGENDAfTEM: NB-IO. I I MEEnJ\-GDDE: March ]9, 2003 J SUB:mCT: Proposed Amendment to the Caun:tywide',FJ.IJ.uErland Use Plan Map " From: Residential Suburban - RS: Preserva:1ior - p:' VaterlDrainaE"e Feature- ,I W/DF ,i ,I Residential Low - RL: Preservatian- Cl: '\l.":~Qe Feature - vV/DF " To: 'I ~rea: 22.18 acres CASE #: CW 02-39/CW 03-22 I i JURISDICTION: City of Clearwater I LOCATfON: East side of Chautauqua Avenue, - '.r~ ,'- th f2nd:\ N ?Dd - - _l: ~ ,~.-u 0 . venue . to _ Avenue S. I J!PE: Regular Map Amendment -- II ~ i - RECOMMElv1JAllON: Council Reconsider the Amen .. . \T"J1l New Information Provided. . By the City, rursuant to the ActIon of the Countywide- PIa - =- ' .udm1ty. ----- I I BACKGROUlv7J: II " The City of CI~arwater originally submitted this amendmemt to the ,:<IIIlcillast year as case number CW 02-39. At,that time, staff recommended approval ~rfth SClpplemen1llrecommendations; the report, for that case is attached as Exhibit 1. On Septembe1r 18, 2004 Ie Pinellas Planning Council recommended clenial of the amendment by a vote of six: to five. On <ktober 15, 2002, by a vote of four to three, th.e Countywide Planning Authority temporarily deferred te application and remanded it to the Council tor further consideration, based upon the City's assertim that the Council's concerns could be addressed through further negotiation with the developer. The minutes of those public hearings are attached as Exhibit II. I, As a result, the City of Cle'JI"Water has submitted a new application for Council's reconsideration, which is attach~d as Exhibn III. The City Commission approved the exrension of Chautauqua A venue to the north, to 'Enterprise Road at their meeting on March 6, 2003, to be funded jointly by the City and the developer. " " PL"VE'LLAS PhA1V?v7J.VG COUNCIL ACTION: The Council recommended approval of the amendment from Residential Suburban; Preservation; Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; Water/Drainage Feature. (Vote 9 - 3) I , , COlINTflJ1DE PLA. VJ\1.YG AUTHORITY A CTIOl\l: I 04/01/03: Co~ to the Council's recommendation, the Board denied the amendment. (Vote 7 - 0) I I , I : 1 F \t'S~ ,v,1'DOCS'l.U\CASESIO: taS..lMarchlR.e:>c:tS ,C~'::'::'::N doc /" ~ SCBJECT: Case =CW 03-22 Cle~'ater Planners Advisory Committee (PAC): At their meeting on March 10, the PAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendmen4 subject to the traff!c improvements approved by the City Commission on March 6, 2003 (see draft PAC minutes, Attachment 2). II. LIST OF MAPS, EXHIBITS, & ATTACHMENTS Map 1 Map 2 Map 3 -. Map 4 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Exhibit I Exhibit II Exhibit ill Exhibit IV Location Countywide Plan Category & Jurisdictional Map - Black & \Vhite Aerial- Black & White Countywide Plan Category - Color PPC Disclosure of Interest Form Draft PAC Minutes Case Report for #CW 02-39 PPC and CPA Minutes for #CW 02-39 Updated Local Government Transmittal Package Correspondence 2 " Ar!.1chmem 1 DISCLOSURE OF I~TEREST STATEMENT PlNELLAS CO{J~'TY PLA~1JNG COUNCIL CASE NUMBER * i SUBMITTING GOVERNMENT ENTITY: CITY OF CLEARWATER !I PPC OR CITY(rOWN CASE NUMBER: LUZ 02-02-03 I PROPERTY OWNERS/REPRESENTA TIVE: LARRY H. DrM::MrIT, JR. Name: REPRESENTATIVE: HARRY S. CLINE, ESQ. P.O. BOX 1669 CLE~W ATER, FL 33757 727-441-8966 OWNERS: LAWRENCE H. DIM:MITT, III & ANY OTHER ~ERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: Interests: N/A Contingent: N/A Absolute: N/A :1 Name: N/A ,I Specific Interest Held: N/ A II I i IND[CATIONAS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: II Contract is: N/A Contingent Absolute All Parties To Contract: N/A II I: Name: N/A ,I II 'I INDICATION i:AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: I! I' All Parties To ~ption: N/A Name: Name: ,I 'I ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMA nON WInCH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUBMIT PERT AINING:,TO REQUESTED PLAN ANlENDMENT: * NUMBER TO BE ASSIGNED BY PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF I " MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ~ I' 1501 SOUTH FLORtDt AVENUE LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33803 (863) 680.9908 FAX (SJ31 6B3~2849 1 ,I ,j 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET, SUITE 2300 POBOX 1531 (ZIP 33601) 625 COURT STREET POBOX 1669 (ZIP 33757) TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 FAX (727) 442-8470 (813) 273.4200 FAX (813) 273.4396 IN REPLY REFER TO Clearwater II Lawrence H.~!Dimmitt, III P,O. Box 14759 Clearwater, ~L 33766 August 14, 2003 " 'I :1 Cynthia Tanipani City of Clearwater Planning Director 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 I Re: City oJClearwater, Florida, etc. v, Pinel/as County Board of County Commissions, etc. Case 1'lJo. 03-1500 1 I Dear Larry, Michael and Cyndi: RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2003 - PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARVVATER " Ii Michael A. Willenbacher Rott1und Hofues of Florida, Inc. 2637 McCodnick Dr. Clearwater, FL 33759 :i Attached for your information are copies of the Proposed Recommended Order submitted to Judge Alexapder on behalf of the Petitioners. I also enclose a copy of the Proposed Recommended Order prepared by 'Mr. Sadowsky. Judge Alexander indicated he would try to issue his Recommended Order within about 20 days. Thereafter the parties have the right (within 30 days) to file "exceptions" to his fimdings, and then the issue is to be sent back by the PPC to the Commissioners. As I understand the governing special act, the Commissioners/CPA in effect accept or reject the parties' exceptions (if any) to arrive at the final set of "binding" facts which govern their decision. :! 'I Pleafe call with any questions. Sincerely, ~{l&;:; Stephen O. Cole SOC:pr Attachments cc: Harry S. Cline, Esq. (with attachments) LPS 12 I' / --' .' p.2 I Ma~ 13 03 02:20p Cl-'-1 Attorne~ 727~r::24021 - ~ MACFAHLANE F'ERGUSON & McMuLLEN ^TTORNCY::; AND C()l)N~;e:LORS AT LAW L"""CLANn, "L.Ut"'l'lO^ 33<903 TAhot,g^ FLc.JtotIC", 33('".n;o ft;"'" C-n\JRT !'".Tr.t'I:.t.r P 0 8f,>X I~~~ 'ZIP ",,'.,.-.7l CLl-ARWATrR', "'I_UI..'IUI\ .3.J/~M c7a7'........ t"Jc:t~ F~X C?~71 ,,~;o'I3"?l,) .l-MJ NO~T~ T^MFIlI\ ~IMt:C:T ;UITr ;""]00 l~nl ..,C)l.J 1 t1 F'U"'\RlnA .....Vr-NLJi fMU. t:.'IU.K 1"':\' C71r" .'.HiUII Inrs:1t c.nn.ggoel ~^)I. r86J,1 4j.A' N34~ 1UI_"'~ ;::7=:1 ....(')(") -=-AX In,')) ~J",-....Ji9ib IN qr-PI.V qr~r-R r<'J Clearwater May 9, 2003 \ITA r-AX & REGUJ;.,AB- U.S, MAIL Honorable 1. Donald Alexander Division of Adrmnit:.trulivc Hcarings Thl: DeSoto Building 1230 Ap.lbchcc Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 Re: City ofCleanvatcr, Florida, dC. v. Pinel/as County Board of County Commissions. ('[e, Case No. 03-1500 De,lr Judge Alexander: Tbis letter is in follow up with the telephone conference with your assistant of this d.lte. Mr. David Healey of the Pinellas Planning Council re~ponded to the Initial Order in this matter by 1m; lettcr of May 2, 2003. I enclose a copy for ready rcfcrence. One of the dates sugj:,ested for a hearingjn Jylr. Healey':; Ictter is We arc aclvi..,cd that Ms. Cyndi Tar:lp:mi, :.l materia witness in this matter and a representatIve f the c...:'Jty ofClcarwatcr, IS !lQl aVilllablc on those da I Accordingly, we request that the dates to be considered for the hearing be cither of the following two-day periods: ,July 10-11. August 6-7. or August 7-8 Than~ you for your cO:lsideratioll. Sinccrely, ~u Stephen O. Cole SOC/pa Elldosurc l'~: Mr. DavId P. Healey P~lJn Akin. Esq. David Sadowsk.l, Esq. RECEIVED \(J\ Y t 2 2003 ./""0."-""\1 {l.--'" ,. '--..1' c. 'HI .. H ~ ~ ,'i i . Ma~ 13 03 02 20p C 1" '. Attornl?~ 727""<:;24021 p.3 STATE OF FLORIDA DIV:CSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS I, I, City of: Clearwater. for the use and benefit of LAWRENCE H. D:rMMITT~ III, and ::..AWRENCE H. DIMMITT~ JR., aG T~ustee, 'I Petitioners, :! " Case No. 03-1500 vs. PINELLAS COUNTY BO~RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, :' II Respondent. I' NOTICE OF HEARING ~i A ::henring will be held in this caGe at the City Hall, commission Chamber'S / Third Floor, 112 south Osceola Avenue, II Clearwater/ Florida, on Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 1:00 p.m., or as ioon thereafter as can be heard. July 11, 2003, at 9:00 a;m., is alscl reserved if neces~ary. continuances will be II granted only by order of the Administrative Law Judge for good cause shown. ! ISSUE; Whether Petitioners' request to amend the county~{de Future Land Use Plan to change the future land use on the suJ;:>ject property from Residential Suburban (RS) and Pre~ervat:l,on (p) to Residential Low (RL) and preservation (P) ~hould' be approved. I, ,I II AUTHORITY: Chapter 120, Florida statutes; and ChapteF 28-106, pa.rts I and II, Florida Administrative Code. " " " Tp,e partie~ shall arrange to have all witnesses and cviden:ce pre~ent .';It the time and place of hearing. subpoenas will be issued by the Administrative Law Judge upon request of the partieG. All parties have the right to preaent oral iJ.I'gument and to cross-examine opposing wltnesses. .All partie~ have the n.ght to be represented by counf;el or other qualii led represhentative, in accordance with Rule 28-106.106, v'lorida , Ma~ 13 03 02120p I Clt'i Attorne~ 727S824021 p.4 Adm;J.ni,strat:J"ve Code. }~ailure to appear at this hearing may be ground,~ for entry of u recommended order of dismissal. " 'I Tpe agency nhall be arrangements for .3. court I , responsible for making the nccessa~~ reporter. ,I " May ~~2003. ,I I ;' COPIES FURNISHED; :1 Pamela Akln, Esqui::-e 112 Sour:h Osceola Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 " 1 Susan H; Churuti, Esquire 315 Court Street " Clearwater, Floridc 33756 Harry S. Cline, Esquire MncFarl~ne, Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1669 Clearwa~er, Florida 33757-1669 I 'I . !i Davld P';I Healey ,Pinellasl Planning Council 600 Clev~land St~eet Suite 8Sp Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160 ~~ IZ-~~ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administratlvc Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us 2 ,; Ma~ 13 03 02:20p 'I C 1 t,'1 Attorne~ 727<:;G24021 p.5 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS I City o~ Clearwater, for the use and benefit of LAwRENCE H. DIMMIT~, III, ~nd LAWR~NCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as 1rustee, P~,ti tioners, Case No. 03-1500 vs. PINELL~S COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, 'I Re,:spondent. ORDER OF PRE-HEARING INSTRUCTIONS This cause having been scheduled for final hearing, it is, therefdre, ORDERED that: ~ " I., Counsel for all parties shall meet no later than IS days pr:;ior to the date for final hearing In this cause and shall: (a) Discuss the possibility of settlement; (b) Stipulate to as many facts and issues as possible; (c) Prepare the pr~-hearing 8tipulation as required by this Order; (d) Exa~inc all exhibits (except for impeachment exhibits) proposed to be offered into evi1ence at the hearing; (e) Furnish opposing counsel the names and addrcGses of ull witnesses (except for impcachm2nt witnesses); and !I M~~ 13 03 02~20p '! C i ~ . Attorne~ 727--24021 p.6 I! " 2.1: Counsel for Petition8rs shall initiate arrangements for the i1ttprneys I conferenc,eD., However, all i1ttorneys in this cause <1.~e charged ",ith the duty of meeting in such conferences and of complying with the schedule set forth in this Order. (f) Complete all other matters which may expedite the hearing in thlD case. 'I 3.:1 The pre-h'~aring stipulation shall contain: I (a) A conclse statement of the nature of the cont::-oversy; (b) A b]~ief, general statement of each party's position; (c) A ljst of'all exhibits (except for, impeachmEmt exhibits) to be offered at the hearing, noting any objections thereto, and the grounds for each objection; (d) A list of the names and addresses of all witnesses (except for impeachment witnesses) to be called at the hearing by each party, with expert witnesses being so designated; (e) A concise statement of those facts which are adm~tted and will require no proof at hearin':J, together with any reservations directed to such admission; (f) A concise statement of those issues of law on whi.ch there is agreement; (g) A concise statement of those issues of fact which remain to be litigated; (h) A concise statement of those issues of law which remain for determination by the Admim.strclti ve Law Judge; (i) A concise statement of any disugreement as to the application of the rules of evidence; 2 Ma~ 13 03 02 21p C 1 ~ . Attorne~ 727""~24021 p.7 (j) A list of all pending motions or other matters ,~hich require action by the Administrative Law 0udge; (k) An estimate a~ to the length of time required for the hoar~ng; and (1) The signature of counsel for all parties. 4.1 The parti\:~s shall file their pre-hearing stipulatJ.on no later than July 7, 2003. If for any reason the pre-hearing :~tipulation cannot be executed by all counsel, each attorney ,[ :3hall f~le and ~erVe a separate proposed pre-hearing statement no latei than July 7, 2003/ with a statement of reasono why no agreemerlt was reached on'the stipulation. Failure to comply with the requirements of this Order may result in the exclucion of w~tn~sses or exhibits not previously disclosed. ! , DONE AND ORDEF~ED this 8th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon Co~nty, Flori~a. c~~ (l C~~ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrutive Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachce Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.do~h.state.fl.Uc Filed with the Clerk of the DJ.vision of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: 'I Pamela ~kin, Esquire 112 South Osceola Avenue 'I ClearwatJer, Florida 337S6 :1 3 :1 Ma~ 13 03 02,: 20p il I Ii I Cir.'1 Attorne~ 727~S24021 p. 1 FAX MESSAGE rW[.~Y~30:~j~ DEVElOPMENT SERVICES DEPT CITY OF ClEAPWATER -..---- / /' City of Clearwater, Florida Office of the City Attorney Phone Number (727) 562-4010 Fax Number (727) 562-4021 TO: LOCATION: Cyn,ji Tarapam, Planning Director Planning , I, FAX NO.: :1 " 45713 FROM; Leslie K Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney DATE: May 13, 2003 TIME: NUMBE~ OF PAGES OF THIS MESSAGE (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 9 MESSAGE: :i Attached ,I for your file clnd Information IS a copy of correspondence from attorney Stephen ,;Cole. correspondence from Pinellas Planning Council, Notice of Hearing and Order of :,Pre-Hearing Instruction re: City of Clearwater, for Dimmitt v, Plnellas County Board of County Commissioners, DOAH Case No. 03-1500. 'd1 '''' MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 400 NORTH TAMPA STREEJ;,SUITE 2300 625 COURT STREET I, 1501 SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE " LAKELAND FLORIDA 3380.3 (863) 680-9908 FAX (863) 683-2849 , 'i POBOX 1531 (ZIP 33601) POBOX 1669 (ZIP 33757) TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 CLEARWATER, F"LORIDA 33756 (813) 273-4200 FAX (813) 273-4396 1727.441-8966 FAX (727) 442-8470 IN REPLY REFE~ TO Clearwater April 21, 2003 Via hand dplivery :1 Pinellas Cdunty Attorney's Office Attn: Susan Churuti, Esq. Pinellas Cqunty Court House 315 Court Street Clearwaterl FL 33756 , RECEIVED A~I-< G;~ 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATEh 'I Re: Din,ll1litts. V s. Pinellas County Board of COtUlty COl~ll11issioners and COlliltywide 'I " , Pla,ming Authority I .1 Dear Susmi: I Wh~n filing the Petition for Administrative Hearing, the Division of Administrative Hearings ~as copied. I have received a call from Aml Chaney of DOAH (at 850/488-9675 x 189) who has acknowledged receipt of the Petition. She explained that she will hold it in a pending fil~ to await the request of the responding agency, i.e. the Bom'd of Commissioners acting as tl~e CPA, for the DOAH to begin its hearing procedure. ,I y o~fr assistance to be in contact with Ms. Chmley at DOAH to keep the administrative hem'ing prQ:Cess moving forward is greatly appreciated. Please call me at 727/444-1415 should you have ~~y questions. 'I I' Sincerely, -, , '- ~u \, St~phen O. Cole , '.. .. SOC:pr Gii ~. <: cc: PiI*llas County Board of COlUIty Commissioners, Acting as Countywide Planning Authority ,I Attn: Karen Williams Seel Pinbllas Planning Council A.ttn: David P. Healey City of Clearwater Attn: Brian August, Mayor City of Clearwater Attn: Pam Akin City of Clearwater A..ttn: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director h:\data\aty\soc\dimmitt\churuti Itr,doc :i I / MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1501 SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET, SUITE 2300 POBOX 1531 <ZIP 33601) TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 (813) 273-4200 FAX (813) 273-4396 625 COURT STREET POBOX 1669 <ZIP 33757> LAKELAND. F="LORIDA 33803 (863) 680-9908 FAX (863) 683-2849 CLEARWATER. FLORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 FAX (727) 442-8470 IN REPLY REFER TO Clearwater July 28, 2003 City of Clearwater Attn: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 \I!r r'f. {; ~'''T' Ii ;1 RECE\ y f,.,,~-""~' JUL :~ \ j /d;d Pinellas Planning Council Attn: David P. Healey, Executive Director 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 ,"_ ,-'''j"""\f\;- ',yr.1 LANN!~''''' 'i""'., ,,; , i'-"""" P , "n~, ,,; , 4 \, ""'"' ~, ClTY O~: (^:~ ~,' :~\{,~':\f-ii.\l i"-rt II ~~~'" ,,,,,,.,,,, " Re: City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III and Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., as Trustee v. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority Dear Cyndi and David: Attached is a courtesy copy of the two volumes of the transcript of the hearing before Judge Alexander on July 10. tl~ SOC/pjr Attachments cc: David Shadowsky, Esq. (with attachment) Stephen o. Cole (J h \data\aty\soc\dlmmitt\tarapani 070203 doc MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET. SUITE 2300 625 COURT STREET 1501 SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE POBOX 1531 <ZIP 33601> POBOX 1669 (ZIP 33757) LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33803 (B63) 680-9908 FAX (863) 683-2849 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33502 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 FAX (727) 442-8470 (813) 273-4200 FAX (813) 273-4396 IN REPLY REFER TO Clearwater July 2, 2003 HAND DELIVERY City of Clearwater Attn: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: City of Clearwater, for the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III and Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., as Trustee v. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners as Countywide Planning Authority Dear Cyndi: Attached please find the following documents with reference to the above: 1. Areawide Aerial Photograph 2. Concept Plan A 3. Aerial photograph, Dimmit Site/Enterprise Road Connection 4. Lake Chautauqua Vicinity Future Land Use - 1980, 1982, 1987 and 2003 5. Countywide Future Land Use Plan 6. Copies of minutes of a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners and of the Pinellas Planning Council. Please let me know if you have any questions. SaC/mf Attachments Sincerely, ~:tE ElVED h \data\aty\soc\dtmmJtt\tarapam 070203 doc JUL 0 2 20Uj PLANNING DEPART' .- CITY OF CLEARV,< . /.<< ~fJU1t~ /11 ~ OJ /4t€ JUL-10-2003 08:41 -,' MacFarlane Ferguson Clw 727 461 7970 P.0l MACFARLANE,FERGUSON & Mc..l\roLLEN AT1'OR.MMi ,!('CmJNnl.ORS AT LAW lNl'liRVEST BANK IVlLOQ\fC m COCIt.T $11tJiZf. stJr1'E 400 P. Q. BOX 1~ (ZIP >>7$1) CL~WATFJl., n.ortlDA 3.l7~ (n7) ol41-n66 DATE: it (0 {03 FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM NUMBER OF PAGES: '1 (Including cover page) A1TEl'."I10N: FIBMNAME: FAX NO. '>6), - Lfg6> E1tv\~ ~~ FROM: TELEPHONE NO.: ", FAX NO.: ADDmONAL COMMENTS: -A; - ~ ~ ~K~ ~r ~ ~~~< /!:~ ~ 10 ~ ;dL. rill<. - Q ~",., R~ ~ ~ Jvw~~ ~fJ plolr (.I ~< II P..kb...:wr ~ ~ r I~' - ,,;- YOU EXPElUENCE PRO~~ RECElVJNG, PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AT (727) 441-8966 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATIORNEY- CUENT PlUVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF TIm ADDRESSEE. IF 'IRE READER OF THIS MESSAGE'IS NOT TIlE INTENDED RECIPIENT. COMMUNICATION OF TInS MATERIAL IS STRICTLY PR.OHIBITED. IF YOU HA VERECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (COLLECT IF NECESSARY) AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE u.s. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK you. Client No. Time a.m. Sent run. Tclecoplcr O[lcratOr Mallcc ~o_ , "V'__ ._ ____ 11_....'...... ._1'.... I '-I ;::.1.....~...'1 .......W 1"-' -r"'-J. 'jl I - < III i &~ III ~IN 9~i ~!' , , "'^ './Q_- , .-'-----'-'~-'.1~+. ,- :;, _ _, ..1-'-...------'-..-'-- -.. .~O.~~'.'~"L-~-- ---+t9L~~.,'"...----,------- ~ ...,-...-----.-.b- :,-~-~- ..-.....-.--,-..---..---..."- ...,... ",_.,'".,..-~~-_.------_._~----- -,-,---- -,--_._~~~.. ,.,., .--------,....,,". -'..--_._....,-- I ' ~ ----..-.-'-..-itr-'-....---'~..;----...,.-...- ,____,_,...,w,_ "." 'm"l ,...,. '. ~----;'-';-- -'-.._.~....."'."....".:-' ---.--. -..-.--..,-~ kJr.,~ i ~~,::. @ -,.---..-.,......"...'tll~".'"..,.,...,-...,.---~- ~ "I'''~- " ,.[;,."........._____1.,_._...,......._,,___ I""J,J- -r..t.-~':;~:::..-.;~.- fl . J/J. ~;- ~A~ ... .....-.-t...-------AL-~ l-"'~~ !1)-..1~~-=-~.-...----.- -...---.-1Ii.k>~.-, -:...-~-~;-<(.. · -. -i"'-:---;-"-- ---,...-t--~-PJiH~ ~+'l~$;""-" --.__._~-" I i "--'~- --"----..---~..,-' .....,...'..- ---.:------'----6t6---~_.".-.. ..-.....--.-".,....... ~~,--,~.,-~-_J::.__,!~., 4r~..-#--~-~.~,- =-~~=';!=~=~:=J:;~,..I~~--~iiJ; - ----....-- L__,.. ,.. ...." ~,.._,__"..~~..._..ov.., ,'... ....,. .. .._....._.L..____.___.._.____.. -,..---..-------..-J..."..,.w ~_..,~ ----._!!~gJk~....w, ~ \I"" ~ ~ ----- --.--.l,.....~ -b I~ ri~r- -( -~--- Ill' I ---. --..---.. .1~""" --..-..-,-.....,..., ......1'\>_..".,..". ,....,...-..-" .----.-..-..-....-----...- Iii #1\ '~ 1t4-~ ~~ ~==='l'-~~"'1i~ ~_.f...-~.-~-__.---..~-- I! 1 , ---..- ---..-ttt-----.- .... ...-.-------...-. -... ........_........_......."'...__......,~#. .-..,.----.........- ,...--,.-.".......---..------ .---...-.--JHM. ~_~!1.~_ ~-..~~.".JNM.~.__._. . .-- . ...".....'"" _.......~.j4.....".... .."....r~.' "..."').~.~,,,. ..u.&,r.....~...., ..~_.._~__.&__,~,____ -.". --.... , ~..._, ,.,..;..4:u-~i,.eJ."."..~.-,k-J.,~.- '__ ..--- -.-,-...----t4.--.-..-~,.-~-.--&.,- -.~u..~-..-:gr.&-;.-,~.~....~ ------4----- k .. ~ /W., Y.r::f.,l>..':. i---- -..., . ...... "'- ."". ..--- " ... jg . .. -h-..1f". . ~~,.~--?:-,J,.WM,----- .....~i,~ ' ..,..,. ..,.......~IJ~~ J~~ !..~,.. ....~.., .,,~~ . n__" ... :;! ~ -,~ & ~~ ~ ~ - CR.w.r tJ;Y ~~/~ ~ ~G 7JI/~~ I I 4 I~ I :;, C p,6 ,..1 ) i_ ~ *' ' 0 JJ \,Ili.t!'~~U. t!ivai\ab\e 'I~,"" l~ :'. 'I 11"1 -.-,.., .,,". '1 I'. ---"~""'..-' ~~.- ~I. ~--".,.,..,_.~~- -......,..... ,--~_.....~ _._."~ \. ._.J.~ ~ ~ ',! ---.... .-... .-- .'. ---- -.......". ..'" .. .-,-.----.-. ".,-. __.,...,..' __, :l:!i~ ~" ,~:::_..u-.-M,-_--...fi..~ ~$-j~,."..--_.--..-".".---- 11, t -W--,_......... ,...,.-....-.-----...,... ".. " ......--~ II" ----....,...----... , .', .....---.,....' _.._.______,_~l!-......Id,~.-.-A. ~~-,.-~...-~"..... ~ · ~ 111 . ~_ ._,_.M --- ~ r: .L..-~ .:...~ . I {t..,.. ~ .. ~ :L I .....'~i':"--'...~1\- ,~ ,.......~~.,...,,2.,> ~(-~ -"'j:~-- ~~~-7Y- ~_k_/~? -..-- ----., '-,--._---'-- ,..---.----..-. "j"....-....---- ----~" ". -.-- "..,-,--..---F:~...,~.,_..,,~~.._...~-:..-~ ~ ~ ~ -------k----.L.r.~ ~ ~ 10-+- .~-- it. - ;.L.~L ---' --... Ii, ~F I L.~~ 7 I ~""'JIl~---'----'."'--' , -...,----,---. -. '...'.l'~....'....._-.. r~~ .fX'l~~ I /?-A~~ ~! ' -f'" "",,,,..' "r-'-----.-- "/717/;:C;:::--t:f1 u~; ;;,'V V~tT~ II.... -.-..." '.r-----='---~ ..J.,-~ se44---.-m-. ''''------~----- '.. ",,' .... ,.. ..++ii;li.-,--------,.-............ .....:.:,.,;,..J'j. ----~ ~ ~.. /D-.:::.....--:-It- I~i - r"-"'~ ~ -i....61~.~-~-,..,~ ....-- ~------.:1L----_. - . ,. " , ".-,-,/ ^"" !t~ I L,,_ t;; . ;~; "\T" ,'.--" ....... --,.. '" ,.. ..-..----,------... ....-.-, _______'.. . .;1i......"...... .._.._~~ ~ k C;Jy (~,... .A~~ i;! ..--- -------......{~-;;~--~-kt}--~.--... .:-q~~ ,,,,.In''' '-'-"-'- "'f) ..d~ ' ~D-fA, ____m r -:-~/- fiT--- tW'fN {ir;--:::;' - -1fi.-- ". "~~,;,,.. .. ,'..n...'...__'_.._._'__._~.... ,.....~j. _.._..__ . . \" .. ----- ..-- ~. ,,,,,. . '.' ....-. -- 11 ___W"_ ...."" "" ...... '1~7~-..----- ...--.-- .. , . , """ ;..,..,..... ---, - ,~w... ". -- ,-..-------.-...-.--.- .'W. ".--.- i; --~.. ,fp.;'- +-71.f...1:T:":.J.:_~k-_-- - --- ---. -.,-----..... f--.... .. , '.'~;:''''!'!:f-!!.,_.;-..--_...... ~,...,,-_.._--_.,- "'n......._,,' ...." ',> .. ......--- l~' , i J Ii _______~~_..-.-._.._',. "''''.'''_ ' I , :1:1: ~ ~ ~ o~._--'--"'-,.,.,,-~ lJ.;. ~ PAJ-f~ .... r: ,-- """"'" I ,r-; .. --------, ,...-,--", - ..,. ,....-......--.-- 4=1'1 ~r ,~t~..-- , ~ ~ ~. . 'I.. ~_.._iA::.._ -~ n:t I~- ...,....", ....... ~~--- i;iJ;J--~-- ~!... .. - '- __"H_ . "..---- - W-.---f.--..- _~~~......J:.. . /A~______ ~PIu~~:: .. "..,........L..__ II: I J-~gl?ii,-,..-,-'" """, ".. ,...-, " %:':J.f;~YCOJw1l~ -.. -----------. - ....---'!' --- j t!!- 01 I -- , ,... - ...---1 J, j) I , , CO~J I ee, \\fJ.'O\0 i . ____..'.~ S. -M..~.._________,,_~~~_-_.~~.._--_.,--.,----_..__._--..-'-'-,- ..-- ~ .. j nO......' _1.. DI' , -.. /J J- ~ .' -w---81~~ ~ ~~ ._"-- .. ,. ,______ ...,.,~.~1., _0-' ....,,_.,_~~,t::-__ ,_._LQ_"_~__.~._.._----- .-.----~..,,--.-----,------ -. -... - --i~ _0' . ..-- ____Qa~~" -.~j;I::--- :~...3.1--._._"-_._----.-.- J I' ..,-- , _.....w., ---l-._.-'-,...,_.._.~.,-..,--;--_...." """...._'-.-'-.-'I;-.-'-...-._,..._,.--_.-._..._~-- _ @ .- _.-~. _... ...__,...._____.~_ ,., JC~~~_".,~- . ,.,{,..--~-.~..~------ -.---- jli I .... -- ,-,- ..-.. -, . r~-'''' ,...- .'...--.-r---........... ..~._.._.._.___,_._,,,L..,'_ ...... '--"-'-'--'- ,..- .,-,--------.--,- ...."..-..- -.--~~-- -___.__.........,...~ii..M-~.--""~-_.._~ 4M 1k ~ .-" " ~ -- - -....-.-l----.-----~.-.U;-WM~~...+l-~~.-::.~ ,-Ll7~~ ~ - - - .---ftM..-~---....-.p.~lt----~: k AtI< "" . - - - ..---l--.....-~--".-..- .1 ~-@ -- -..,-.--..---...". ,,..It;,., ..' -. __.._.._.__.__..,.....",.....__ff......_ .. -- ,-,- ..,_la.~!l-, -~~- .- __ .. ...-_.:~\.-M.-~._. ~~~~?_~~~~ J.!l.l -,_...~..- .---.---..11U'... - ........ --, ..- -. ,.-.- .-" ---- - '-'''.- .."._" ..l__. .-.- ......-...--. ,.. ~..~--- -- --.-----1t...- --~--.-._._...---~-----.-----.-.- _u..:___. -------...-..t~.~~-~_~~~~L f., .14__ . -..-..-,...,-....11'; , , .........~~.~."'h~+-_~..._4",~-_-.4-Jh...,'_,._ ..._.... ...,.,."...,--.-.--ttt-..---..-. I.". t .~---~--.J,-~---.._-,,-~~,.-v. "__' I!! · r -, .. -.: ~ ~ '-. I .' ~l . ,...... ............ -.....--.- .t~_. __....._..'.'1.. ..,., .. -----..-.-.--.......--..........---.--------.--.-......----.-..- ,I; J"~ v. I 11_ ,L' -------..-~.---_.~~-~ J. ~,.... ~ ._----.--. -.i ..... ._-~. ~~-;-..:. ~.. ~ ~..:: L "/s{~ 1 ~ ,I, ~ I 7 -... ....v,_,..._... -~4 ,,,..,,-.........-..~-M..,.~,,.,,..~~.-~ ,,~. ~4- -~-t-~ . . .-_._--~._..----. ._..~_.~--~--~~-.-fl:.,-f~ ~~}-- ~ ; I I "-~-"'"--"""----'"m-'''-''' - .....--. ,.... -, -- '-:-...... '"'-...."" ....----:...~ --- --------- - ",.. ...._, Z - , _,_ _.______,__"."Jjj .... , ~.... _~, ...,Il,.__.. r.~___ ~ ...__14 __~~, l' ' ~. --l-r...'."'''''."..... J'-L.. -- -.-- ,-~--- :,;1 I 1';' - - '- .- '''-'-~'---it;"' -." -- -,.-----.. - -, .- -,- ,--,- , , , -'-" :..... ... .-----,.. --.--...- - -,-........- ..-.....-,"...- ,...----. I,:: I n ..... . ...,. 1,"'1"' ' ,.. ... . ...., .. ... . - ..' - , , I ... . .,'1'10"'" ", .0. _, ._...._ _....__..._ .._... .. "... ",..".'''_.....____ Ii I ,-".., . , ,.' "1": .... ....,-...,..,- .,....-....... ...."..' - "I.... ..,..... Ii II I I I I I I JUL - J.lO-,l!llO.:l 101:1.....::. l'lacr-ar lane r-erguson 1,..1 W (&:. ( "'0J. (':I (10 r- .10:;) , ~' dij\1~ I . \?laS\ .~~\e I _______p.~~\*~~ -4-Jk._-~-.~_:~~---. ----- __.__._~~":~...~1-~ ~ ~, Jo.__._.________ ~---~~t~~c1-.~ ~-~1f(~~~= "r.JIA-..tr~n -.--- ~~-~, ------II!! ~ *--_P~----~iic--- q ()2. ~7'.~.{ t 1..:I,J ---- -' ...-~ n-'--~ ~ l l - ~~ ~,- , , ,.",,,_.._..,.ll~&.._.P,,..,. ~,-~ ~-__.,_f; .~ .:-~-~_..,._--_....., " :',1 -~ -r'I'-1 ~:";'..::..::..: ---____E_ __ , ,.. .... -.. ....,...---.-.---.,-,.....,-".. "..,.......- ....-.--...--.",,,., .'" -..---,----....-''''. ,- l IA . ._ I .u ." .,,, ~~,.-~.-L~-_~;.....~ _.1M._,_~....4f.!-_b.~- . h,.' H". ...---- I ~ : t)cI"~ 2. c7D2- ! .,--, -- '-fl' q"'-. -.----1JL- ~..."cFA'l '.......-:......-...........'. """,.. ",....-. .__..~...,,_..,.- ? _'.n_.___ ".~_...f?_!..~.o"./ ._.,..._J4__..c~ ~~....~- I 7".' - I ~;- --'- -r--~.-~~~t- g~ ~.~~ -~_.__. .---- ----f--- .....--& ~---~ ~ -.--Y-~c.._:B_IJJ ~,r:!!l---- f,~! ~~~ .-......... -' 0----~- -- -+ .....---,{:---------~.-.:--(~'-~ .. - ~----------'--"f'" . ~ ~.------..Wr_!~----- ," .. .'. ,.f+-........._-,-,.__....,-,.........,-~....,-,.~"...k.....-k~-~".~-~ '" j,~; I ~.u ~ :rl'l' -- ..--.-...,-....-....-, ", ,....' . ",,, . ....,...,. -,--...-..,..., ...'.' , ,.. , '-" ---------'. ..,--~ l~ ' _ _ A .J)I. j., ;.... "'At.I~ ~ . - -.... - -lT~~ ~~s/~-~~-:----_...~~_.~.- f I :',1 I ~______....___ "~: ...... .-'...... 4'''1~..''''''''''~''1 --. .. -fL~-~,.--,~.._u..~ "..k..~.~ ~ -----~-------~,.]-J~~=-.-. - - ------------ ...' ._, .~ u..._,._..jl_.___.,._.., ;~ "~. ~, .. . , 9f)___ ~ ~ ~~.. ,.,........."... ,. .~.~= V I .."--'.'.- ....~4.L...- -.----.----~-,------.-...__.."....<, '" '...... .. , . .,..- ...-..--,-.---.- ,j,ii i . " """ .. ,~_" ",." ....".. ......... ,..'.. ._._. ____ .._..,__L,., ._,....____.___.. .._"...__ _,,' ..'", --,---- i.., I.' - . - . - ___... - - I _,~~________________ ___'__m____ _.. ,,,,,, ..,..... .__.______ --...---' .,,' ......--.- j ~ ! ;: , j ! \ I "', JiJ I' [i~les11: COP~J ~ Vanab~0 II i s ' I "'\ .- __R_....._. _ __~... ......~", ."'III""'.M_~. -:-.~~"=::==~.r~~~~--~-T .== -~ 7-~"'--- ------l~-~~o,~ ~ ~-"-.. --~~;;._;;,;;---- -.-.-------- ,t--. ~~~*-..-~--~- __..L___________..__. 11 ,I " -........ .,...- .-....-. ...... _.... ~t.-.'.,.. "- ~.-.,---..._---.--- ._...Io._.__,_~..... _____....._.1'.6..._...___ ......,-- - I '.~__k. !t::-- - 13/~1 -_...J.J.._~___._______ _'., ,.. ,..,... ..." ,,' .,'.._ '" 1 L, .._....__._,&_____,.._._.~,~....._~____ /~~. _ ~-:~L--,-._.._-_. " .........' ,...__:.. ,.__. I' ' ~""::r-=-:..;;--~" ~ ill D,e ~~IJ. I ,...- . ...- -...__._..1,;+..._,........."'. ..-=~~.... .(..._...I~___:__....,....":'..l'lff'........"'--_....___.._____........__,......_I_~'-.-...-- -....._ _"'_ ---- ---~lj~.. ~f-..?' -..-!!.( t/.~JJ..:=.M_L..k-~__- ---- -- ---- -'--i~'--'-- ~ ~-I.-o/-~-+-~-~--~---..------ '''- ........... .....-,-.f~._.~~.._~,_... ~..._.._,--~-~.._-_._,._".~ ...---.--..---41.... ._-..----~ p~ l G4t-....--- --~---.,~-~---.---- --------+----. -~ ~ u.".L-Ci!&--~~Ij!1?-_---- .---.------1ll--- .J!rr....::.-1d--_! .----.---. ---" t~ _._,,__ ____ --l..._.....--..~ ..~ I _.~efKi...--4 -f~- 6t,.~ ~ I- ~ -----..---.--.t-- ~ ~. ~::---fII%;;F ..- - -..- - "--lU-", -, .__.~_... -'-'" ._, . ....." ._..,.._..._.~~.,--i...__._____,_~_._~,__.,",-~___, -----.----"tM~- ~ cM ~ ~_~ ~ ~.~-.-;; .-------lli-----~ ~~4ol. At ~ MN~.-J dr(I $ l'J: I ' . ..' -'-...'...--1tt-- ._..~J,.__. M . ~--.-;.-..__._-_..-._..- -'--"-'---'--'''---''-'''-'' ..,-,,"'.._---- '." ,-. -,------,.ij~-d{w ~~ n.~-'~--~-~.~.-.-_-,-__--_-..-........--....,---~.~ dl I ---- ----'-~m.-..-- ..-.,'.... _..,_._""~".. ~_..._----- ,,-- -. --- -_.~--..-._...._--._--.- ,...,-....,.----- . " .---.-~---~.~~-"-kle_--~ I ~ -.-.-.- .. -,-... ...,"_.~+t ..., ~-,...~"~ - ~ ~ ~ ~-,..-.........-- ... .-. - '-----1 ,,-- ~~~~~--;;~_...-.-.. -&-~.--- "i-;--- - -- ---lit- .-----~~-.- ------.-.. ~......- -----~.-.._---- '. ..-, - ,... ---... -" ,t4l'" .. ....-..,..,,'. '" ... ..- ...., ".. .-' -.... ..-- ....-.--.-------.....,..... ...... .-...--., ,....._" j" . c . .-, ... - ..,.-,.., ...B!. ,.~. ,~. ..~-t' .. ~... .. -1i... ..~, . i!:b- .,~.. " '... ,.. ,.....-- ,--- iii ~:r:::rfi4/J1~ff' .' . ~::~~~~~ ~ ! . "'.-,-- ....'" ---1#-~'-"-'--'--' ...--.----.... ~.,..--+.--"...---..,.... ..-.-..---........-' -,..".....'---,,-~ --.-.~~.~; ~~.,~ vs~-- -.._--~_.~.~ ~.--a;L-~--'.i ? l;~i: .1 ' ,() 11..1 ':.. I ()~h L.. ~ / /J '.. j; ~ ' .._-......tir ....'.--~-::::.4,.~-.~. ..~. ~~-~, ...----~~- -~~_r:r~~.~- ~~~ ~--~ ---..- .Iy - ~ ...,.,-".,-~_...~:'--~~ I, I ~ II.. ____,.,_,.' ,..,.. .___.__,... ,_,__ ..~_ ...". -_.._..~~-,---_.'------ 'i": ~l ~ '- . I ~ ~..A ... , ~'\(v'4 ~_~,... ____, - ".,., n'''__'' .".rr..-~'""-..,_'~n... "-": ...".,...-,. -,-.., r ~",.~~ .,-.---.-." .., ~., . "---r--' ". . ._,- ~ a.1I ...... ----.....-......- i,j: ~~~ ,t. .. 'i ~ ' '- .----,. ....... "T'-"-'" .- . .,..-..,....,..., --.., .,---... . .....----..... "...-.--..,.. '- :> ~,., ~,. .', ~ .j.A.1 ~ ' , _____...,_--'-,_ ."-- " -..- . ""--'""l?'-'.' '" .....---.... . -., "...;.,.:-'".- .. r1i ,f) J#. ..J ~~ Il.. · , . "..~-_._..-.....:~..-'----.... " ...._--:;;;r-~~ ~.gU-~ 1()4r ~-,..., --- ,:1 . I ~.. - ---. .' ., .~-~ . --m_-"-?~~:r----..._---_m_..._- -----~~~~~~... ~ .... --- ~~~~~~~f~~~~~ l~i ttg/1.. mn/"In~ t!-I}n~..,/~~1?tPI1/ ..-- '..'.....tt....------..' ........-..-. ...-,..----.."......---.., "~.-,----,...._-' .-......- --::;. ----.... .-t-._~~~~~u;: f'k!t__~~ ..-- ....-- -jr.....-.------- -_._...+-.._~-- _.~--- :,~: ' ~ ~~aH; .. ,,_.... ..----- ~----'- " ,~, ,..-..---,- , ,," ,.~..--:---~._'_.. - ---...., ~.".- ,- "_,_____...~~ ...~/J~.-.. .t;.~~J~~~A(~~'1~r... --- , I , .. . __,_, ..._ I: j _.....,.. . ----,--."'..' ". ..-. ; I" I! i , , ." "--.--. 1;: -..,.. .'0..------ - ". ....-----..1". '..-----,- " ----.....- ) 'I . I I' ' _..____.___._.. ._~... ~..........._____ _. .,.________.. ~ _ __L-_____. _. ,_,"_'_'" ".----.. ...--..-.--.,.,.-"- -...... ..... _._~_..- . _._._..__..~.. ....-- -.-......--.. --.-----.. ..-..-- .. _.. _____-*'.. ..... _____,. .._ :___ .__ .. .. 1...____........ ----.. - --- -.. .. ..----.... .... 1'1 I -------.. .,~+..---- "-'--"-". .., 'I -, ---.. . ;,1 ' .,/ ... ....--..--..........,... ..... ------ -. - ~ Ii ! ~ ~ . '" ....._____.._.._~_ _" ._..__.___............ ..rl..____...,oI ,,, -......---.--..--- TOTAL P.07 t. . " PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM \.. ..oiiii ,. I AGENDA ITEM: VB-9. I MEETING DATE: September 18,2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan M"ap From: Residential Suburban - RS: Preservation - P: WaterlDrainage Feature- WfDF To: Residential Low - RL: Preservation - P: WaterlDrainage Feature - W!DF Area: 22.18 acres CASE #: CW 02-39 JURISDICTION: Clearwater (LUZ 02-02-03) LOCATION: East side of Chautauqua Ave., from 103 ft. south of Second Ave. N. to Second Ave. S. .. TYPE: Regular Map Amendment RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based On Accompanying Findings (1. A. & B. [1-6]), Recommend That the Proposed Amendment to Residential Low. Preservation and WaterlDrainage Feature Be Approved. Subject to the City Limiting the Traffic Impacts on the Site Pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management SYstem. Separate and in Addition, it is Recommended the Appropriate Traffic Mitigation Provisions Pursuant to the City's Concurrency Manal!ement Ordinance be Detennined and Ae:reed to by the City and the Applicant Prior to the City Approving the Plan Amendment. ,- L FINDINGS Based on the background data and analysis in this report, the following fmdings are submitted for consideration of the recommendation for approval of the amendment request: A. The proposed amendment is considered a "regular" amendment because it exceeds the subthreshold size limitations in the Countywide Rules and because it impacts one or more of the six Relevant Countywide Considerations contained in the Countywide Rules. The .' two impacted considerations are~ Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard and Adjacent To or Impacting An Adjoining Jurisdiction. ! PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: The Council recommended denial of the proposed amendment from Residential Suburban, Preservation and WaterlDrainage Feature to Residential Low, Preservation and WaterlDrainage Feature. Note 6-5) COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: 10/15/02: The Board continued the amendment and remanded to the Council. (Vote 4-3) -~ -- -. - -- - - - - ~ 1 \\PUN _COtlJl,WOLJIUSERSIWPDOCSII..tJ\CA _\SepIembcr\CW 02-391' dw doc ,- , Exhibit I \ . \ . . , ,7 , " CW #02-39 FINDINGS , ;f · The request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Residential Low (RL) is not consistent with the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide ~lan, as concerns the application of the RL category to the subject area. In particular, the proposed RL category is not consistent with the character and density of the site in relationship to the adjoining residential areas and does not serve as a transition between more suburban and more urban residential areas; · The proposed RL designation will negatively impact the surrounding transportation system including U.S. 19 which operates at a LOS "F" as well as the limited capacity and configuration of the local road system in unincorporated Pinellas County; and ~ · The proposed RL designation poses potential adverse impacts upon the adjoining jurisdiction, i.e., Pinellas County, with respect to the interests of the County residents, its precedential implications for future plan amendments and demands on the local county road system. Based on these findings the Council recommends denial of the amendment as requested. .. {) '" \".-~.. . -- PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM "- ....oil I AGENDA ITEM: N 8-10. I I MEETING DATE: March 19, 2003 J SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map From: Residential Suburban - RS: Preservation - P: Water/Drainage FeatUre- W/DF To: Residential Low - RL: Preservation - P: WaterIDrainage Feature - WIDF Area: 22.18 acres CASE #: CW 02-39/CW 03-22 JURISDICTION: City of Clearwater LOCATION: East side of Chautauqua A venue, from 103 feet south of 2nd Avenue N. to 2nd Avenue S. TYPE: Regular Map Amendment RECOMMENDATION: Council Reconsider the Amendment With New Information Provided By the City, Pursuant to the Action of the Countywide Planning Authority. BACKGROUND: The City of Clearwater originally submitted this amendment to the Council last year as (,~ se number CW 02-39. At that time, staff recommended approval with supplemental recommendatioll~;', ~ report for that case is attached as EXhibit 1. On September 18, 2002, the Pinellas Planning Council recommended denial of the amendment by a vote of six to five. On October 15, 2002, by a vote of four to three, the Countywide Planning Authority temporarily deferred the application and remanded it to the Council for further consideration, based upon the City's assertion that the Council's concerns could be addressed through further negotiation with the developer. The minutes of those public hearings are attached as Exhibit ll. As a result, the City of Clearwater has submitted a new application for Council's reconsideration, ., whir.n is attached as Exhibit Ill. The City Commission approved the extension of Chautauqua Avenue I to the north, to Enterprise Road at their meefng on March 6, 2003, to be funded jointly by the City and the developer. PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL ACTION: The Council recommended approval of the amendment from Residential Suburban; Preservation; WaterIDrainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; Water/Drainage Feature. (Vote 9 - 3) COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: 04/01/03: Contrary to the Council's recommendation, the Board denied the amendment. (Vote 7 - 0) 1 F IUSERSIWPDOCSILUlCASES\03 ClISeSIMarc:h\Rq>onsICw03-22.r clw,doc " .. - SUBJECT: Case #CW 03-22 - Clearwater f '.0 ~ Planners Advisory Committee (PAC): At their meeting on March 10, the PAC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment, subject to the traffic improvements approved by the City Commission on March 6, 2003 (see draft PAC minutes, Attachment 2). IL LIST OF MAPS, EXHIBITS, & ATTACHMENTS .. Map 1 Location Map 2 Countywide Plan Category & lwisdictional Map - Black & White Map 3 Aerial- Black & White Map 4 Countywide Plan Category - Color Attachment 1 PPC Disclosure of Interest Form Attachment 2 Draft PAC Minutes Exhibit I Case Report for #CW 02-39 PPC and CPA Minutes for #CW 02-39 Exhibit n Exhibit III Updated Local Government Transmittal Package Exhibit N Correspondence " 2 .. . .. SUBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater .' . B. A summarized evaluation of the impact of the amendment on the Relevant Countywide Considerations is as follows: 1) Consistency with the Countywide Plan and Rules - The amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules for the application of the Residential Low (RL) plan designation because the site is well-suited for low density, non-intensive residential use consistent with the natural resource characteristics of the site. 2) Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard - The amendment area will impact a segment of US Highway 19 N., the LOS for which is below "D" (currently operating at LOS "F" from Enterprise Rd. to Sunset Point Rd.). The supporting traffic analysis applicable under the countywide standards shows an increase in traffic volume with respect to the amendment, and as the site is currently vacant, actual traffic will increase as a function of development of the site. 3) SceniclNon-Commercial Corridors (SNCC) - The amendment area is not located on a designated SNCC. 4) Coastal Hie:h Hazard Areas (CHHA) - The amendment area is not located within a CHHA. 5) Desie:nated DevelopmentlRedevelopment Areas - The amendment area is not located within a designated development or redevelopment area. 6) Adiacent To or Impactine: An Adioinine: Jurisdiction or Public Educational:Facilitv - The amendment is adjacent to another jurisdiction (pinellas County), but does not adversely impact the adjacent jurisdiction or a public educational facility. In consideration of and based upon these findings, it is recommended that the proposed amendment of the Countywide Plan Map to Residential Low, Preservation, and WaterlDrainage Feature Be Approved, Subject to the City Limiting the Traffic Impacts from the Subject Property Pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System. .' 2 i' SUBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater II. BACKGROUND .' This regular amendment to the Countywide Plan Map has been submitted by the City of Clearwater to the Council for review in accordance with Division 5.5 of the Countywide Rules. Parcel ID#: N 32/28/16-00000-240/0300,0400; S 32/28/16-00000-310/0100; 14922-038-0040 Existinl! Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Townhomes Analvsis The amendment area was recently annexed to the City of Clearwater and is 22.18 acres in size and vacant, with 4.61 acres designated as Preservation (P) and 1.35 acres classified as Water/Drainage Feature (W/DF). The P and W/DF areas are not proposed to be changed as a function of this amendment. Approval of the proposed amendment to Residential Low (RL) for 16.22 acres, and allowing 1 unit/acre for the area transferred from areas classified as Preservation would allow for the development of the site with a maximum of 86 residential units. Because this amendment affects a roadway with a LOS below "D", and because it is located adjacent to another jurisdiction (pinelIas County), it has been reviewed as to its impacts, as set forth below: Adopted Roadwav Level of Service (LOS) Standard The amendment area impacts US Highway 19 N., the LOS for which is LOS "F" (US Highway 19 N. from Enterprise Road to Sunset Point Road). Primary access from the site will be obtained from First Avenue North, a roadway that leads directly to US 19. The 2001 LOS on this portion of US Highway 19 N. is "F", V\ith or without the amendment. The projected 2020 LOS is "F", with or without the amendment. . Tt l\hollld be Doted that the portion of US Highway 19 N. that serves this site is classified as a 6 lane I' divided principal arterial. Eyen though US 19 is at a LOS F without the development, the 827 vehicle trips expected to be generated by the development should be taken into consideration in reviewing the amendment (see discussion below under Traffic Characteristics). 3 s'-UBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater Traffic Characteristics A comparison of existing and proposed Countywide Plan categories indicates that the existing RS category could be expected to generate approximately 454 vehicle trips per day (vtpd) for the site, while the uses normally associated with the RL could be expected to generate approximately 827 vtpd, a net increase of 373 vtpd. Because the subject site is vacant, actual traffic increase to the roadway system as a function of development will approximate 827 vtpd. -. The majority of those trips will access US 19 at First Ave. N. The city has not analyzed or provided information as to what types of mitigation measures would be employed to offset the impacts from over 800 new vtpd. The secondary access south of the site on Chautauqua Ave., Third Ave., F ourth Ave, and Lake Shore Drive is narrow and meanders through low density residential and natural areas that are in unincorporated PinelIas' County. This roadway is not adequate to handle any great volume of traffic and therefore the First Ave. entrance on US 19 will experience most of the traffic volume. Once the project is built, there is no way to limit traffic on these secondary access roadways. Additionally, since this roadway is in another jurisdiction, all improvements must be coordinated with that jurisdiction (pineIlas County). Concurrency Development on this site will be required to meet the City's Concurrency Management System requirements, which are enumerated in Section 4-901 of the City's Land Development Code. Mitigation measures under the City's Concurrency Management System could include system improvements such as turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes; special travel studies; and alternative transportation programs that provide incentives/disincentives such as access to mass transit, car pools, van pools, and limited parking (See Exhibit 1). However, the city has not provided information as to what types of improvements will be made and whether or not the traffic can be mitigated pursuant to their requirements. Additionally, any improvements to roads in Pinellas County must first be approved by Pinellas County. Adiacent to or Impactine Another Jurisdiction or a Public Educational Facilitv I "' The .llorihem, southern, and eastern boundaries of the subject site are adjacent to enclaves within the jurisdiction of Pine lIas County. In particular, consideration has been given to the following: I · Existing Use - The properties in Pinellas County that adjoin the subject site to the north and south are developed with single family homes designated RS, which allows for a density of 2.5 units/acre. Although the RL designation allows for 5.0 units/acre uses, a 100% increase in density, the proposed RL designation is still considered low density and appropriate for the natural characteristics of the site and the surrounding area. 4 SUBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater Lake Chautauqua to the east is in Pinellas County and does not appear to be negatively affected by the amendment to RL. It should be noted that currently a 4.6 acre area designated as .Preservation runs north and south along the lake shore and will provide a buffer between the proposed development and the lake. · Plan Classifications - The amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules for the application of the RL plan designation because the site is well-suited for low density, non-intensive residential use consistent with the natural resource characteristics of the site. - . · Service Responsibilities - The subject site is within the Clearwater Planning Area, sewer service area, water service area, and is within the Clearwater Fire District. However, most of the roads south of the site are under the jurisdiction of PineUas County and all improvements must be coordinated with them. · Public Educational Facilities - The subject amendment site is not located near a public educational facility, nor will there be any negative impacts to a public educational facility, or its enrollment, which could increase by approximately 28 students (86 residences @ .33 students/ residence), as a result. of the proposed amendment. Local Government Transmittal On July 18, 2002, the City Commission, acting as the applicant local government, gave initial approval to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan, and authorized an application for amendment of the Countywide Plan Map as referenced in Attachment 1 (Local Government Transmittal Letter). In summary, the proposed amendment to Residential Low, Preservation and Water/Drainage Feature is consistent with the Countywide Rules and policies and the subject area is an appropriate location in which to apply these Countywide Plan categories. It is recommended that the proposed amendment be approved, subject to the City limiting the traffic impacts from the subject property pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System. Separate and in Addition, it is recommended the appropriate traffic mitigation provisions pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management Ordinance be determined and agreed to by the City and the I' applicant prior to the City endorsing the plan q,mendment. I Planners Advsorv Committee (PAC) The PAC recommended approval of the amendment consistent with the staff recommendation (Vote 12-0, see Attachment 3 for their draft minutes). s : . S..-UBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater ,< , IlJ. liST OF FIGURES, EXHIBITS & ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 Location map Figure 2 Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Black & 'White Existing Countywide Plan C~tegory/Subject Area - Color Figure 2A Figure 3 Figfire 4 Black & 'White Aerial Jurisdictional Boundaries Exhibit 1 City Concurrency Provisions Attachment 1 Local Government Transmittal Letter & Staff Report Attachment 2 PPC Disclosure of Interest form Attachment 3 Draft PAC Minutes Attachment 4 Correspondence " .;. f- 6 <' MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN .' ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW M)O SOUTH n.oAIDA AVENUE SUITE .40 LAKEI.ANO. ,.L,OAIDA 22801 (8621 ~ "AX .auI .._... 400 NORTH T_PA STREET, SUITE.3OO P.O. _OX 1_31 lZlP 235011 T_P.... ,.LORIDA 2:a.o2 lal31 27:t-4200 ,.AX .a121 .72042_ a2_ COURT STREET P.O. .OX I... lZlP 2371571 CLEARWATER. "LOAIDA 33715. <<7.71_"'_ FAX <<7271_2_70 IN REPLY IIE"EA TO: -- February 21, 2002 Clearwater City of Clearwater State of Florida CERTIFICATE OF TITLE The undersigned, HARRY S. CLINE, a licensed attorney at law, " does hereby certify that as of the date of this certificate that fee simple title to the property described in the attached composite Exhibit -AW, public records of Pinellas County, Florida, is presently vested in LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, III, [Parcel A] and LARRY H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee under the amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98 [Parcel B] . EXECUTED this .'-- \ day of February, 2002. MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN \r.. /II 1 By: "- " t::::;;.. Barn'S. Cline ~ B:\Data\Aty\HSC\Corresp.'02\DimmittI2.eert.wpd f ,-:' '--=?:.-. . - rt: JvV" {)L~_r.,n.i&l.tll ' DIVis;;&-t i )ITLE 'f ( -. r l.s:.....y I SUBTI'Ji E I - B COMMONWEALTH LANDs TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Reliance Group Company OWNER'S POUCY OF TITLE -INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER 112- 105629 SUBJECf 1'0 THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, . Pennsylvania corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage. not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A, and cost, attorneys' fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein; 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; or ' 3. Lack of. right of access to and from the land. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers, the Policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company. COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Allw'rJfJr J; By ~~.n' III, I EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy: 1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or fa reduction in the dimensions or area of the land, or the effectJ of any violation of any such law, ordinance or govemtnental regulation. 2. Righ'ts of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public records at Date of Policy. , 3. Defects,liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the' insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not dis"cJosed in writing by the insured claimant ttJ the Company prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. . 4. The refusal of any person to purchase, lease or lend money on the estate or interest covered hereby in the land de- scribed in Schedule A. I~ r? , K1 "it ,,, CcJ..AP~\''t'\~ ex\-\-{BI\'i~..... ((/..Ju.~ M .... .merican Land ,ie-Association Owner's Policy - Fonn A (Amended 10-17-70) "'"" In,, . 1{1 "_1:..1 "_1... Irc-_~_.J..'..... . n .a ,...... . . .. ..... , ~ -NST # ~6-320455 / - "t.': 6 5 1 A? .,!./., .21,199 :,!1 . . " '/, ;- (~. / PREPARED BY AND RETURN TO': D. SCOTT DOUGLAS, Esquire Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 400 Cleveland Street Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, Florida 34617 ) . p I~El......s COUNTY FLA. OFF.REC.BK 9531 PG 1055 JC069~27 SSS 11-21-1996 17:08:07 01 DEH.ARRT H DIIIIlITT RECORDING 1 nO.50 DOC STAIIP - Dll219 3 13,m.80 {'V) , ':'" ~. , 'I "'~I"~-"""G - ~l,. \ ,I 1J 7 (\ . :i'" .....10 ~ \{\~\"I' U J' C\ ~')~O!:.YL~O Q\l.\. r '\' (\-\ (j \:)~ '_ 0.' w < \ . - .-- ... \.J \ i.' t _~' (J '\ --.---- ,.,./~,... Y _:ti =-=-..=-= THIS INDENTURE made this 21st day of November, 1996, by and TOTAl: SJ, 058. 30 CIlECX AftT. TEIIDERED: 13,058.30 CHAHGE: S.OO WARRANTY DEED .:~ ____ between LARRY H. DIMHZTT, JR., TRUSTEE U/T/A dated April 12, 1994 :r;= "~V __---2f the County of Pinellas, in the State of Florida, Party of the iOTALao~irst Part, whose mailing address is 150 Willadel Drive, Belleair, &? Florida 34616, and LAWRENCE H. DIMMJ:TT, III, of the County of Pinellas, in the State of Florida, Party of the Second Part, whose mailing address is 25485 U.S. Highway 19 North, Clearwater, Florida 34623. D:~::.-y T~ P:l.' 31 OY'7 ,8 D $ 1:1:::::Itr". T.:: ri I':::l~ F I.)e . C!!.:::I, r-!~..::l ";:~n"7 W' I T N i SSE T H: fly 00:::101)' C:sr:r '. ( That the said Party of the First Part, for and in consider- ation of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) to him in hand paid by the said Party of the Second Part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Party of the Second Part, and assigns forever, the following described land, situate lying and being in the County of Pinellas, State of Florida, to-wit: Lots 1 through 13, inclusive, and the South 5.76 feet of Lots 14 through 26, inclusive, Block 9, LESS AND EXCEPT the right of way of U.S. 19, UNIT NO. 1 - SECTION A, CHAUTAUQUA, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 9, page 52, public records of Pinellas County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: All of Block 9, UNIT NO. 1 - SECTION A, CHAUTAUQUA "ON THE LAKE", lying East of the Easterly right of way of Highway U. S. 19, and South of the Southerly boundary line of Cypress Point Shopping Center Subdivision, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 87, pages 80 through 84, of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. Subject to 1997 real estate taxes, restrictions, reserva- tions and easements of record. Parcel I.D. No. 32/28/16/14922/009/0010 '1 . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Tow~shi? 28 South, Range 16 East, Pinellas County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: From the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4, run S.89035'34"E., 666.07 feet along the North line of said Southwest 1/4 to the centerline of ~2in Street; thence run 5.00000'04" E., 6.12 fee~ along the centerline of Main Street to the point of intersection of the centerlines of Main Street and ~hautauqua Boulevard; thence run S. 890 35'34" E., 30.00 feet' parallel to and 6.12 feet South of the North line of said South1;'lest 1/4 for a Point of Beginning; thence run S. 89035'34" E., parallel to and 6.12 feet South of the North line of said Southwest 1/4, 990 feet, more or less, to the water of Lake Chautauqua for Point "A"; thence re"turn to the Point of Beginning; thence run S. 00000' 04" E., 499.60 feet alone;- the East right-Of-way line of f.1ain Street; thence run S. 890 37'42" E~, 140.00 feet along the North right-Of-way of Second Avenue South to the SouthWest corner of Lot 4, Block 38, Unit No. 1 - Section A Chautauqua "On the Lake", as recortied in Plat Book 9, Page 52, Public Records of Pinellas Countv, Florida; thence run N. 00000'04" vl., 102.38 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 4; thence run S. 89037'10" E., 45 . 00 f ee1:: to the Northeast corner of s aid Lot 4; thence run S. 000 00 ' 04" E., 132.37 feet along the East line of said Lot 4 and the Southerly e:~"t:ension thereof tC-) the centerline of Second Avenue South: thence run S. 89037' 42" E., 688.9 feet, more or less, to the waters of Lake Chautauqua thence meander the West shore of Lake Chautauqua in ~ Northerly direction 541 feet, more or less, to aforesaid Point "A": thence run N. 89035'34" W., parallel to and 6.12 feet South of the North line of said Southwest 1/4, 990 feet, more or less, to the Point-of Beginning. ~o.-l('tGl~ \:?)tl-h f3\\' "A" (',AQ.cS... A Michael Sherman, Florida Department of Community Affairs Manny Pumariega, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Richard Owen, Southwest Florida Water Management District Carol Collins, Florida Department of Transportation Department of Environmental Protection Susan Haxp, Department of State, Bureau of Historic Preservation Honorable Calvin D. Harris Honorable Susan Latvala Honorable John Morroni Honorable Karen Williams Seel Honorable Robert B. Stewart Honorable Barbara Sheen Todd Honorable Kenneth T. Welch Stephen Spratt, Pinellas County Administrator Gina Clayton, City of Clearwater Hmy S. Cline, Esquire Honorable Brian Aungst, Sr. Honorable Frank Ihbbard Honorable Hoyt Hamilton Honorable Whitney Gray Bonora.ble Bill Jonson Bill Horne, City Manager David P. Healy, AICP, Pinellas Planning C01mcil Brian Smith, Pinellas ColUlty Families .- . . . ' W'inston E. and Antoinette E. Needham 2670 Third Avenue N. Clearwater, Florida 33759 Harold L. and Marsha S. Timm 2656 3M Avenue N. Clearwater, Florida 33759 Charles C. and Maryann Carter 26713M AvenueN. Clearwater, Florida 33759 Robert W. Richardson Post Office Box 6343 Clearwater, Florida 33758-6343 Thomas C. and Gina M. Signor 2677 3M Avenue N. Clearwater, Florida 33759 Donald M. and Jayne Sutton 2693 3M Avenue N. Clearwater, Florida 33759 Brian D. and Linda L. Gangelhoff 2678 3n1 Avenue N. Clearwater, Florida 33759 Stephen E. and Donna M. McConlhay 2350 Lake Shore Drive Cleanrater, Florida 33759 ~ Exlubit "A" . - QBPINANce ~9. 6978-02 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER. FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT or THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY. TO OESI(;NATE THE LAND USE FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED OU THE EAST SIDE OF CHAUTAUQUA AVENUE AND WEST OF LAKE CHAUTAUQUA. CONSISTING OF A PORTION OF SECTICIN 32. TOVVNSHIP 28 SOUTH. RANGE 16 EAST, WH::>SE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 2301 CHAUTAUQUA AVl:NUE (PROPOSED). UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS RESIDENTIAL LOW AND PRESERV}!.TION (RUP); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS. the amendment to the future land use plan element of thf! comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate I and is consistent with the City's comprehensive pian; now. therefore. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER. FLORIDA: Se_~tion 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensi've plan of the City of Cle$rwater is amended by designating the land use category for the lereinafter described property. upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as follows: Prope~ See legal Description attached hereto (lUZ 02-02-03) Lan.d Use Cate~ID' Residenticll Low :md Preservation (RUP) "' S~,9tion 2. The City Commission does hereby certify that this or:Jinance is eonsi~.tent with the City's comprehensive plan. ' f Sec.1iof)~. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon ado~t1on. contingent upon and sUbject to the $doption of Ordinance No. 69n -02, and subject tc the approval of the land use designation by the Pine lias County Board of County Comrrissjonf~rs, and subject to a determination by the State of Florida. as appropriate. of comj:liance with the applicable requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Plal1nin~~ and Land Development Regulation Act. pursuant to ~ 163.3189. Florida Statutes. PASSED ON FIRST READING JUM 2(~OC2 PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Brian J. Aungst Mayor-Commissioner Attest: Leslie K. Dougall- ide Assistant City Attorney . - Cynthia E. Goud.;au City Clerk Ordlnonce No. (i978-o2 r--... '''''''''"'t ~"Tn ..I........,T ,.." T.., ft~. "'P'~ ..,,-. .,," ~ . Clearwater City Commission Agenda Cover Memorandum WOIkttnlon hm ~ ~ final Agenda Item " MeetIng Date: 3IM)' .' SUBJECTIRECOMMENDATION: Approve the creation of a new Capital Improvement Project, Chautauqua Avenue Extension, in the amount of $350,000, to be funded 50% by the City and 50% by the developer of the Townhomes at lake Chautauqua project. C 8nd that the aPDro~rllte oftJdalt be authorized to execute aame. SUMMARY: · In Jrne 2002, the City Commision approVed .,nexafon m rezoning for a proposed 9O-unit town home proJe 'oClted .. 2301 ChSJtalqua Avenue. · Forrow'ng this ~provar the Rnen. A.,ning Council has asked the developer to submit., acceptable trarric m.,sgemenf P'" prior to County CommIssion action on the rezonIng request. · Northbound traffic coming to or 'eaving the development has ~e access to U.S 19 by wtIf of Rrst Avenue North. · Due to conmuctlon of a chMnelizecf median opening on U.S 19 at First Avenue North, lOuthbound traffic ,.,'ng the deveropment wilf not have 8CC8SS to U.S 19. · 1\vo &ltem.mve access routes were COnsidered: o Acoes to the south to Smset Pol nt Reaj by WWf or Leite s'ore Drive, Sicond areet, Union Sreet 8'Kf ~ure Fbad. Thfsis8 circuItous route through resldentis 8.lbdlvfaona.,d would requirewldenJng ofa 8Jb-ttWldft Lake Slore Driva , o Ac:ce!S to the north to Ei1terprte R:)scf by conmuctlng ,., extension of ChautiIJqua Avenue. This;s a more direct route that passes onry through undeveloped Pa1</&r'ld. · sarr pn!Iers the northern option. · The .'mated co. to construct the new road, inclUding design.,d construction a:tminiltraJon, i6$350,000. · As miti~on for traffic impacts of the proposed development, the project developer has agreaJ to fund 50% of the new road con&J"udion, or $175,000. The City wlIJ give the developer credit for the City's 50% ltIare of the _mated trMeportation Impact fees of $93,000, or $46,500. The additiona funding due from the developer in exees of the trirl!portation Impsc:t feeswouJd be $128,500. · A midy~ bUdget .-nendment wifl establi&1 a new Capita Improvement A-ogrcm (C.J.P.) project, ChautaJqua Avenue Sctension, .,d trMsfar $221,500 of Tnnsportaflon 'mpa=t Fee revbTIuefrom the C.I.P. project 315- 92555, Intersection Improvements to the new project. An addItions midy..- budget ""endment Will establi8h the budget for the project developer's !tIsra of $128,500. · SJfficient funds will remain in 315-92555, rnt~lon Improvements. to complete the project b&ts plEllned in this filal YE&'. Reviewed by~' Legel Budget Purchasing Risk Mgmt ~ - 'nto Srve Public Worlr;s DCMlACM Perks & Reo OrigInating Dept COStll: PWA/EF\glneerfng eM. lII.n) Total U..rDept ~t~ PJ.nnlng (,)t;UG Currellt FY Attachment. $3'0,000 FundIng Source: $350.000 CI X OF' Other fIl None Approprl8Uon Code: 31S.eXXXX-583700.541.000 Rev. 21$8 Chautauqua Extenaion APPLICATION FOR COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Please complete all the information below as accurately as possipte to ensure that the application for the land use plan amendment can -, . be processed efficiently. Processing of the application will not be started until this form has been completed. If additional space is needed, please number and attach additional sheets. I. Q)untywide FLUP Map Amendment Information 1. Current Countywide FLUP Designation 2. Proposed Countywide FLUP Designation D. Local Plan Map Amendment Information 1. Local PIan Map Amendment Case Number 2. Current Local PIan Designation(s) 3. Current Local Zoning Designation(s) 4. Proposed Local PIan Designation(s) S. Proposed Local Zoning Designation(s) RS&P RL&P LUZ 02-02-03 RS&P R-R/COUNTY RL&P LMDR & P m. Site Description 1. Parcel number(s) ofarea(s) proposed to be amended (include SectionfTwplRnglSub/Blk/Lot) 32/28/16/14922/038/0040: 32/28/16/00000/3] 0/0100: 32/28/16/14922/240/0400 & 32/28/16/00000/240/0300 2. Acreage 3. Location 23.0 2301 CHAUTAUOU AVE 4. Existing use S. Existing density 2 Sr\GLE-FAMIl.. Y DWELLr\GS 2.5 UNITS/ACRE" U l1NJT/ACRt: FOR \\'ETLA.'"DS {46 ALLOWABLE l"ITS\ 6. Name of project (if applicable) LAWRE~C[ B. DIMMIT. m IV. Verification of Local Action 1. Verification of local action to approve amendment to local plan and transmittal of amendment to Countywide Plan Map; and/or copy of local ordinance proposing/approving plan amendment authorizing request for amendment of Countywide Plan Map. V. Other Pertinent Information 1. Submittal letter from the local jurisdiction to the Executive Director requesting amendment to the Countywide FLUP. 2. Disclosure of Interest Statement with names and addresses of the application! representative and property owner. 3. Proposed local ordinance number and status. 4. Staff'report and local action to date. S. Attach local pIan and zoning maps. 6. Include proposed demarcation line for environmentally sensitive ~as (if applicable). 7. Legal description. 8. Map clearly indicating amendment location. 9. PIan Amendment Application. x x x X X X X 'X X () ) ~ . Fidelity National Title INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK Countryside 2515 Countryside Boulevard, Suite "C" · Clearwater, FL 33763 (727) 791-0007. FAX (727) 791-0659 ~ COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A The coverages provided by the Closing Protection Letter printed on the insid~ cover _~f !his c~mf!litment are extended to the proposed insured(sl identified below: Escrow File No.: 01-005-303190 1. Effective Date: ~~001, at 08:00 A.M. Commitment No.: 01-005-303190 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance ALTA Owner's Policy (10-17-92) wlFlorida Modifications Proposed Insured: $850,000.00 Lawrence Dimmitt .~ ALTA Loan Policy (10-17-92) wlFlorida Modifications BJi Proposed Insured: DDrD}hy ~"W~ $637,500.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: Donald Lauzon, a/kla Donald L. Lauzon and Dorothy Lauzon, his wife 5. The land referred to in this commitment is described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF ~tUa lIB" '" . [f!' ) ::>MMONWEALTH LA., TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Reliance Group Holdings Company . . File No. 85-1147 SCHEDULE "A" Policy No. 112-105629 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28 South, Range 16 East, Pine11as County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: From the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4, run S.890,3S134."E., 666.07 feet along the Nor.th..line of said Southwest 1/4 to the centerline of I'lain Street; thence run S.OOOOOI 04" E., 6.12 feet along the centerline of Main Street to the point of intersection of the center lines of Main Street and ~hautauqua Boulevard; thence run S. 890 35134" E., 30.00 fee~ parallel to and 6.12 feet South of the North line of said South\-1est 1/4 for a Point of Beginning; thence run S. 89035134" E., parallel to and 6.12 f~et South of the North line of said Southwest 1/4, 990 feet, more or less, to the water of Lake Chautauqua for Point IIAII; thence return to the Point of Beginning; thence run S. 00000'04" E., 499.60 feet along the East right-of-way line of ~2in Street; thence run S. 890 3714211 E.~, 140.00 feet along the North right-of-way of Second Avenue South to the SouthWest corner of Lot 4, Block 38, Unit No. 1 - Section A Chautauqua liOn the Lake", as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 52, Public Records of Pine11as County, Florida; thence run N. 00000'0411 W., 102.38 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 4; thence run S. 89037'10" E., 45.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence run S. 0000010411 E., 132.37 feet along the East line of said Lot 4 and the Southerly extension thereof to the centerline of Se~~nd Avenue South; thence run S. 89037142" E., 688.9 feet, more or less, to the waters of Lake Chautauqua thence meander the West shore of Lake Chautauqua in ? Northerly direction 541 feet, more or less, to aforesaid Point IIA"; thence run N. 89035134" W., parallel to and 6.12 feet South of the North line of said Southwest 1/4, 990 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. FORM 2002 (ContinUAtion) ORIGINAL Proposed Text: , I . . That the Land Use Designation for the properties described on the attached Exhibit shall be, and the same hereby are, amended to redesignate the properties heretofore identified as Residential/SuburbanlPreservation to ResidentiallUrbanlPreservation ,. Present Zoning: Dimmitt Application for Rezonin~ and Land Use Plan Amendments RR [pinellas County] Proposed Zoning: LMDRlPreservation Present Land Use Plan: [pinellas County] Proposed Land Use Plan: Residential 1 Suburban 1 Preservation Residential I Urban I Preservation 1. " .. ~ t b 2. 3. The proposed amendments comply with the following standards: The proposed amendment is further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the plan. The request is for zoning ofLMDR and a Land Use Plan ofResidential/Urban. The proposal is to allow residential development within an area that is contiguous to heavy commercial activities [retaiVcar sales/body work, etc.] and which is also adjacent to existing residential of low to medium density. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The Available uses to which the property are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. As already noted, the property is adjacent to intense commercial use, and low to medium density residential, and will serve as a compatible intervening use to both zoning and use categories. 4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. 5. The amendment will not adversely impact the natural environment. 6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. :. '.. CITY OF CLEARWA1 ..tl M~IDA~TTOAumO~EAGENT PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES Bun..DING, 100 SOUI'H MYRTLE AVENUE, 21111 FLOOR PHONE (727}.S62-4567 FAX (127) 562-4576 LARRY H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee under the amended Revocable Living (Name of all property owners) Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98 1. That (I am/we are) the owner{s) and record title holder{s) of the following described property: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. Vacan~ properties. east of U.S. Hiihway 19 and west of Lake Chautauoua (AddnlSS 01 Generaf Location) 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: ~pqllFa~r fnr ::annpy::ari nn IT'p7nni"R' ::."rI 1.::1"'" TT~p P1::1n Ampntim~nt'q (Nawlll of request) 3. That the undersigned (haslhave) appointed and (does/do) appoint HARRY S. CLINE, ESQ. as (hl&'thelf) agent(s) to exllQlte any petrtions or other documents nec:es&aIy to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act _ on the above described property; ,. ~ I ~ ~ 5. That (I~, the undersigned~uthority, hereby ~rtify th~Jll77ri'fY;'f}rvJ-~ . ~ -""""' LARRY<'. DIMMITT. JR.. as TrU//.. ) Prtlperty ~ STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF P1NELLAS Before me the undersia.ned. an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Florida, on this ~'J d day of February, 2002 personally appeared LARRY H. DIMMITT. JR.. who having been first duly sworn deposes and says that helllE fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/QlIl signed. >x) . J} ~ f.4I..'u. LL - O{. ~~/~/V J L ~ {jlotary Public My Commission Expires: ;.. IAI () If . ~ I~;t/ G e fi:- s: eppIication formsIdevelopment review/Affidavit to Authorize Agent ~1\. Lftte LSbIlgef . ?f- j My CommIIIJon cct1S838 V.OI~ ExpIresOctaber17 2Q04 ... ... Lots 1 to 6, inclusive, Block 42, Unit 1, Section · A., Chautauqua On The Lake, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 52, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Aorida. .,; Also Lots 1 to 26, inclusive, Block 40, Unit 1, Section -A., Chautauqua On The Lake aforesaid. Also Lots 1 to 8, inclusive, Block 41, Unit 1, Section -A., Chautauqua On The Lake aforesaid. Also vacated portion of First Avenue North between the West boundary of Lakeshore Drive and the East boundary of First Street East between Block 41 and 42 of Chautauqua On The Lake aforesaid. Also vacated portion of First Street-East between the North boundary of Chautauqua Boulevard and the South boundary of First Avenue North between Block 40 and 41 of Chautauqua On The Lake aforesaid. And, Begin at the Northeast comer of Lot 6, Block 42, Unit No.1, Section .A., Chautauqua On The Lake, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat 9, Page 52 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, for 8 Point of Beginning; then run in a Southerly direction along the Western right-of-way of Lake Shore Drive to a point where said Western right-of-way line intersects with the center line of Chautauqua Boulevard; then run in an Easterly direction along a line that is an Easterly extension of the center line of said Chautauqua Boulevard for a distance of 380 feet: then run in a Northerly direction along a line that is parallel to and 380 feet from the Western right-of-way line of Lake Shore Drive to a point that intersects with the Easterly extension of the North boundary of said Lot 6 in Block 42: then run in a Westerly direction along said Easterly extension of the North boundary of said Lot 6 in Block 42 for a distance of 380 feet to the Point of Beginning: which said description includes that portion of vacated Lake Shore Drive which lies between the Easterly extension of the North boundary of said Lot 6 in Block 42 and the Easterly extension of the center line of said Chautauqua Boulevard, as vacated by Resolution recorded in O.R. Book 4975, Page 167, Public Records. Along With, Lots 1 through 13, inclusively, Block 43, together with the North 1/2 and the South 1/2 of vaceted First A venue North which lies adjacent to Lots 1 through 13, inclusively, Block 43, Unit 1, Section · A., Chautauqu a On The Lake aforesaid. -- And the vacated portion of the North 1/2 of Chautauqua Boulevard, lying between Main Street and the West right-of-way line of West Lake Shore Drive of Chautauqua On The Lake aforesaid. Note: A portion of the above land lying with Unit 1, Section · A., Chautauqua On The Lake has been vacated by Resolution No. 82-65, recorded February 19, 1982 in O.R. Book 5309, Page 1173, Public Records. Ct; t-{POStn;;- f1:l(Wa ~'5\, B r'A ..... , . . ' ..... -- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28 South, Range 16 East, Pinellas County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: From the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4, run S.89035'34."E., 666.07 feet alon.g the North line of said Southwest 1/4 to the centerline of ~~in Street~ thence run S.00000'04" E., 6.12 feet along the centerline of Main Street to the point of intersection of the center lines of ~~in Street and ~hautauqua Boulevard~ thence run S. 890 35'34" E., 30.00' feet' parallel to an~ 6.12 feet South of the North line of said South~-1est 1/4 for a Point of Beginning; thence run S. 89035'34" E., parallel to and 6.12 f~et South of the North line of said Southwest 1/4, 990 feet, more or less, to the water of Lake Chautauqua for Point "A"~ thence return to the Point of Beginningi thence run S. 00000'04" E., 499.60 feet along the East right-of-way line of ~2in Streeti thence run S. 890 37' 42" E..., 140.00 feet along the North right-of-\,lay of Second Avenue South to the SouthWest corner of Lot 4, Block 38, Unit No. 1 - Section A Chautauqua "On the Lake", as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 52, Public Records of Pine11as County, Florida: thence run N. 00000'04" W., 102.38 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 4: thence run S. 89037'10" E., 45.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 4i thence run S. 00000'04" E., 132.37 feet along the East line of said Lot, 4 and the Southerly e:~tension thereof tG the centerline of Se~.ond .Avenue South i thence run S. 89037' 42" E., 688.9 feet, more or less, to the waters of Lake Chautauqua thence meander the West shore of Lake Chautauqua in ~ Northerly direction 541 feet, more or less, to aforesaid Point "A"; thence run N. 89035'34" W., parallel to and 6.12 feet South of the North line of said Southwest 1/4, 990 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. 8',YtJ-H31'"'( '116 '-, ., .' JNTY FLA. PINELLAS9531 PG 1056 OFY.REC.BK And the said Party of the First Part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Party of the First Part has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above writ- ten. and Delivered Print Name. t:CI ( d ~h?r-'XA_ ~64Lc- 'print Name / i1k~ . t/, / / ~ , .' STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS . I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day personally appeared before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, LARRY E. DDDan, JR., Trustee U/T/A/ dated April 12, 1994, to me personally known and who did take an oath, and known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged before me that he executed the same for th~ purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal at Belleair, said County and State, this 21st day of November, 1996. In-AU d /~~.~ ~ ury Publi" d Print Name /..}/J;(H.,/,# L. #F/L.C- My Commission Expires: . .... -2- " . , ~ '-NST # 96-320455 ,-: .)0. ,'0 21, 1996 5:14PM .~. -() } ." ,: :I'~I"1. r; / I -, PREPARED BY AND ~TtJ'lm 'r0': D. SCOTT DOUGLAS, Esquire Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 400 Cleveland Street Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, Florida 34617 .., . ~ ~~. )," '" "''!'-:''l~''''~'G \. \ ,I JiJ .!."^ ::'.~,~";;."-lbED M\'1':i' u O\~\q' . ,.' ~O~~~O\tf" (, \,,\-\, \t\ . . ")..' , -\.: \ \ ::. ---..- \l\~...i'\t:I(J, ------ ...'.;' V' 9 .... .:HT == THIS INDENTURE made this 21st day of November, 1996, by and "t PINEL.AS COUNTY FLA. OFF.REC.BK 9531 PG 1055 , Je06'J427 SSS 11-21-199& 17:08:07 01 OEHMRY H DIMIn RECORDING 1 S10.50 DOC STAIIP - &219 3 13,047.80 - mAL: 13,058.30 OED: AIIT. TENDERED: 13,058.30 CIIAIIGE: S.OO WARRAN'1'Y DEED :'=~ between LA.RRT B. DnnaTT, JR., 'tRUSTEE UITIA elated April 12, 1994 :T--:'- -- '. I" .~~V __---2f the County of Pinellas, in the State of Florida, Party of the f,?T~ao~irst p~rt, whose ~i1ing address is 150 Willadel Drive, Belleair, gp Florida 34616, and LAWRENCE B. DD!MI:TT, XU, of the County of Pinellas, in the State of Florida, Party of the Second Part, whose mailing address is 25485 U.S. Highway 19 North, Clearwater, Florida 34623. D=:m:::::yT:CPlU3} Oy, ,8D $ In=:~~ To:: ~ K::l= F De ". C!:::lI. FIrr"..;:; ~-"f'f:1 By D-)Plil)' C::I:I WIT N E SSE T H: . ". ..' That the said Party of the First Part, for and in consider- ation of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) to him in hand paid by the said Party of the Second Part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Party of the Second Part ,.. and assigns forever, the following described la.nd, situate lying and being in the County of Pinellas, State of Florida, to-wit: Lots 1 through 13, inclusive, and the South 5.76 feet of Lots 14 through 26, inclusive, Block 9, LESS AND EXCEPT the right of way of U.S. 19, UNIT NO. 1 - SECTION A, CHAUTAUQUA, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 9, page 52, public records of Pinellas County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: All of Block 9, UNIT NO. 1 - SECTION A, CHAUTAUQUA .ON THE LAKE", lying East of the Easterly right of way of Highway U. S. 19, and South of the Southerly boundary line of Cypress Point Shopping Center Subdivision, according 'to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 87, pages 80 through 84, of the public records of Pinellas Cpunty, Florida. Subject to 1997 real estate taxes, restrictions, reserva- tions and easements of record. Parcel I.D. No. 32/28/16/14922/009/0010 " b.sued wirh Policy No. 411-2166" , SCHEDULE A Policy No. 112-105629 Effective Date: 1/10/86 at 5: SOP .M. File Number 85-1147 Amount of Insurance: S 650, 000. 00 1. Name of Insured: LAWRENCE B. DIMMITT, III 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is a fee simple (if other. specify same) and is at the effective date hereof vested in the named insured as shown by instrument recorded in Official Records Book 6150 . Page 23 6 . of the Public Records of Pinellas County. Aorida. 3. The land referred to in this policy is described as fonows: !l " SEE SCHEDULE itA" FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR & RUPPEL, P.A. .' .. - --r-- Countersigned:-- -=-=- rw DENNIS ,7 Q !~-_.-- . -- . "'-.. G. RUPPEL AUlhuriied'amc~ .or Agent Ame~ ~ l.andTille Associ:llion Owner's Polic}' - 1970 - Form A (Amended 10-17-70) Fnrr . '.11 C:,.h"rt"I,. A fi DMMONWFALTH LAl\ TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Reliance Group Holdings Company File No. 85-1147 SCHEDULE "A" Policy No. 112-105629 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28 South, Range 16 East, Pinellas County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: From the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4, run S.890.35134."E., 666.07 feet along the Nor_th..line of said Southwest 1/4 to the centerline of Main Street; thence run S.00000'04" E., 6.12 feet along the centerline of Main Street to the point of intersection of the centerlines of Main S~reet and ~hautauqua Boulevard; thence run S. 890 35'34" E., 30.00 feet parallel to an~ 6.12 feet South of the North line of s aid Sou th\17est 1/4 for a Point of Beginning; thence run S. 89035 I 34" E., parallel to and 6.12 feet South of the North line of said Southwest 1/4, 990 feet, more or less, to the water of Lake Chautauqua for Point "A"; thence return to the Point of Beginning; thence run S. 00000'04" E., 499.60 feet along the East right-of-way line of ~2in Street; thence run S. 890 37 I 42" ~.~, 140.00 feet along the North right-of-way of Second Avenue South to the SouthWest corner of Lot 4, Block 38, Unit No. 1 - Section A Chautaugua "On the Lake", as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 52, Public Records of Pine lIas County, Florida; thence run N. 00000'04" W., 102.38 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 4; thence run S. 89037'10" E., 45.00 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence run S. 00000'04" E., 132.37 feet along the East line of said Lot 4 and the Southerly extension thereof to the centerline of Se~ond Avenue South; thence run S. 89037'42" E., 688.9 feet, more or less, to the waters of Lake Chautauqua thence meander the West shore of Lake ChaUtauqua in ~ Northerly direction 541 feet, more or less, to aforesaid Point "A": thence run N. 89035'34" W., parallel to and 6.12 feet South of the North line of said Southwest 114, 990 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning. " FORM 2002 lColllinualion) ORIGINAL (lher~sa'~GOod~an' - FYv:~03-06-93 COMMISSION A~TION AGE~DA :=.- : == =-.P~ge 1 .' From: To: Date: Subject: "Clayton, Gina" <gclayton@clearwater-f1.com> "Mike Crawford (E-mail)..<mcrawford@co.pinellas.f1.us> 3nl03 3:14PM FW: 03-06-03 COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA Attached please find the action agenda. Item 28 indicates that the Commission approved the extension of Chautauqua Ave. > -Original Message- > From: Reehling, Dottie > Sent Friday, March 07, 20032:07 PM > To: Adkisson, Kelly; Akin. Pam; Arasteh, Mahshid; Armbruster, John; > Amen, Joe; Artus, Gina; Ausanio, Holly; Bachtel, Andy; Baird, Bill; > Balog, Denise; Bandoni, Nina; Barden, Carol; Belzel. Fred; Bender, > Cynthia; Blunt, Betty; Breland, Eleanor; Brink. Carolyn; Bruch, Tracey; > Brumback, Bob; Brumback. Garrison; Campos, Geraldine; Caputo, Debra; > Carnley, Rick; Carrier, AI; Carroll, Howie; Chaplinsky. Paula; Clayton, > Gina; Clement, Betsy; Davis-Gryce, Cynthia; Diana, Sue; Doucette, Maggie; > Downes, Tom; Dunbar. Kevin; Ebelke. Rick; Fierce, Lisa; Garriott. Kevin; > Geary, Jim; Gomez, Robin; Gustafson, Laurel; Hall. Chris; Hall, Donald; > Hanson, Wayne; Harriger, Sandy; Herald, Rowland; Herman, Sandra; Hinson, > Fredd; Holmes, Michael; Home, Susan; Home, William; Howell, Jerry; > Hufford, Diane; Hyson, Dina; Johnson, Gary; Jones, Robert; Kader, Art; > Katsougrakis, Dina; Klein, Sidney; Kraus, Kurt; Kronschnabl, Jeff; > Laatsch. David; Langille, Brian; Lutz, Deb; Manni, Diane; Marcin, Jon; > Martell, Joan; Maser, Paul; Massey, Belinda; Matthews, Douglas; Mayer, > Daniel; Meissner, Wayne; Milligan, John; Morris, William; Moses, Brenda; > Moskun, Steve; Neff. Andrew; Nicodemus, Sherrie; Nystrom, Paul; O'Brien. > Kelly; Phillips, Sue; Prior, Ian; Quillen, Michael; Reid, Debra; Schrader, > Leo; Scott, John; Scott, Nancy; Sewell, Tom; Sickler, Neil; Sides. Ken; > Simmons, Margie; Slack, John; Smith. Diane; Smith, Michele; Soltau. Steve; > Stafford, Shawn; Stephenson, Susan; Stone, Ralph; Sullivan, Patricia; > Szabo, John; Tarapani, Cyndi; Walton, Sharon; Warrington, Chuck; WebM; > Whitt. Laura; Wiesing, Sue; Wiley, Joelle; Williams, Dewey; Wilson, > Denise; Wilson, Tina; Wood, Jim; Yellin, Catherine > Subject: 03-06-03 COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA > > <<Commission Action Agenda 2003-o306.doc>> > > Dottie Reehling > [J~~risa ~~odma~~ ~oi:n~Is:~jo~:~CtiQ:~=~:ge~da ~003-0396.doc page 3,. ITEM #21 - Ratify and confirm the City Manager's aDDroval of an increase in Durchase order #33916 to.the Phlladelehia Phillles, in the amount of $222.783.91 for a total of $17.722,783.91 for the installation of the portion of the City's reclaimed water that runs through the Community Sports Complex (CSC) site. (PR) ITEM #22 - ADDrove a work order with Wade-Trim. Inc, an Engineer of Record. to determine the feasibility and Dermitting Drocess associated with the future design and development of a City marina located at the east end of the Memorial Causeway in Downtown Clearwater, in the amount of $98,504. (PW) \ :. -IIf.M #23 - ADDrove funding in the amount of $246.383 for the Duroose of constructing two (2) rubberized railroad crossings as part of the Myrtle Avenue Drainage and Roadway Improvement Project. (PW) ITEM #24 - ADDrove a lease with Head Start Child Develoement and Family Services. Inc. of Citv~wned Droperty at 701 North Missouri Avenue, New Country Club Addition. Blk B, Lot 12 and part of Blk C, for a term of 5 years commencing July 21, 2003, for the total rent of $1 and other good and valuable consideration. (PW) ITEM #25 - AcceDt a 10-foot utility easement grant from the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida over and across a Dortion of Pinellas County Parcel 08-29-16-00000-430-0200 aka Eisenhower School, 2800 Drew Street. (PW) ITEM #26 - AcceDt a 5-foot sidewalk and utility easement within the Harbor Oaks ShoDDing Center over and across a portion of Pinellas County Parcel No. 16-29-15-00000-410-0300 and a 10-foot drainage and utility easement over and across a portion of Pine"as County Parcel No. 16-29-15-55602-000-0090 from Harbor Oaks Development, LC. (PW) ITEM #27 - ApDrove a work order to Tamea Bay Enalneerina Groue. Inc. (EaR) in the amount of $672.600 for engineering and design services for the Alligator Creek Master Pump Station (ACMPS), Force Main and Gravity Sewer Improvements - Phase 2 - Final Design (02-0010-UT). (PW) ITEM #28 - ADDrove the creation of a new CaDita! ImDrovement Proiect, Chautauaua Avenue Extension, in the amount of $350,000 to be funded 50% by the City and 50% by the developer of the Townhomes at Lake Chautauqua project. (PW) APPROVED 4-1 (J) ITEM #29 - ADDoint RalDh A, Emmanuelli to the Entel'Drlse Zone DeveloDment Aaencv in the Non-profit community based organization operating within the Area category. (ORLS) ITEM #30 - Confirm Mavor's apDointment of Carol Warren to the Clearwater Houslna Authoritv (ORLS) ITEM #31 - Authorize an increase of $25.000 to the monetary limit on the contract with the finn of Roaers Towers Bailey Jones & Gay. P.A. for outside counsel services related to representation in Granite State Outdoor Advertising v. City of Clearwater, to cover costs of appeal proceedings, for a new contract total of $250,000. (CA) OTHER ITEMS ON CITY MANAGER REPORT ITEM #32 - No Item ITEM #33 - Beautification Committee - 1 Appointment (ORLS) ACTION: Reappointed Brooks Hammac. ITEM #34 - Other Pending Matters: None. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS Commission Action Agenda 2003-0205 3 02105/03 "\ Linda Fisher. Re: Paradise Lost " . From: " ,.To: Date: Subject: CC: "Don Sutton" <dosu1155@tampabay.rr.com> "Cynthia Meinck" <cmeinck@co.pinel/as.f1.us>, <citycomm@c1earwater-f1.com>, <FHibbard@clearwater-f1.com>, "Barbara Sheen-Todd" <btodd@co.pinellas.f1.us>, "Calvin Hams" <charris@co.pinellas.f1.us>, "John Morroni" <jmorroni@co.pinellas.f1.us>, "Kenneth Welch" <ktwelch@co.pinel/as.f1.us>, "Linda Fisher" <lfisher@CO'.pinellas.f1.us>, "Paul Cassel" <pcassel@co.pinel/as.f1.us>, "Robert Stewart" <rstewart@co.pinel/as.f1.us>, "Susan Latvala" <slatvala@co.pinel/as.fl.us> 3n/03 5:00 PM Re: Paradise Lost <bubblelightmama@aol.com>, <knitmar@aol.com>, <Sigfinance@aol.com>, <Wintoni@aol.com>, <tsignor@estamow.com>, <fig@fhlaw.net>, <Iinda.gangelhoff@honeywel/.com>, <GSIGNOR@pctcu.com>, <Gsignor@tampabay.rr.com>, <ccube01@yahoo.com>, <Bcrum@Zusflaw.com> - -- Thanks, for responding. Unfortur.ately, the City in their haste to accommodate this developer made the dec:fl :>n last night to approve the extension of Chautauqua Ave. to Enterprise Road. Somehow Mr. Quillen misunderstood the majority at our last Thursday meeting as most of us do not go north on US 19. With the extension open, it will obviously change the complexion of our quaint, private neighborhood forever and allow many thousands of unwanted cars, trucks and buses into what was once a peaceful, serene area. Don Sutton PresidenVCEO Sutton Systems, Inc. 727-723-7781 Dosu1155@tampabay.rr.com - Original Message - From: "Cynthia Meinck" <cmeinck@co.pinel/as,f1.us> To: <citycomm@clearwater-f1.com>; <FHibbard@clearwater-f1.com>; "Barbara Sheen-Todd" <btodd@co.pinellas,f1.us>; "Calvin Harris" <charris@co.pinellas,f1.us>; "John Morroni" <jmorroni@co.pinellas.f1.us>; "Kenneth Welch" <ktwelch@co.pinellas.fJ.us>; "Linda Fisher" <Ifisher@co.pinellas,fl.us>; "Paul Cassel" <pcassel@co.pinellas.fl.us>; "Robert Stewart" <rstewart@co,pinellas,fJ,us>; "Susan Latvala" <slatvala@co,pinel/as.f1.us>; <dosu1155@tampabay.rr.com> Cc: <bubblelightmama@aol,com>; <knitmar@aol.com>; <Slgfinance@aol.com>; <Wintoni@aol.com>; <tsignor@estamow,com>; <fig@fhlaw.net>; <linda.gangelhoff@honeywell.com>; <GSIGNOR@pctcu,com>; <Gsignor@tampabay.IT.com>; <ccube01 @yahoo.com>; <Bcrum@Zusflaw.com> i:)~Ill. fllcay, March 07, 200311:51 AM Subject: Re: Paradise Lost From Karen Seel: Don - thanks for the update! I did want to let you know that as far as J can determine, we were not advised of the meeting last Thursday, hence, the lack of participation from the county. -Karen Cyndi Meinck, Executive Assistant Commissioner Karen Seel's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Fl 33756 727-464-3278 727-464-3022 ~i!'lellascoynJY,PJ-9 cmeinck@co,pinellas.fl.us >>> "Don $et~on" <dosu1155@tampabay.rr.CQm> 03/05/03 09:18PM >>> Hello. It has been quite some time since the citizens of The Lake Chautauqua Committee has addressed all of you. It has come to our attention via our attomey, that a non-public meeting was held this moming at the City and that there may possibly be some misinformation or misinterpretation of our views regarding Chautauqua Blvd being continued to the North through a City owned park and connecting with Enterprise Road as well as the assumption that we have changed our view conceming the change in land density that lies behind Dimmitt Chevrolet. A meeting was held last Thursday night, which included Gina Clayton, most of the residents of The Lake Chautauqua Committee, Jerry Figurski, the President of Rottlund Homes, Mr. Dimmitt's real estate broker, the City Engineer, and several other people. Unfortunately, there were no County representatives. In this meeting, we were presented with a plan, based on 5 units per acre, that include a new condominium project. To us, this was like putting the horse in front of the cart, however, we understood that the developer was trying to convince us that this would be a wonderful thing for all of us if his project were to be approved. The developer informed us that he could not make his development economically feasible unless the current zoning was changes from 2.5 units per acre to 5 units per acre. We now understand clearly, that the only compelling reason for changing this lands current and long standing density, is only for the economical benefit of the developer. None of us that has hired Mr. Figurski agree with the developers plan, nor do we want to be subjected to unnecessary traffic, noise and unwanted hoards of people that will undoubtedly occur if a road is pushed northward to Enterprise. We all bought property here so that we could live in an area that is undisturbed and still has some of that "old Florida feel". These changes that have been proposed will have a devastating impact on the life styles of all of us that live here. - . . Please let me make myself perfectly clear on these two points: 1) WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PLANS OF THE DEVELOPER, ROTTLUND HOMES THAT INCLUDES CHANGING THE CURRENT ZONING FROM 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE TO 5 UNITS PER ACRE, WE INSIST THAT IT STAY AT Irs CURRENT DENSITY. 2) WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PLANS OF THE DEVELOPER, ROTTLUND HOMES THAT INCLUDES BUILDING ANY TYPE OF CONDOMINIUMS ON 5 UNITS PER ACRE. Thanks, Don Sutton President/CEO Sutton Systems, Inc. 727-723-7781 Dosu1155@tampabay.rr.com " ATTACHMENT 2 . Drelt PAC Mlnut.. Merch10, 2003 Case #CW 02-39/03-22 City of Clearwater - This 22.18 acre parcel is located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, from 103 feet south of~ Avenue N. to 2nd Avenue S. The proposed amendment submitted by the City of Clearwater is a request to change the plan designation from Residential Suburban; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature. The amendment area is undeveloped forested area. The proposed amendment would allow for the development of the site with 86 townhomes. The City of Clearwater originally submitted this amendment to the Council last year as case Dumber CW 02-39, and at that time, staff recommended approval with supplemental recommendations. On September 18, 2002, the Pinellas Planning Council recommended denial of the amendment by a vote of six to five, and on October 15,2002, by a vote of four to three, the Countywide Planning Authority temporarily deferred the application and remanded it to the Council for further consideration, based upon the City's assertion that the Council's concerns could be addressed through further negotiation with the developer. Theresa Goodman presented an overview of the staff report and advised members the amendment can be reconsidered with new information provided by the City at their discretion. Gordon Beardslee noted the only change since the last request were plans to improve Chautauqua Avenue to which Gina Clayton responded there was not a contract on the property at that time, but now there is, and improvements to Chautauqua Avenue are part of the development plan. She went on to say the plan would extend Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road and that costs will be split between the City and the applicant Gordon Beardslee inquired whether there is citizen opposition to this request, and Ms. Clayton responded there is, from both City of Clearwater and Pinellas County residents. She explained the main objections relate to the loss of the rural character of the area. She went on to say that the city has plans to extend Chautauqua Avenue through a park-like setting and the rural character will remain. David Healey inquired if this road plan has been coordinated with the County, whereupon Ms. Clayton responded it had not. She further explained that the developer still needs site plan approval, so there is plenty oftime. . Mark Ely moved approval of the amendment, subject to the traffic improvements approved by the City Commission on March 6, 2003. The motion was seconded by Ron Rinzivillo and approved. (Vote 13 - 0) ,. . . " t! March 19,2003 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #CW 03-22 (02-39), PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF CLEARWATER TO AMEND THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, PRESERV AnON, W A TERlDRAINAGE FEATURE TO RESIDENTIAL LOW, PRESERVATION, WATERlDRAINAGE FEATURE - APPROVED Pursuant to legal notice published in the March 2,2003 issue of the Pinellas edition of The Tampa Tribune as evidenced by affidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was held on Case #CW 03-22 (02-39), a proposal by the City ofClemwaterto amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan from Residential Suburban, Preservation, Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low, Preservation, Water/Drainage F eatureJ re 22.18 acres located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, from 103 feet south of 2n Avenue North to 2nd Avenue South. Mr. Healey provided background information with regard to the site and indicated that in September 2002 the Council had recommended denial of the request by a 6 to 5 vote; that when the case was heard by the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA), the City asked for a continuance; and that the CPA granted the continuance for the purpose of allowing the City to develop additional information and work with the applicant; and that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) directed that the case be remanded back to the PPC for consideration. He noted that a request has been received from the attorney representing several of the adjacent property owners to continue the hearing as he is unable to attend. Following discussion of the continuance request by Attorney Figurksi, Councilmember Foster inoved, seconded by Mayor Beverland, that Case #CW 03-22 be continued. Following further discussion, upon call for the vote, the motion failed 2 to 10, with Chainnan DiNicola, Mayor Jackson, Commissioner Harris, Councilmember Bengston, Mayor De Cesare, Mayor DiDonato, School Board Member Gallucci, Vice-Mayor Hackworth, Commissioner Hamilton, and Commissioner Nickeson casting the dissenting votes (Vote 2-10). Ms. Goodman presented the staff report including background information and planning considerations, which has been filed and made a part of the record; and indicated that the new application contains a proposal by the City of Clearwater to extend Chautauqua Avenue north to Enterprise Road; and that it will be funded jointly by the City and the developer, Rottlund Homes. , .' ..,. In response to queries by the members as to the traffic mitigation achieved by extending Chatauqua A venue, Mr. Healey stated that it will improve the access to the proposed development and provide a safer and more direct access to U.S. Highway 19, however, he does not foresee a significant impact with regard to decreased traffic volume on U.S. Highway 19. Responding to queries by Vice-Mayor Hackworth and Mayor De Cesare, he indicated that the subject property has been annexed by the City of Clemwater and is 13 ! . i " ~ March 19, 2003 subject to its concurrency management provisions; and that the access to Chautauqua A venue would appear to mitigate some of the concerns with the flow of traffic to the south. In response to additional traffic mitigation queries by the members, .Gina Clayton, City of Clearwater Planning Department, indicated that no objections have been raised by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) or the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); that the City has addressed the concerns expressed by the PPC with regard to traffic and neighborhood impacts; and that by extending Chautauqua A venue north to Enterprise Road through City park land provides the best transportation mitigation for the project. She noted that the developer has met with the neighborhood, shown a conceptual site plan, and discussed the extension of Chautauqua Avenue; and that the Residential Low category of five units per acre on property adjacent to commercial general is a compatible land use. Robert Pergolizzi, Florida Design Consultants, project planner for the developer, presented an overview of the proposed development which included traffic studies and level of service reports. Responding to queries by the members, Rottlund Homes Vice-President Michael Willenbacher appeared and stated that the inside units in the townhouse development are to be 1,740 square feet and the outside units will be 1,970 square feet. ~! Harry S. Cline, Esq., representing the property owner, observed that all concerns previously expressed by the Council have been addressed; and that the proposed plan amendment represents an ideal transition from commercial to residential. In response to the Chairman's call for persons wishing to speak in favor of the application, Ed Hooper, Clearwater, appeared and voiced his support. Referring to queries by School Board Member Gallucci, Jewel White Cole, Senior Assistant County Attorney, advised that vehicle parking or storage would not be permitted on the subject property under the County's residential zoning regulations. In response to the Chairman's call for persons wishing to be heard in opposition to the application, the following individuals appeared and expressed their concerns: Don Sutton, Clearwater Thomas C. Signor, Clearwater Brian and Linda L Gangelhoff, Clearwater Charles C. Carter, Clearwater Steve McConihay, Clearwater Maryann Carter, Clearwater Marsha Silvera, Clearwater Donna Silvera, Clearwater 14 . . . r" . March 19, 2003 Raymond Baker, St. Petersburg In rebuttal and response to queries by the Council, Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning Director, asserted that the compatibility issues will be addressed during the site plan process; that the proposed park may not be constructed should the amendment be denied; and that the extension of Chautauqua Avenue would be part of the entire park development. Following discussion, Commissioner Hamilton moved, seconded by Councilmember Foster, that Case #CW 03-22 (02-39) be approved. Following additional discussion, upon call for the vote, the motion carried 9 to 3, with Mayors Beverland and Jackson, and Councilmember Foster casting the dissenting votes (Vote 9-3). * * * * At this time, 12:15 P.M., Mayor DiNicola and School Board Member Gallucci left the meeting. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #CW 03-23, PROPOSAL BY PINELLAS COUNTY TO AMEND THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW TO RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE LIMITED - APPROVED WITH SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDA nONS Pursuant to legal notice published in the March 2,2003 issue of the Pinellas edition of The Tampa Tribune as evidenced by affidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was held on Case #CW 03-23, a proposal by Pinellas County to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan from Residential Low to Residential/Office Limited, re 0.14 acre located on the west side of Belcher Road, 80 feet south of 14th Avenue Southeast. Mr. Healey indicated that the proposed amendment is located on a scenic non- commercial corridor; and that staff recommends approval with the supplemental recommendation that the County give special consideration to the improvement of the site with respect to the buffering and landscaping guidelines of the Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Master Plan and in coordination with the City of Largo, consider the appropriateness of an amendment to Residential/Office Limited for the adjacent properties on the west side of Belcher Road. 15 " STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Received APR 1 8 2003 Pinellas .Planning Council CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, for the use and benefit of LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, ill, and LAWRENCE H. DIMNlITT, JR., as Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 11/1/98, Petitioners, Vs. DOAH Case No.: PThffiLLASCOUNTYBOARDOF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, as COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, Respondent. / PETITION FOR AD:MINISTRATIVE HEARING Petitioners CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, for the use and benefit, of LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, ill, and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, (DIMMITTS) hereby petition for an administrative hearing for the purpose of making conclusive and binding findings of fact regarding this matter, and for other relief, and preliminary state: Introductory Statement LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, III and LARRY H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee, own the hereinafter described 22.18 acre parcel of undeveloped real property in the City of Clearwater, PinelIas County, Florida. They filed for a zoning and land use plan amendment in the City of Clearwater on or about the 21st day of February, 2002, seeking to change the zoning and land use designation from 2.5 units per acre to 7.5 units per acre. The Clearwater Zoning Department, following review, prepared an extensive report, found that all applicable criteria had been met, and recommended approval. Following staff review, the applications proceeded to a public hearing before the Community Development Board [the "CDB"] on May 2 I, 2002. The CDB, following a public hearing, recommended approval of the applications. The applications next proceeded to the Clearwater City Commiss~on on June 20, 2002, for another public hearing and first ordinance reading, at which time, as a result of neighborhood opposition, the applicants amended the applications and reduced the zoning and land use plan applications to 5 units per acre. The City Commission approved both the zoning and land use plan applications. At that point, the City of Clearwater became the technical applicant for fmalization of the land use plan amendment. The application for the Land Use Plan Amendment was tinlely submitted by the City of Clearwater prior to going to the Pinellas Planning Council [the "PPC"] for public hearing, then to go to the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Countywide Planning Agency ["CPA"]. Following review, planning staff for the PPC, and the Professional Advisory Committee [the "PAC", a body comprised of professional planning staff members from the various municipalities throughout the County of PinelIas and including a representative from the County of Pine lIas], recommended approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment. TIle application was then presented to the PPC on September 18, 2002. After lengthy discussion, primarily centering around traffic issues, the PPC recommended denial by a 6-5 vote. The matter then proceeded to the CPA, at which time the land owners and the City of Clearwater, as applicant, requested that the matter be remanded to the PPC, to enable the applicant to address the traffic question.s. The CPA approved the remand on October 15, 2002. The applicants, together with the City of Clearwater, reached an agreement regarding the traffic problems, and brought the matter back to the PPC. Again the PPC staff recommended approval and PAC unanimously recommended approval of a land .use plan amendment. It proceeded to the PPC, and by a vote of 9-3 on March 19, 2003, the PPC recommended approval to the County of Pinellas, sitting as the CP A. During the pendency of these applications, the Department of Community Mfairs indicated that it had no objection to the land use plan amendment, and the Florida Department of Transportation indicated it had no concerns relative to traffic on U.S. Highway 19, the only State Road in the area. The matter thus came to the CPA 011 April I, 2003, with recommendations of approval from all reviewing professional planners and governmental bodies, but following a brief hearing, the CPA unanimously rejected the City of Clearwater's request to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan to Residential Low. The DIMMITTS now appeal that decision in this Petition for Administrative Hearing. PETITION In support of this petition, these parties state: 1. This petition for an administrative hearing is made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5.1.3.8 of the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as Amended, and in accordance with the provisions ofCh. 120, Fla. Stat. 2. The real parties of interest in this matter are LAWRENCE H. DHvfMITT, III and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, qwners of the property which is the subject of this action. The property is known as 2301 Chautauqua Avenue, Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, and is generally located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, west of Lake Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of US Highway 19 North (the Subject Property). This property consists of approximately 22.18 acres, and is owned by the DIMMITTS. 3. The City of Clearwater is a nominal party only for the use and benefit of the real parties in interest, the DIMMITTS. The DIMMITTS are represented by the undersigned counsel and service upon the DIMMITTS may be made by service upon the undersigned counsel. 4. The respondent agency affected by this request for an administrative hearing and for the determination of conclusive and binding findings of fact is the PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS in its capacity as COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY (CJP A). 5. The DIMMITTS, as owners of the Subject Property, are persons who are substantially affected and who therefore have standing to bring this petition. Their substantial interests which are affected by the ultimate agency determination to be based upon the findings of fact determined by the administrative hearing is due to their ownership of the Subject Property. They have and will suffer an adverse [mancialloss due to the effect upon their rights to use and benefit from the Subject Property which has resulted from the agency determination sougllt to be corrected by this petition. 6. The DIMMITTS received notice of the adverse agency decision on an informal basis by being present, through their counsel, at the hearing of April 1, 2003 of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, acting as the CPA, when it acted upon the petition of the CITY OF CLEARWATER relating to the DIMMITTS and the Subject Property seeking to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as it affects the Subject Property. Formal written notice of the decision was made by letter dated April 1, 2003, received April 9, 2003, by the Planning Department of the CITY OF CLEARWATER. A copy of the letter is attached, marked Exhibit '- "A" and is incorporated by reference. A copy of the letter was furnished to the DIMMITIS' counsel on April 10, 2003. 7. This petition for an administrative hearing is timely made, in accordance with the applicable rules, within twenty one (21) days of the date of denial of the request relating to the Subject Property. 8. The case before the CPA embodying the request of the DIMMITIS for the amendment to the future land use change, identified by the CPA as Case Number CW 02-39/03- 22, was a request for an amendment of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as it affects the Subject Property, from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) to Residential Low (RL) and Preservation (P). The amendment was passed on the first reading at the June 20, 2002 City Commission meeting for the CITY OF CLEAR WATER. A copy of the application to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as it relates to the Subject Property is attached, marked Exhibit "B," and is incorporated by reference. 9. There are no known disputed issues of material fact. No competent evidence was presented to or otherwise before the CPA to contradict the approvals and recommendations for the requested change. 10. A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts which the DIMMITTS contend warrant reversal of the agency's proposed action are as follows. The requested amendment to the Countrywide Future Land Use Plan was favorably reviewed and approved by the CITY OF CLEARWATER, in which the Subject Property is located, as well as by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC), the Planners Advisory Committee (PAC) which serves the PPC, and by the staff of PINELLAS COUNTY. No competent evidence was presented to the Respondent CPA which would allow it to ignore the repeated favorable recommendations, including that of its own staff, by denying the requested change. 11. The action which the DIMMITTS contend requires reversal is the denial by the CPA of the requested amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, notwithstanding the multiple levels of approval recommended by the staffs of the reviewing agencies of the affected agencies and authorities, and notwithstanding the total lack of any evidence to justify. the CPA having ignored the staff, PPC and PCA recommendations in denying the application. 12. The relief sought by this petition is for an administrative hearing to establish as conclusive and binding the facts established by the evidence already available in the record of this proceeding, and thereafter for the matter to be returned to the CPA for approval of the Petitioners' request. WHEREFORE, Petitioners CITY OF CLEARWATER for use and benefit of LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, III, and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee Under Amendeq Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, pray that an administrative hearing be granted for the purpose of affirming the controlling facts in this matter, and that the matter thereafter be returned to the Respondent PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, acting as the COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, for the purpose of approving the requested amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as it affects the Subject Property. Petitioners further request that they have such additional relief as may be just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnisbed by hand delivery and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to: Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, acting as Countywide Planning Authority, Attn: Karen Williams See!, Chairman, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33756 PinelIas Planning Council, Attn: David P. Healey, Executive Director, 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850, Clearwater, FL 33755-4160, PineIlas County, Attn: Susan Churuti, Esq., County Attorney, 315 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; City of Clearwater, Attn: Brian Aungst, Mayor, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758- 4748; City of Clearwater, Attn: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748; City of Clearwater, Attn: Pam Akin, Esq., City Attorney, P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 and by Federal Express to Division of Administrative 'jaringS, The Desoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060, this day of April, 2003. MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 727/441-8966 (phone) 727/442-8470 (Fa'{) Attorneys for Petitioners BYH~-;r\ 0 U SPN # 41047 / Florida Bar # 0133526 Stephen o. Cole SPN #170518/ Florida Bar #198250 h:\data\aty\soc\dimmitt\administrativehearing.req,doc " PINELLAS COUNTY BOAFt.D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE~S ~~ PHONE 17271 464.3278 . FAX 17271 4154-3022 . 31PS COURT STREET" CLEARWATER. FLORIDA 33768 KAREN WIUIAMS SEEl CliAIAMAN Aprill, 2003 RECEIVED The Honorable Brian Aungst, Mayor City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 DearMa~ At its April 1 J 2003 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the CPA, took action to approvo Cases #CW 03-19, #CW 03-20, and #CW 03-21, which were initiated by your City. APR O!J 2003 . PlANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF ClEARMTER At its April 1, 2003 meeting, the Board ofCoWlty Commissioners, acting as the CPA, took action to deny Case #CW 03-22. This is to notify you, pursuant to Section 5.1.3 of the Countywide Rules, of your right to apply for Administration Hearing within 21 days of the date of denial as set for in the _ attached copy of the Rules outlining the Administration Hearing process. The Ordinance ,and Resolution associated with these actions are attached. Sincerely, +s~ Karen Williams SeeI Chairman Pin ell as County' Commission Attachments cc: Cyndi Tarapani. Planning Director CP ^~II'.ck.P." EXHIBIT b D .D S "A" Q. "PlNEllAS COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY i:~i ""11'"0 IJIIl1CYewl tUOl CITY OF CLEARWA1_ ,A{ AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINlSTRATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUI'H MYRTLE AVENUE, 2- FLOOR PHONE (727}S624S67 FAX (j21) S624576 " LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT J III (Name of .. property owners) 1. That (I amlwe are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property:_- See Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a 'part hereof by reference. (Addrea or General LDcalIon) 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: ReQuest for annexation/rezoning and Land Use Plan Amendments (1) Annex only as to property on Exhibit "A" (2) Annex/Land Use Plan/Zoning as to properties on Exhibit "B" . ,. (Natu... 01 request) 3. That the undersigned (hasltale) appointed and (does/do) appoint HARRY S. CLINE _ ESO_ as (hlsIlheir) agent(s) 10 IIlUIQIte any petJIionI or other documents ~ lD affecl such pelilion; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5. That (II\U), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the fI Property Owner STATE OF flORIDA, COUNTY OF P1NELLAS Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State d Florida. o.n this .;11 S l' clay rA Februarv, 2002 personally appeared LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT. III having been first duly awom ,de......... says"" ""'- -........ - of'" -....... "'" ~ a CJJtt.J",v Notary Public My Commission Expires: s: IppIication formsIdeYeIopment rwiewfMidavlt 10 AulharIze Agent I . -- - ~A.O'HEARN Nofcry Pubrc -State of Rafda My Comm1sslon &pires Jul2D. 2003 Cclnmis:sia1 # CC8SS733 4 - - - '" , l;lTl: Uf4'l;LEAKWA. IX APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (INCLUDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MUNICIPAL SERVICES BunnING, 100 soum MYRTl.E AVENUE, 2-' FLOOR PHONE rT27) 562-4567 FAX rT27) 562-4576 APPUCANT, PROPERTY oattJR~~~Gfi~I'P~ . , Parcel A] and LARRY H. DIMMITT, APPUCANT NAME : JR., Trustee under amended Revocable Living Trust Ag~ment MAlUNG ADDRESS : 25485 U.S. Highway 19 N., Clearwater, FL 33763 PHONE NUMBER : (727) 791-1818 FAXNUMBER : (727) 791-1162 PROPERTY OWNERS Same as above : (Ust .. 0WII8I'S) AGENT NAME : HARRY S. CLINE, ESQ. MAlUNG ADDRESS : Post Office Box 1669, Clearwa ter, n. 33757 PHONE NUMBER : (727) 441-8966 FAX NUMBER : (727) 442-8470 ~II c: .... . LOCAnON: East of U. S. HiRhwav 19 and Lake ChautaUQua; West of Lake Chautauqua STREET ADDRESS: )lORQ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See composite Exhibit "A" attached hert!to PARca NUMBER: 32-28-16-14922-038-0040 and 32-28-1~0~00-310-0100 ~ 32-28-16-00000-240-0040 lParcel BJ . -t(g.~.",. )l ~ SIZE OF SITE: 1 n 7 ;arrpl':. MOT. [P;a~ A] ;ann l' ~ Jlrrp!:l r MnT. [P;arr~l 'R FUTURE LAND USE Preservation ClASSIFlCAnON: PRESENT: Residential Suburban IREQUESTED: Residential Urban/Preserv lP1nellas CountYJ . LMDR/Preservation ZONING aASSIACAnON: PRESENT: RR/Preservation REQUESTED: PROPOSED TEXT See attached AMENDMENT: (use . . additional paper if..-sary) The undersigned, acknowledges that all STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PI~ ~ r representations made In this application Swom to and subscribed before me this I day of are true and accurate to the best of my ~czv,,~ ,A.D.. 19_~ me and/or knowledge. by ~~. &.tucr ,wh~rsona~ =~~ '~~d~ -~" Notary public. my CXlI'llIIlissia expIra: dated 12/1 WJp;. w.y~. don ~~..(J ..- - -- -- I 1 I I 1CA1'H1.EEN A. O'HEARN Notary Public - State of AoricIa My Comrr.issiOl'l Elcpi:-es Jut 20. 2003 b CO'1"lmlssl~ t CC8SS733 .. . """ - ...... .." .. , ./ " : " ,I ,. - .' TRANSMIlTAL PROCEDURES ., This letter and the enclosed external agency comments are being issued pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.010. F.A.C. Upon receipt of this letter. the City of Clearwater has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes. or determine that the City will not adopt the proposed amendment The process for ., adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.163.3184. F.S., and Rule 9J-l1.011, F.A.C. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City of Clearwater must submit the following to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments; A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; A listing of fmdings by the local governing body. if any, which were not included in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections. Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review. make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent Please be advised that the Florida Legislature amended Section 163.3184(8)(b). Florida Statutes, requiring the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Depart- ment's Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required bv the law to furnish to the Deoartment the names and addresses of the citizens reauestiDlz this information. This list is to be submitted at the time of transmittal of the adopted plan amendment (a sample Information Sheet is attached for your use). .' "I' . - v t " (;, STATE OF FLOR.IDA DEPART.MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida B better place to call home" )ED BUSH GOYemor October 3, 2002 STEVEN M. SElBER.T Secretary The Honorable Brian J. Aungst Mayor - Commissioner City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FJorida 33758-4748 m r!7 t r~ 0 \~l r~:'i n! I ......------- , ! I t 1 I I ! -', \ . . . f\ C'" 08 '.....02 ' .,::~ 0 i "i,;v j l..t. i : '1 · --' I , 'W ' . oJ , _ _'_'_ ,'!T ~VCS ., f {,::'W,o..T -- Dear Mayor - Commissioner Aungst: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Clearwater (DCA No. 02-1), which was received on June 17, 2002. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. ~ The Department has reviewed the proposed amendment for consistency with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and the adopted l; City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The Department raises no objections to the proposed amendment, and this letter serves as the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments ~, Report. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuanrto .;;. Rule 9J-ll.0 11(5), F .A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the Tampa Bay Florida'Regional Planning Council. Please contact Mark Neuse, Planner at (850) 922-1798 if we can be of assistance as you formulate your response to this Report. Sincerely, . e ~ a Pennington ~\ al Planning AdministratQr MP/mns Enclosures: Review Agency Comments cc: Ms, Cvnthia TaraDani. AICP, Director of Planning, City of Clearwater Mr. Manuel P.umariega, Executive Director, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 2 S S S 5 HUM A ROO A K B 0 U lEV A RD. TAL L A HASSE E, F L '0 RID A :"2 3 9 9 . 2 1 0 0 Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 Internet address: http://www.dca.state.fl.us CRITICAL STo\TE CONaRN FIELD oFfla 2796 Owtseas Hil\hwoy, Suhe 212 MlllIlhon. n 330SG-2227 OOSI :!8l\.2~D2 COMMUNITY rlJoNNINC 2555 Shumard ()~ BoulWolrd Tallah3sser. FL 32399-2100 llI~DI ~nll-2Jsr. EMfRCfNCY ""NACfMfNT 2555 Shumard O~ Boulevard Tallah3ssrr, Fl 32399-2100 1lI~0l ~n.99r.9 HDUSINC .. CDMMUNITY DMLOrMENT 2SSS Shu~rd Oak &OUIWolrd Talbh3nl'e. FL 32399-2100 1lI5m 4nR-79"~ " PINELLAS COUNTY BOA.~D OF COUNTY COMMISSIO~E~S "HONE (813) 484-3385 · FAX (813) 4<<54-30~~ · 315 COURT STREET · CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34<<518 .. BARBARA SHEEN TODD October 17, 2002 Received ceT2S_ pjnellas Planning . COUDcil COUNTY COMMISSIONER Honorable Nadine Nickeson, Chairman Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, 81b Floor Clearwater, FL 33755 Dear Commissioner Nickeson: At its October 15 meeting, the Board, acting as the Countywide Planning Authority, took action on Case CW 02-39, submitted by the City of Clearwater. The proposal is in the Lake Chautauqua area and is proposed to go from Residential Suburban (up 2 Y2 units per acre); Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature to Residential Low (up to 5 units per acre); Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature. This is a case that, after much deliberation, your Council made a recommendation of denial. When our Board took up this case and your recommendation, we in addition had received a request for a continuance from the City for six months. Since this was an advertised public hearing, the Board listened to those who wanted to speak on the case. We then took action to continue the case as requested by the City so they would have more time to consider the concerns that have been raised. It was requested to us that it would be appropriate as part of the contiD.uance to give your Council an opportunity for further review since there might be changes to the proposal. I must, therefore, emphasize that our Board did not take any action either for or against the case. We are merely giving the City more time for its own considerations. The continuance did not have a date certain set for a future meeting of our Board. Therefore, we will re- ~dvertise the case once it is resubmitted by the City for our consideration. ~ ~OJII Barbara Sheen Todd Chairman Pinellas County Commission cc: Dave Healey, PPC Executive Director Cyndi Tarapani, City of Clearwater Planning f:\users\cendocs\CP A \Corresp.ck.pg 31. "'PINELLAS COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" @ ..-rED .1ICYlUII 'APEII .' . . ppe Minutes September 18, 2002 ," PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #CW 02-39, PROPOSAL BY THE CITY' OF CLEARWATER TO AMEND THE COUNTYWIDE FUTIJRE LAND USE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, PRESERVATION, AND WATER/DRAINAGE FEATURE TO RESIDENTIAL LOW, PRESERVATION, AND WATER/DRAINAGE FEATURE - DENIED Pursuant to legal notice published in the September 1, 2002 issue-of the Pinellas edition of The Tampa Tribune as evidenced by affidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was held on Case #CW 02-39, a proposal by the City of Clearwater to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan from Residential Suburban, Preservation, and WaterlDrainage Feature to Residential Low, Preservation, and WaterlDrainage Feature, re 22.18 acres located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue from 103 feet south of Second Avenue North to Second Avenue South. Mr. Healey noted that staff is recommending approval of the request by the City of Clearwater subject to limiting the traffic impact on the site pursuant to the City's ConcUlTency Management System; and that in addition and separately, recommend and encourage the City to determine what the concUlTency management provisions will be prior to its final approval of the land use plan amendment. Mr. Crawford presented the staff report including background information and planning considerations, which has been filed and made a part of the record; and related that the site is vacant and contains wooded and preservation areas; and that approval of the amendment will allow for the site to be developed with 86 town1-.,;uses. He explained that the City has not been presented a site plan; and that the requested change will continue to recognize the preservation area and water drainage features on the site. .- Gina Clayton, City of Clearwater, related that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has indicated that it does not anticipate that the proposed amendment will have an adverse impact on U.S. Highway 19; and that the focus of concern is on the County roads to the south of the site which have not been brought up to CUlTent standards. She stated that the City will consider improving and extending other roadways in the area at the time of site plan review; that there are funded improvements such as overpasses and channelizing medians planned for U.S. Highway 19; and that when the City Commission approved the application, it considered the parcel's close proximity to U.S. Highway 19 and its adjacency to an intense commercial use. Commissioner Hamilton interjected that it is feasible that the property could be developed with single family homes at 2.5 units per acre; and that the footprint of townhouses and their FAR will be smaller and afford less eco1~gical impact Harry Cline, Esquire, Clearwater, representing the property owner, related that the zoning and land use of the subject property is impacted by the adjacent uses and existing commercial development; and alluding to a comment by Commissioner 12 . '. September 18, 2002 " Bradbury, stated that approximately one-half of the homeowners are no longer in opposition to the amendment. He indicated that City of Clearwater staff, Clearwater Community Development Board, the PPC, and Planners Advisory Committee (PAC) have all endorsed the proposed amendment; and that the applicant is prepared to assume responsibility for all necessary road improvements. Robert Pergolizzi, Florida Design Consultants, transportation and pl8nning engineer for the property owner, related that based on the site's proximity to the rear of the auto sales and service center it would not be appropriate to develop it with estate lots; and that the intent of the proposal is to create a transition area and buffer zone. He noted that a traffic analysis had been done on the site based on 7.S units per acre, which had been the original proposal by the applicant and subsequently was changed to five units per acre, and based on that analysis it was found that the traffic impact on U.S. Highway 19 will be less than one percent of the existing capacity due to alternative access and the upcoming improvements. Following discussion, in response to the Chairman's call for proponents to the application, the following individuals appeared and being duly sworn, expressed their : support: Ed Hooper, Clearwater, Vice-chairman, Community Development Board, City of Clearwater Joe Burdett, Belleair In response to the Chairman's call for opponents of the amendment, the following individuals appeared and being duly sworn, expressed their concerns: Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire, Figurski & Harrill, representing nine homeowners Stephen E. McConihay, Cle'arwater Linda L. Ganglehoff, Clearwater Donald M. Sutton, Clearwater . . . . At this time, 11:40 A.M., Councilmember Foster left the meeting. . . . . In rebuttal, Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director, City of Clearwater, indicated that if the amendment is approved by the PPC and the Countywide Planning Authority, there are many more steps that will have to be undertaken by a potential developer; and that implementation is conducted by the City staff, City Commission, and the Planning Board during the zoning and site plan review process. She stated that it is the City's position that it is not appropriate at this time in the development process to require a developer to submit a site plan when he is not prepared to do th~t and it is not " 13 ,,' " . . September 18, 2002 . . required by the code; and that the City of Clearwater respectfully requests that the s~oond condition be withdrawn. Alluding to the secondary recommendation, Mr. Healey affirmed that it is not a condition but simply a recommendation that the City consider determining what the agreed upon arrangements for traffic will be prior to finalizing the land use plan amendment since some of the solutions may be outside the City's direct control ~ue to adjoining County property and roads. Mayor DiNicola moved, seconded by Mayor DiDonato, that Case #CW 02-39 be approved subject to the City limiting the traffic impact on the site pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System; and separately, further recommend that the appropriate traffic mitigation provisions pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management Ordinance be determined and agreed to by the City and the applicant prior to the City approving the plan amendment. Following discussion by the members and input by Jewel White-Cole, Senior Assistant County Attorney, at the request of the Chairman, a roll call was conducted; whereupon, the motion failed 5 to 6 with Mayor Beverland, Councilmember Bradbury, Mayor De Cesare, Vice-Mayor Henderson, Mayor Jackson, and Mayor Smith casting the dissenting votes. Thereupon, Mayor Jackson moved, seconded by Mayor Smith, that Case #CW 02-39 be denied based on unacceptable impact as to traffic considerations and the relationship and potential impact to the adjoining jurisdiction. Following roll call, the motion carried 6 to 5 with Mayor DiDonato, Mayor DiNicola, School Board Member Gessner, Commissioner Hamilton, and Commissioner Nickeson casting the dissenting votes (Vote 6-5). 14 '\ . . l . ATTACHMENT 4 GERALD A. FIGURSKI, PA. J. BEN HARRILL, P.A. SHELLY MAY JOHNSON July 11,2002 FIGURSKI & HARRILL ATIORNEYS AT LAW 1HE HOUDAY TOWER 2435 U.S. HIGHWAY 19 SUITE350 HOUDAY, FLORIDA 34691' m.EPHONE: (727) 942.0733 FAX: (727) 9+4-3711 EMAlL: law@figursidhamJ1.com Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Received JUl 1 5 2002 Pinellas Planning CouDcD Attention: Mr. Ray Eubanks Community Program Adminiqrator RE: Request for Review/ City of ClearwaterlLand Use Plan Amendment from County Residential Suburban and Preservation to City Residential lJrban a.!!.d PreservatiQ..~_ Q{ P..!opem~~ _~t~101..chaytauQ\m.A '\Lenue (M&B 27/03,24/04,31/01 and Lot 4, Block 38, Unit 1, Section A Chautauqua uOn the Lake" Section 32-28S-16E) (Lawrence H. Dimmitt ill & Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr., Trustee) LUZ 02-02-03. Dear Mr. Eubanks: This firm represents nine families whose residences are in and around Lake Chautauqua, all but one who are residents of the City of Clearwater. The names of these individuals are included on Exhibit uA" enclosed herewith (hereinafter "Families"). On their behalf, this firm. objects to the adoption of this Land Use Amendment by the City of Clearwater. Further, we hereby request that the Department of Community Affairs review the proposed plan amendment and issue a report of its objections, recommendations, and comments regarding the proposed plan amendment. The Families are affected persons as defined by law .and objections and commcnts'-vJere'made at two separate hearings before Clearwater's City Commission. The proposed land use plan amendment forwarded to or to be forwarded to DCA by the City at the request of Lawrence H. Dimmitt ill and Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr., Trustee (hereinafter "Dimmits") is a request to amend the Compre~ensive Plan's Future Land Use Map from Residential Suburoan (RS) and Preservation to Residential Urban (RU) and Preservation Districts. A rezoning from Rural Residential (R-R) in Pinellas County to Low Medium Density Residential and Preservation,in the City is also before the City's Commission. The net effect from a density perspective is to increase the density per acre from 2.5units per acre to 7.5 units per acre. To be candid, it should be noted the discussion before the City Commission has included limiting the density to 5 units per acre although RU allows 7.5. The proposal is for a " :Mr. Ray Eubanks Florida Department of Community Affairs July 11,2002 Page Two townhouse project to be presented at some time in the future although there is no guarantee this will. oeeln'. -- In support of the Families' objection to the proposed land use plan amendment and the Families' request to review, we offer the following: · The Lake Chautauqua area and the Lake itself are beautiful, pristine, special areas. Although commercial car dealerships owned in one form or another by members of the Dimmit family exist along U.S. 19 to the west of the Lake Chautauqua area, once you go east of the dealerships, you find yourself in a significantly peaceful area · ~e F~es reside primarily in tPe nortJterly and nQrthwestedy se9tions around Lake Chautauqua. ;ii · Lake Chautauqua is large and is bordered on its easterly side by the Boy Scout Camp and by a City park. · The residential areas are primarily Residential Suburban allowing 2.5 units per acre with large sections of Preservation and Rec~eation/Open Space. · Both the County and the City's existing zoning is congruent with Residential Suburban being Residential-Rural in the County and Low Density Residential in the City, all allowing 2.5 units per acre. · The southern and eastern sides are primarily Residential Suburban allowing 2.5 units per acre. · Contrary to the suggestion by the Dimmitts and City Staff, there is no need for a transitional zone in that there is no residential community on the other side of the proposed townhouses to protect. · A drive through the area best speaks to the nature of the residential community which should be preserved. · No compelling or any salient reason has been or can be given as to why the land use map should be altered to the detriment of the area by the proposed amendment. Mr. Ray Eubanks Florida Department of Community Affairs July 11,2002 Page Three · The proposed land use map amendment is not consistent nor compatible with the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan or the City's Comprehensive Plan. . The proposed land use map amendment is adverse to the adjoining property owners and the public interest. . The existing land use designation for the property is not new. . Information was presented to the City Commission - by representatives of Dimmitts that without this change to Residential Urban any project would not be economically viable. Dimmitts had to know the status of the land use for this area when they purchased the 23 acres, approximately half of which was purchased in _ ~POl. · References by City Staff from the City's Comprehensive Plan in its memo to the Commission as to consistency of the proposal with the Plan mischaracterizes the cited goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan. For example, the reference to Objective 2.2 needs to be read within the conteXt of the overriding goals the objective is to implement, those goals being protection of historic resources, ensuring neighborhood preservation, redeveloping blighted areas, and encouraging infill development. None of these are being furthered by remapping and rezoning 23.acres. This type of analysis as to such references by City Staff will show that each reference misconstrues the true nature thereof. · No reference is made by the proponents to Objective 3.2 which states that the future land use in the City of Clearwater shall be guided by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. · Although it was suggested that the proposed land use map amendment was consistent with Pinellas County's Comprehensive Plan by reference to certain definitions, no reference is made to the following "Goals, Policies, and Economic Assumptions" of the County's Plan: compatibility, locational accessibility, preservation of property for aesthetic purposes, protection of wildlife, etc., all as required by "The Countywide Plan Rules". . The proposed land use amendment does not further, and is not consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, nor in compliance with various statutes and, in particular, Rule 91-5, F AC. Mr. Ray Eubanks Florida Department of Community Affairs July 11, 2002 Page Four · The traffic analysis presented by the Dimmitts spoke to U.S. 19 being LOS F. Quoting from the report submitted to the Commission, .'Although the site is located east of U.S. 19, substantial alternative access exists to limit project impact on U.S. 19." A view of the area shows that the quality of such alternative access is very limited. The Families respectfully submit that the proposed land use map amendment should be reviewed and rejected by all appropriate governmental agencies. The proposal is incompatIble with surrounding uses and adverse to the public interest. The proposal is inconsistent with the existing goals, objectives and policies set forth in the City's and the County's Comprehensive Plans. The proposal is not supported by appropriate and relevant data and analysis regarding issues such as land use and transportation. If one accepts that RU and LMDR is a'transitional dO'WIlZoning,. which the Families do not accept, RS to RU is an ''up-planning.'' No compelling reason exists to mcrease- the-density for tills propertY. . - - ysubmitted, Q GAFlmjp Enclosure cc: Families See attached ~ ;.. ,- ' ATTACHMENT 3 rmft PAC tJJlnut.. Setp'.. b@r I, 1002 Case #CW 02-39 City of Clearwater - This 22.18-acre parcel is located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, from 103 feet south of Second Avenue North to Second Avenue South. The proposed amendment submitted by Clearwater is a request to change the plan designation from Residential Suburban; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature. The subject area is vacant. The proposed amendment would allow for the development of the site with 86 townhomes. Michael Crawford presented an overview of the staff report recommending the proposed amendment be approved, subject to the City limiting the traffic impacts on the site pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System. Separate and in addition, it is recommended the appropriate traffic mitigation provisions pursuant to the City's Concurrency ~1anagement Ordinance be determined and agreed to by the City and the applicant prior to the City approving the plan amendment. Gordon Beardslee asked for the rationale behind the five unit per acre designation. Gina Clayton responded by stating that the applicant initially asked for seven and a half units per acre, which was deemed to be too intense. She went on to say that the City feels five units per acre fits nicely between the property designated at two units per acre and the car lot on the west which is a very intense use. Ms. Clayton added that the 'City of Clearwater is not in agreement with the additional recommendation requesting that the City and the applicant agree to traffic mitigation provisions prior to the site plan review. Ms. Clayton went on to say that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has no issues with the proposal. Discussion ensued on this point. Rick MacAulay asked if there is opposition from neighboring property owners and Gina Ch~)10n responded in the affrrmative. Ric Goss moved approval of the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mike Nadeau and approved. (Vote 12-0; Tom Shevlin abstained) . . Part ill - Public Hearing Agenda: Rules Amendment Re: Vested Rights Ordinance The proposed amendment to the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan (Rules) attached as Exhibit ill is identified as follows: · Exhibit ill - Rule amendment to establish a vested rights procedure and criteria by which to consider an application or claim for vested rights under the Countywide Plan and Rules. The PPC has recommended that the amendment to the Countywide Rules be approved as outlined in the attached ordinance. The enclosed agenda package identified as Exhibit ill includes the ordinance recommended for adoption, the PPC agenda memorandum, and PPC Resolution No. 03-2 transmitting the proposed ordinance to the CPA. This CPA item is the first of two required public hearings on the proposed amendment to the Rules~ included in the attached Exhibit ill. ,The second public hearing on this item is scheduled for April 15, 2003. The agenda package for each of the above-referenced items, including the advisory recommendation of the PPC, is attached in the accompanying exhibits. The complete record of the public hearing held by the Pinellas Planning Council is on file with the Clerk and is available for review by the Board or any interested party. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY Consideration of the Following Proposals to Amend the Adopted Countywide Future Land Use Plan: SUBTHRESHOLD AMENDMENTS a. Case #CW 03-19 - Clearwater _ Location - 0.84 Acres Located on the Northeast Comer of Drew Street and Anna Avenue. Amendment from Commercial General to Residential/Office General. b. Case #CW 03-20 - Clearwater Location - 0.87 Acres Located on the Southwest Side of Windward Passage, 310 feet North of Marina Way. Amendment from Commercial General to Residential Medium. Co Case #CW 03-24 - Pinellas County Location - 0.72 Acres Located on the Northeast Comer of U.S. Alternate Highway 19 and Blue Moon Boulevard. Amendment from Preservation to Residential/Office Limited. d. Case #CW 03-25 - Largo Location - 3.44 Acres Located on the East Side of Highland North, 230 Feet North of East Bay Drive. Amendment from Commercial General to Residential/Office General. e. Case #CW 03-26 - Largo Location - 1.50 Acres Located 1,960 Feet South of East Bay Drive, 1,610 Feet West of Starkey Road. Amendment from Residential Medium to Recreation/Open Space. f. Case #CW 03-27 - Largo Location - 8.65 Acres Located on the West Side of Sea crest Drive and North and South Sides of Barnsdale Drive, Camelot Drive, and Sherwood Drive. Amendment from Residential Medium to Residential Low Medium. g. Case #CW 03-28 - Largo _' Location - 8.28 Acres Located on the North and South Sides of Sherwood Drive and the East and West Sides of Jody Court and Debby Court. Amendment from Residential Medium to Residential Urban; Water/Drainage Feature Overlay. h. Case #CW 03-29 - Largo Location - 5.37 Acres Located 110 Feet South of 1220d Avenue North, 695 Feet East of V onn Road. Amendment from Institutional to Institutional; Water/Drainage Feature Overlay. REGULAR Al\1ENDMENTS a. Case #CW 03-21 - Clearwater Location - 1.83 Acres Located on the Northeast Side of Windward Passage, 230 Feet North of Marina Way. Amendment from Commercial General to Residential High. b. Case #CW 02-39/03-22 - Clearwater Location - 22.18 Acres Located on the East Side of Chautauqua Avenue, From 103 Feet South of2Dd Avenue North to 2nd Avenue South. Amendment from Residential Suburban; Preservation; Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; Water/Drainage Feature. c. Case #CW 03-23 - Pinellas County Location - 0.14 Acres Located on the West Side of Belcher Road, 80 Feet South of 14th Avenue Southeast. Amendment from Residential Low to Residential/Omce Limited. - COUNTYWIDE RULES AMENDMENT Consideration of the Following Proposal to Amend the Adopted Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan: a. PPC Resolution No. 03-2 Proposed Amendment to the Countywide Rules Providine: for the Creation of a Process and Criteria for the Determination of Vested Rie:hts ,\, TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners, in Your Capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority THROUGH: Stephen M. Spratt, County Administrator FROM: David P. Healey, Executive Director - ~ //. Pinellas Planning Council ~ SUBJECT: April 1 , 2003 Countywide Planning Authority Agenda Part IT - Public Hearm!! Agenda Re: Reg:War Plan Map Amendments DA1lE: April 1,2003 RECOMMENDATION: THE PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL RECOM:MENDS TIlE BOARD, IN YOUR CAPACITY AS TIlE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, APPROVE CASES #CW 03-21, #CW 02-39/03-22, and #CW 03-23 AS OUTLINED BELOW: · Exhibit IT-A: Case #CW 03-21 - Clearwater- a regular amendment that proposes to amend 1.83 acres located on the northeast side of Windward Passage, 230 feet north of Marina Way from Commercial General to Residential High. · ExhibJ~ n-:Q.:~. Case#J~W .02-39103-22..- "C.learwater - a regular amendment that proposes to amend 22.18 acres located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, from 1 03 feet south of 2nd Avenue North to 2nd Avenue South from Residential Suburban; Preservation; Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; WaterlDrainage Feature. · Exhibit IT-C: Case #CW 03-23 - Pinellas County - a regular amendment that proposes to amend .14 acres located on the west side of Belcher Road, 80 feet south of 14th Avenue Southeast .from Residential Low to Residential/Office Limited. DISCUSSION: The Board, in your capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority, bas received three (3) cases concerning regular amendments of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan map as described below: Case #CW 03-21 is a request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Residential High on 1.83 acres, generally located on the northeast side of Windward Passage, 230 feet north of Marina Way. The site is currently developed with a dry boat storage facility. The proposed amendment would allow redevelopment of the site with up to 55 multi-family residences. The Council considered the fact that the property could be redeveloped under its Commercial General designation for commercial purpose or for residential use at 24 dwelling units per acre and determined that on balance it was consistent with the requirements for designation as Residential High and with the criteria for amendment in the Coastal High Hazard Area. The amendment would result in an effective potential increase of eleven (11) dwelling units. The Planning Council, by a vote of 11-1, recommended approval of Case #CW 03-21. Gase #GW'~q2-a9/03-22 ~~, a request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Residential Low; Preservation; Waterlbrainage Feature on 22.18 aces, generally located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, from 103 feet south of 2nd Avenue N. to 2nd Avenue S. The site is currently an undeveloped wooded area adjacent to Lake Chautauqua. The proposed amelldment would allow for development of the residentially classified portion of the site- with 86 dwelling unit~. The site is under contract and is proposed to be developed with townhomes. The City of Clearwater originally submitted this amendment to the Council last year as case number CW 02-39, and at that time staff recommended approval with supplemental recommendations. On September 18, 2002, the Pinellas Planning Council recommended denial of the amendment by a vote of six to five, and on October 15,2002, by a vote of four to three, the Countywide Planning Authority temporarily deferred the application and remanded it to the Council for further consideration, based upon the City's assertion that the Council's concerns could be addressed through further negotiation with the developer. The City of Clearwater has proposed to address the access and traffic concerns expressed in the initial review by the Council through the extension of Chautauqua Avenue to the north through the City park property to connect with Enterprise Road. The cost of this roadway would be shared by the City and the proposed developer. The Platml]!g c;~pn<:j1~ after 8; ll(ngthy ~~ublic" hearing and extensive discusslc;m, ~recC?mmended apptoval\;oFiCase~CW 02-3W03-22"by~vote"af:9-3f "" '1,.,," ' , Case #CW 03-23 is a request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Residential/Office Limited on 0.14 acres, generally located. on the west side of Belcher Road, 80 feet south of 14th Avenue Southeast. The site is currently developed with a single family residence. The proposed amendment would allow redevelopment of the site for professional office use. The Council considered the location of the residence and its direct access on Belcher Road relative to its continued desirability as a residential use and determined it was consistent with the criteria for designation in the Residential/Office Limited category. The Planning Council, by a vote of 10-0, recommended approval of Case #CW 03-23, with the supplemental recommendations that the County: 1) Give special consideration to the improvement of the site with respect to the buffering and landscaping guidelines of the Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor Master Plan; and 2) in coordination with the City of Largo, consider the appropriateness of an amendment to Residential/Office Limited for the adjacent properties on the west side of Belcher Road. With this transmittal, the complete record of the public hearing held by the PPC on these cases is on file with the Clerk and is available for review by the Board or any interested party. ,7 , ~ Re: City of Clearwater, Florida, F or the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, And Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., As Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners vs. PinelIas County Board of County Commissioners, as Countywide Planning Authority, Respondent Attachment 2: Copy of Chapter 88-464, Section 10 (4), Laws of Florida Re: Administrative Hearings t and the elements enumerated in subsection (8) of section 5 of this act as recommended for adoption by the council. (b) Upon adoption by the board of county commissioners, the countywide future land use plan and the elements enumerated in subsection (8) of section 5 of this act will have the full force and effect of law countywide. All local governments' comprehensive- plans and land development regulations shall be consistent with the countywide comprehensive plan. The board of county commissioners shall have the authority to enforce the countywide comprehensive plan. (c) Local governments' future land use plans shall be considered to be consistent with the countywide future land' use plan if .the . local governments' land use designations are less intense or at a lower density. If a local government's future land use plan provides for a less intense land use or a lesser density, the local plan shall regulate development for the subject property as to the less intense or lower density use of the property. However, a local future land use plan or subject property is not exempt from such other standards, rules, or procedures of the countywiae comprehensive plan as are applicable. (4) AMENDMENTS.-- (a) Amendments to the adopted countywide future land use plan relating to a land use designation for a particular parcel of property may be initiated only by a local government that has jurisdiction over the subject property. Amendments to a rule, standard, policy, or objective of the countywide future land use plan or the elements enumerated ,in subsection (8) of section 5 of this act may be initiated by the council or any local government. All amendments initiated by a local govemment or the council shall be transmitted to the board of county commissioners with a recommendation by the council. A majority plus one of the entire board of county commissioners is required to take any action on the proposed amendment which is contrary to the council's recommendation. A recommendation shall be received by the board of county commissioners prior to its taking action on an amendment. .. 12 , (b) The council shaH have sixty days after the day an application is filed with the council to act on that amendment and forward the recommendation to the board of county commissioners. Action by the council may include recommendation for approval, denial, continuation, or an alternative compromise amendment, any of which shall constitute action by the council within the stipulated sixty-day period; Provision for the council to make a recommendation for an alternative compromise amendment shall be as approved and set forth in the rules concerning the administration of the countywide future land use plan. (c) If the council recommends denial of a'. proposed amendment to the countywide future land use plan relating to a change in a land use designation for a particular parcel or a change in the rules, standards, policies, or objectives, of the countywide future land use plan, any substantially affected person may seek a hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any substantially affected person may participate in the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer's recommended order shall be forwarded to and considered by the board of county commissioners in a final hearing. The basis for the board of county commissioners' approval or denial of the proposed amendment is limited to the findings of fact of the hearing officer. This paragraph does not apply to any amendments made to the elements enumerated in subsection (8) of section 5 of this act. (d) If the council recommends approval of a proposed amendment to the countywide future land use plan relating to a change in a land use designation for a particular parcel or a change in the rules, standards, policies, or objectives of the countywide future land use plan, the recommendation shall be directly forwarded to the board of county commissioners. After a hearing is held, if the board of county commissioners votes by a majority plus one to deny the amendment, any substantially , affected person, the council, or the board of county commissioners may seek a hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes. ~.L!l. su.bstantially affected ~rson may participate in the hearing. At the l conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer's recommended order shall be forwarded to and considered by the board of county commissioners in a final hearing. The basis for the board of county commissioners' final decision approving or denying the proposed amendment is limited to the findings of fact of the hearing officer. 13 " ;~ . \ c-.. This paragraph does not apply to any amendments made to the elements enumerated in subsection (8) of section 5 of this act. (e) The council may contract with the Department of Administration to provide the hearing officers required by this act. The council shall be responsible for compensating the Department of Administration for costs incurred by the department in the hearing piOcess. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d), the council and the board of county commissioners are not subject to chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (f) An administrative hearing under paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) is limited to a review of the facts pertaining to the subject property, the countywide future land use plan, and those rules, standards, policies, and procedures applicable thereto. An administrative hearing is not the appropriate forum for a constitutional challenge. (g) Decisions by the board of county commissioners, acting in its capacity under this act, are legislative in nature. Decisions made by the board of county commissioners subsequent to a final order pursuant to a hearing under paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) may be challenged by writ of certiorari in a court of competent jurisdiction. ~ (5) PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.--An ordinance adopted by the board of county commissioners which adopts or amends the provisions of the countywide comprehensive plan or the countywide future land use plan shall be enacted or amended pursuant to the following procedure: (a) For an adoption of or amendment to plans, rules, standards, policies, or objectives of the countywide comprehensive plan pursuant to section 9 or an amendment to the adopted countywide future land use plan relating to a land use designation for a . particular parcel of property involving more than 5 percent of the county: 1. The board of county commissioners shall hold two advertised public hearings on the proposed ordinance. At least one of the he~rings shall be held after 5 p.m. on a weekday, and the first shall be held approximately 7 days after the day that the first advertisement is 14 Attachment 1 4 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST STATEMENT PlNELLAS COUNTY PLANNING COUNCil. CASE NUMBER · SUBMTITING GOVERNMENT ENTITY: ' CITY OF CLEARWATER PPC OR CITY/TOWN CASE NUMBER: LUZ 02-02-03 PROPERTY OWNERSIREPRESENTATIVE: LARRY H. DIMMlIT. JR. OWNERS: LAWRENCE H. DIMMIIT. m & Name: REPRESENTATIVE: HARRY S. CLINE. ESQ. P.O. BOX 1669 CLEARWATER. FL 33757 727-441-8966 ANY OTHER PERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: Interests: N/A Contingent: N/A Absolute: N/A Name: N/A Specific Interest Held: N/A INDICATION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. IF SO: Contract is: N/A Contingent Absolute All Parties To Contract: N/A Name: N/A INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IF SO: All Parties To Option: N/A Name: Name: ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION WInCH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUB:MIT PERTAlNING TO REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT: * NUMBER TO BE ASSIGNED BY PLANNING COUNCil. STAFF SPRATT: On item b, Madam Chair, that's case #GW..,,03,.22. and this particular case the PPC has considered this item on two occasions. It is back before you with the PPC recommendation of approval. County staff concurs with the PPC recommendation with the fo1l0wing,.pr.ml,iso...thaLiLthe<.density."amendment is to be approved, there should be provisions to :minim.ize".,the.,__pl1.ill;~j;txL...chlillg~.Ao'Hthe", area and that the long term concUfFem~~-peUcies".fQJ;1.,U.s.".W..apply,to"Jhis case. So with those conditions, County staff concurs with the PPC recommendation. oec.; Lr 1"1 - Vijvyvu fPt}C1?J!J: tfJ'/rrM ~l ~ kJ03 ,(jt{ CHAIRMAN: I believe there ~re opponents in the audience today, could you raise your hand? Okay, I would like a st~ff presentation on this item. SPRATT: David Healey ~ill do that. HEALEY: Commissioners as Mr. Spratt said, this is a case that came to the Council originally back in September of last year. Cou~cil at that time had recommended denial by a vote of six to five. It came to you in October and at Clearwater's request to continue the case in order that they ~ould continue to work with the surrounding property owners and develop and permit answers to the questions that the Council had, it was remanded back to the Council. It came to us at last month's meeting. It is a request for amendment, as it was originally, from residential suburban which allows two-and-a-half dwelling units per acre, to residential low which allows five dwelling units per acre. Itls a site just a little over 20 acres with some preservation and water on it, so if we say, on average, about 20 acres at the two-and-a-half units, it would allow about 50 units there. If amended to residential low at five, it would allow about twice that, about 100 units, approximately, on the site. The principal concerns and considerations that I think caused the Council to recommend denial in the first instance and that were addressed in the second go-around last month had to do with road access and traffic impacts. The project is east of U.S. 19; it's essentially behind the Dimmitt Cadillac dealership property, if that helps orient you, between Chautauqua Avenue and Lake Chautauqua. This property has been annexed to the City. The properties north and south of it remain in the unincorporated County. The concerns that t4e Council had had to do with the impact of traffic, obviously, on U.S. 19, which is unde~ the MPO and State DOT designation of a Long-Term Concurrency Management classification. We estimated, again in round numbers, that the plan amendment would increase the potential traffic to be generated from the site by slightly less than 400 vehicle trips per day. At its present designation of residential suburban, if fully developed,' it would generate about 400 trips; if amended and fully developed at that 18 \, I,'~ ,'} .\ \. ;... j .. . amended intensity, it would generate about 800 trips. So the question becomes, how do we ameliorate those trips; can they be accommodated in this location given the character of the surrounding area, which is designated residential suburban and will continue to be so on the plan. 'The City, I guess after several alternative considerations, had determined that it was possible to extend Chautauqua Avenue to the north to connect Enterprise Road, and that would be entirely done within the City and, while it goes off this map, it would extend through City park property providing direct access from Enterprise to the site, to address some of the access and safety concerns that arose originally. The Council, after looking at more considerations during the City of Clearwater- hearing from surrounding residents, recommended to you that the amendment be approved. MS. TODD: I had a quick question here. I thought that when there was a road that you couldn't jump over a road for contiguity. MR. HEALEY: No, just the opposite, Commissioner. The road right-of-way does not preclude contiguity. If you think it in terms of a perpendicular fashion--you can't go in a linear fashion up the right-of-way to establish a coIJ;idor connection, but across a public right- of-way, contiguity can be established. MS. TODD: I've always thought it couldn't be. That's a shocker to me. I had no idea you could do that. WELCH: Madam Chair? ' CHAIRMAN: Yes, Commissioner Welch. WELCH: When was that property annexed-- HEALEY: I donlt know the exact date-- I donlt know. I think it was concluded in the context of the original request for a plan amendment, but I don't know the date. Clearwater will have to answer that. WELCH: So it happened about the same time as the original-- HEALEY: Recently-- essentially it was a single application or dual application for annexation and plan amendment as I understand it. 19 WELCH: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN: Any questions-- Commissioner Stewart. STEWART: David, the property to the north and south then is in the unincorporated area but could become part of Clearwater should they request it? HEALEY: Potentially, Commissioner, yes-- STEWART: They just haven.'t asked yet-- HEALEY: --but today. . .remains unincorporated. TODD: Is it in the voluntary planning area? HEALEY: Yes it is. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions at this time? I have one later but maybe the applicant will address it. Is the applicant wish to address the Board? Welcome back. TARAP ANI: Good morning again. I'm still Cyndi Tarapani. I'm planning director for the City of Clearwater. Again, thank you for the opportunity. If I could address first couple of your questions, first it was that we handle the annexation of-- plan amendment and rezoning together. And 'then if the plan amendment is recommended, we would transmit it all. And it was transmitted in June, excuse me it was approved by the City Commission in June, the annexation was final because we do not promise any zoning the annexation gets done and the land use plan amendment re-zonings follow that course. With regard to the city property in contiguity, I do have a map of that as well. Well, it's not the best map but let me show you on this. This property is contiguous. All this property is in the city. This is in the County. Half of this residential area here is in the city. This portion is in the County. So it is contiguous to the west. It actually is-- it's almost an enclave-- it's not exactly an enclave but there's one small little piece that prevented it from being an enclave so could not be processed as an enclave but it is contiguous on two areas.. .go through some of the issues as Dave said this property and this amendment has been discussed for quite some time. When we went to the PPC back in September I believe, there was a concern about the traffic mitigation. While normally you wouldn't deal with 20 that issue until site plan review, there was some concern raised and we agreed to deal with it and try: and solve that particular issue. Clearly there's really only two options. Right now the property only has access through first avenue and if I can show you another map you'll see how difficult the access is given why the site may have remained vacant for som~ time. The only access today is First Avenue to U.S. 19 and y'all are-- I think we all are very much aware, U.S. 19 now has been...so when you come out First Avenue to U.S. 19 from the site you will only be able to go north and then have to make a U-turn if you wanna come south. The other option could be to come to-- to meander through Third ~treet, Second Street, Union.. . and eventually get down to Sunset Point where there's a light; that is the only you could get to a light and have either north or-- or easier north or southbound travel. You can see that's clearly a quite cumbersome way to access the property. One option was of course to improve these southern I)treet systems but it will not improve the meandering way to get down and out of the site. The other option that was: looked at was an option to go north and if I could show you that option, the city owns this parcel.. .ofland. It was land banked as a park. So the option would be to have Chautaugua A venue to come up and come north and hug through the wetland area, try not to split the uplands and keep the uplands as contained as possible and of course not mitigate and impact the wetlands and so you would have a road that comes through here, access to Enterprise, you could go left or right. If you turned left and came to 19 of course you would have a light at Enterprise and 19. The developer's actual share of that based-- we did have him do traffic counts and we reviewed his traffic methodology and his traffic counts, his share is roughly 15 to 20 percent just b3;sed on this site alone. . However, because the project, this road project would be accelerated, it would be a gre~t benefit to him as well as the ~est of the neighborhood, the developer has agreed and the City has committed a capital project, the developer has agreed to pay fifty percent of the ~ost of the project. We estimate that to be approximately $175,000.00 in today's dollars.. At the Ma:rch 6 City commission meeting, the City Commission did approve that capital project, did commit the city's half share. The developer will be allowed for his $46,000.00 of city share of impact fees to be credited but he will owe us the rest in cash.: So he will make an additional cash output of around $130,000.00 or so. In addition, be~ause the park project is also to be accelerated, the developer has made a I contribution-- has said that he would make a contribution to the park as well. We believe that this transportation improvement mitigates the impact, the local impact, and provides a much needed access for the entire area. Because this amendment has been pending for so long, we had already sent it to DCA and we received this letter from DCA on October 3rd saying that they have reviewed it for consistency and they raise no objections to the amendment. This letter serves as the department's objections, recommendations and 21 comments report. As part of their analysis, they-- we've also got this letter from the Department of Transportation. 1'.11 provide a copy to the record for you. If I might read just the critical' part, this letter is dated August 23rd from Carol Collins for Department of Transportation and it says in part, "we've conducted a review, etc, ect., we do not expect the proposed amendment to have an adverse impact on the Florida Interstate highway systems or a sipnificant impact on Florida's transportation system." So they are aware of that impact. they obviously see it as negligible as we do. We do understand your concern about long term concurrency but we believe that this addresses it. And certainly if there's anything that we need to do with your staff and the County and FDOT to make sure that we're all agreement, we will cel1ainly do that. We believe the use is compatible with the surrdunding area. The existing use is residential. The proposed use is residential. It's hard to be incompatible if you are the same use. The clustering style that will be allowed by this plan category and the city zoning district will we believe further protect the environmental features of that area and allow for clustering of those units, a reduction of paving and a reduction of impervious area. As compared to single family development which has a much more impact on the neighborhood and on the area. Again and finally we ask you to look at the overall area. Pinellas County as you know is the most intensely developed county in the State of Florida, I think: welre all aware of that. I know U.S. 19 is the most intense commercial corridor that we have. This site has, you know, has had to deal with those constraints. It is not-- it does have some unique features, some of them negative to development. We hope that the road improvement will help alleviate partially one of those. The immediate vicinity of this area is as I pointed out, is commercial uses to the west and south. Office parks to the south and then residential area once you get on Chautaugua. The project is within a mile of Clearwater Mall-- excuse me Countryside Mall, a regional mall. It's clearly a major commercial corridor. The City Commission recommended approval, the PPC staff recommended approval, the PAC recommended approval and now the PPC upon hearing it rehearing the case and with this new information, also recommended approval in a nine to three vote. We ask you to balance the rights of the existing property owners with this developer's right to develop and use his land in a meaningful way. We certainly recommend and hope that you will approve the application. Be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I have a question which is on you mentioned the transportation impact fee, the $46,000.00, I'm assuming that the County will still continue to collect their share. 22 T ARAP ANI: Of course. We were just saying we do not credit the developer with the County's share cause we don't have the benefit ofthat. We would just credit him aga~nst the total project of the City's share. The county of course will collect their share and use it however they see fit in the area. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Okay, are there any questions, Commissioner Welch? WELCH: What's your time table for the extension of Chautauqua Avenue? How long will it take you? T ARAP ANI: We at this point just have conceptual approv~l with the developer and the City to do that based on at this point-- it goes forward then we will proceed with the developer's agreement with the developer to tie that down. Conceptually I would envision that the project be-- that the road project exist at the time that the impact.. .homes are built. So we would wanna make that concurrent. . . WELCH: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN: How close is that to the traffic light at U.S. 19 and Enterprise, do you know? TARAP ANI: Where the new road would be? We're not exact-- if I could'put this back up, we hayen't gone into the detail engineering we have just looked at it and see that yes we can get a road in there and still retain the park which of course would be an interest for the City. We have not even gone to conceptual review. It's probably be, as you can see this is kind of the uplands :area in here, there's a large wetland here and then one is tlus area, so it would be somewhere in this area but you know, we would certainly get into specific engineering de~ign. Have to coordinate that with all the people that are interested. CHAIRMAN: Do you expect that it would meet the warrants for a traffic light? TARAPANI: We hadn't even thought about that at this point I would-- I just don't know. I wouldn't think so. I mean we're talking about at most on this project, 90 units. There's another 40 or so homes in the area. If everybody used that all at the same time, it'd be hard to imagine even that would trigger the wan"ant but I'm not a traffic engineer, I just play one on TV, so-- .,. 23 CHAIRMAN: But someone has looked this ov~r, I mean, I'm familiar with this road and there's-- it's quite dangerous to-- there's been deaths happen because of the site vIsibility of trying to pull out onto Ep.terprise. Has anybody really looked at that? T ARAP ANI: We haven't gotten to that level of detail review. We really are just looking at conceptually would it work, is there-- can you fit in a road as well as the park and we're aware of, you know, the issues with Enterprise Road. Just like any road project, there's certain unique features. We will of course mitigate that and make sure that it is as safe as we can possibly make it. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for Mrs. Tarapani? Okay-- WELCH: Just one more. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Commissioner Welch. WELCH: Is that the only available exit route for the folks that are south of this development as well?. . cluster of homes just south ofthere-- TARAP ANI: There are some houses in this area, there are fewer here than in the north, but basically it's that same route that I described before along Third, along Second, down Second Street to.. . and then to Union and-- WELCH: Perhaps you can use this map that was in our packet. The cluster of homes just south of the development, is that all residential and-- TARAP ANI: In this area? WELCH: Right. TARAP ANI: Yes sir. And they would-- their route is, you know, meandering down to Sunset. To the south-- or they pf course could go up Chautaugua and to First A venue and then go north on U.S. 19. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cline, do you wish to speak? 24 CLINE: Madam Chair, members of the Board, my name is Harry Cline, I'm an attorney in Clearwater, and I represent the owner of the property. Also here today is Mr. Pergolizzi with FDC and he represents the contract purchaser, Rotland Homes. Let me make a few overview comments. I think staff has done a very good job and this matter has been somewhat beaten to death before you and the other staff, so I'll' just hit the highlights. From a Land Use Plan standpoint, what we request is compatible, and all of your staff agrees with that. It's a gradation or a transition from a very intense commercial piece of property into a: residential quiet neighborhood, and it's a balancing act. All professional staff and planners tell you that it meets the criteria. It has been argued in some of our hearings before that for you or anybody to change the Land Use Plan or make a Land Use Plan amendment, there needs to be a compelling reason shown by the applicant. That is not the criteria; that is not the law. Your staff and the criteria set forth in those reports say that we m~et each and every one of the criteria, and none of that is a compelling reason. That's not part of the applicant's burden. So this comes to you today with the endorsement of everyone heretofore. And the cause of it, we haven't been able to successfull)' address the traffic issue. The staff report is now, in fact, overwhelmingly in support of this. The PPC went from a six-five recommended denial before when these traffic issues were hanging out to a nine-three vote. It comes to you with a letter in the file from FDOT saying they have no problems with this from U.S. 19. It comes to you with a letter now from BCA that it's okay with them. So it certainly has all of the professional endorsements. We have, and I hope it's in your file, received letters of support from at ~east two of the property owners out there, those who are contiguous to this site. M"t~~rt~l I believe, is the name of one on the northwest comer of our property, and from the Irion family and the ~tiltU~~ who have a very large--an amalgamation of these lots, again, to the north of our property. So it's not a one hundred percent opposition to our project out there. So, on balance, you have a great opportunity to address a serious traffic problem that exists out there. That road now exists as a true snake trail, if you've tried to ride on it or drive it. If this project goes forward, welre going to address with some private dollars a real problem out there on traffic, so it's a win-win for ev~rybody and we would ask that you support it, consistent with all the staff that recommends it to you. On behalf of the owner, if anyone has any questions, I'd be glad to try to respond. Thank you very much. MS. SEEL: Any questions for Mr. Cline? MR. CLINE: What? 25 MS. SEEL: I asked ifthey.had any questions. MR. PERGOLIZZI: Good morning. Robert Pergolizzi, Vice President, Transportation and Planning for Florida Design Consultants. Real quickly, I won't go through all the land use applications h~re, but I did want to add a few things regarding the transportation and that is, as you know, the Florida Department of Transportation is now constructing an interchange at:Drew Street and U.S. 19, and on the heels of that, within the next fiscal year, the Department of Transportation will be conducting grade-separated interchanges at northeast Coachman Road and at Sunset Point Road. That will result in, essentially, grade-separated interchanges from south of Gulf to Bay to north of State Route 580, which is a five;mile stretch with one at-grade signal at Enterprise Road. It is planned for a future interchange; however, it is unfunded. MS. SEEL: No, it is funded. MR. PERGOLIZZI: Now it is? MS. SEEL: ...19. MR. PERGOLIZZI: Oh it is. Okay. Great. I didn't know that; thank you. In addition, you know, the Department of Transportation has solved a serious accident problem with the channelization .of the median opening at First Avenue North and U.S. 19, and this connection of Chautauqua Avenue which, to answer your question, Commissioner Seel, is just about 2,000 feet east of U.S. 19, provides a fantastic outlet for the new residents of this project and the existing residents, who live out there now, to get to Enterprise so that they can proceed to U.S. 19 and south via a traffic light in a safe manner. If you have any questions for me-- MS. SEEL: Have you looked at the turning radius and the site visibility? Did you consider that in your-- ? MR. PERGOLIZZI: The particular location where--we haven't determined the exact location where we would intersect Enterpnse Road. It's about 2,000 feet east of 19. That is actually on a straight , section of Enterprise. It's east of the curve. I know exactly what you're talking about, where it curves around. It's well east of that, so we believe we'll be able to meet site 26 distance criteria as we develop and design this road for the City of Clearwater, essentially. MS. SEEL: Does anybody have any questions? Okay. Thank you. ~ All right. We'll move into the public hearing process at this point. Those who are proponents, if you'd like to come forward and speak. Would anybody like to speak in favor of this application? Okay. Any opponents who wish to speak? Okay. Please come forward and I have my little timer here, and it gives you three minute. Could you just identify yourself? MS. SIGNOR: Yes. My name is Gina Signor, and I represent the residents and I am a resident of this location at 2677 Third Avenue North in Clearwater. I'm in the area that is just north of this proposed site. I'm kind of the sacrificial lamb, because everybody elected me to go first to voice opposition, here. I just wanted to go on record as saying that I object to this proposal in its entirety. Please don't misconstrue that as being that I am in opposition to any development whatever of this area, it's just that we would prefer that it be developed within the current land use plan now, which is 2.5 units per acre, rather than doubling the density in this acreage. We also object to the proposed extension of Chautauqua Boulevard northward through the City-owned park and to connect with Enterprise Road because of the concern that it would also bring increased traffic. Not just from the townhome complex that is proposed just south of us, but also invite traffic to circumvent the congested intersection of Enterprise and U.S. 19 as commuters try to find other northerly routes or northeasterly routes to get home in the evenings. It has been inferred at other commission meetings that this would not be an issue but I respectfully suggest that it is because I do try-- I'm one of those commuters trying to come home in the evening and am frustrated by the backups of traffic from Enterprise Road and 19 southward to First Avenue, or past First A venue. So based on these-- and also too, that roadway that they're suggesting would practically or quite literally be in the backyard of one of my neighbors who has proposed that she will in turn erect a flamingo-pink fence to shield herself from the traffic that this roadway would bring right past her door and it's less than 100 feet from my doorway as well. I just respectfully, you know, beg your indulgence in this matter that you would look at the other ten households not just the two that voted in favor of this plan, but the other ten households who are in opposition to this plan as well. The two-- I guess I'll be stretching, I can't really-- never mind, I'm not gonna go there cause I don't wanna suppose what their motives might be. But I just don't 27 think it would serve the best interest of the immediate vicinity, the immediate homeowners that are there now. Thank you; that's it. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Next person please. GANGLEHOFF: Good morning. Brian Ganglehoff; 2678 Third Avenue North. Cut through traffic has been talked about and concerned and also factor that the office park at McCormack would potenti~lly have the use which is out towards 19 behind the houses off McCormack Drive. But, that snake trail as Mr. Cline so eloquently puts it as, I have to drive twice a day taking my daughter to school and I'm sure that we're not going to have any other farrlilies out there with kids that are going over to McMullen Booth ElemeJ?tary. The southern roadway still has to be a consideration at some point in time. I mean, it's nice that it can go out to the north but that's not how I'm getting over to McMullen BO'?th to take my daughter to school. She can't ride a bike. She can't walk; it's not safe. There's no way for her to go from there. Back on Union, you've got sidewalks and all the way from the end of the lake, those have sidewalks around from Regency and down tQ the school from there but we have no provisions for that to our area and that's what I had to say. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Next person who'd like to speak. CRUM: Hi. My name is Brenda Crum. We reside at 2684 Third Avenue North and I would respectfully. would like to ask you also for consideration to consider that our other neighbor spoke when-- although they've made the arrangement for the Enterprise Road connection, people will look for ways to get off of 19 and Enterprise; that happens now and we see that often. So sometimes there is a backlog of traffic although they've done the study, we live there so we can see it daily as to what happens when maybe there is an accident on 19, although they've made the change where now you have to venture north once you turn off of First Avenue but they're not considering the continuous onset of traffic from the various businesses there on 19, so it causes accidents because when you're heading north, there's constant traffic coming out of the businesses. So, they aren't patient wanting to get on so it causes accidents. So it creates a backlog of traffic for us and if we're trying to right now get out either heading as he mentioned the snake trail, it makes it difficult to get that way because more people have found that snake trail to use or even to get on to 19 from First Avenue it takes much longer to get off of First Avenue onto 19. Also, we're concerned because my house backs up to that Fourth Avenue. So if they put the street there, we would be concerned with the traffic behind us and we would 28 really be concerned about a buffer because we would hear the noise of the traffic. Enterprise Road is somewhat busy and there is a concern for us. So we'd like for you to give that really great consideration and with the density being increased from 2.5 to 5 that would indeed increase the traffic and we'd just like for you to give that consideration, please. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Next speaker please. SUTTON: How you doing? I'm Don Sutton. I live at 2693 Third A venue North in Clearwater. We've-- I kind of see this in black and white with the things all about money. We all know it's about money. The developer, we're not mad at him. He wants to do his job. He wants to be a developer. We're not mad at Mr. Cline; he's doing what Mr. Dimmitt tells him to do and say. We live out there. We have a beautiful area. We all boughf large homes out there. What they're proposing is to blow a road out through a park to accommodate a developer and the city's all for that of course because it's gonna increase their revenue base and you know we can't blame the city for that. That's what they do as well. We live out there and this road that there are proposed to go to Enterprise will obviously allow trucks and buses to come through a very quite neighborhood. You've been out there and I know you've been out there, I know. It's birds and, you know, animals and things out there. It's not a bunch of traffic so we are asking you to-- obviously the PPC denied this once and they denied it for three reasons. Those three reasons were n~ver overcome. There's never been a site plan here; they have a concept, they donlt have a site plan. We don't know what he's gonna build out there, could be anything. We're asking you to deny this. We've been through this for almost a year now. We1ve spent about twenty grand in attorney's fees and we've fought as hard as we can fight. We're asking you guys to stand up for us and stop this thing. It's a beautiful area. It's one of the lEist pristine areas in Pinellas County and we don't want development out-- it's two and one-half units per acre, if they wanna develop it at that, fine; that's what it is. To the north and south it's two and one-half units per acre; there's talk about dividing that area and doubling the density and adding! all this traffic. So if you could please just do this for us we would really appreciate it. We work very hard to stop this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak, please? Come forward if you wish to speak, otherwise I'm going to close the public hearing. Anyone else wish to speak in opposition of this project? Okay, then the public hearing is closed. The applicant, do you have anything that you wish to provide in summary? 29 TARAP ANI: Two things; I found my map, I think this will be a little easier. This shows you the kind of overall area. I'm gonna cut off Enterprise on the north so you can see all the way down to the south. Again, here is the site. Here's U.S. 19. The access is a very meandering ac~ess today. Along Third Avenue, down and around, Second Street down to Union, across Union down.. . cross to Sunset Point I think it's unrealistic to expect that someone is going to find that cut-through with the status that those roads are in to be a viable alternative to U.S. 19 and I know we all get exasperated at U.S. 19 at some point However, look at the map and those of you who have been out to the area, as I'm sure many of you have, the roads themselves are not up to standard; no one is going to find that a viable cut through. Will there some people in this area, the residents to the south and the residents to the north that use the new road, well I certainly hope so. I hope that it would be goqd for them as well. And will we build it-- we have already committed and the commission has put it on the record for it to be a park-like road. For it to use traffic calming measures so that it will not, you know, encourage cut through traffic for that portion of it and that portion that we control through the design. I don't think there's anything else to say with regard to the traffic issues it, you know, we are the most developed county in state. Why has this site remained undeveloped for some time, there's some obvious reasons. It has some kind of negative site characteristics. There's no doubt about it. Those are things that you cannot change. There is a live developer willing to take that on to provide housing. Will he make money at it, maybe he will, maybe he won't There are' developers who go both ways. But honestly why is the developer doing what he's doing? It's because people want to come to Pinellas County. And they want to live here; and we want them to live in Clearwater. And I know you do too, in Pinellas County. Be happy to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Yes, Commissioner Welch. WELCH: Again, restate what the current density is and what the proposed density is. T ARAP ANI: The current density is two and one-half units per acre. The proposed density is five units per acre. It's an increase of 46, if you maxed it out, not based on site plan or anything, if , you maxed out under the current, it would be 46 units; on the proposed it would be 90. WELCH: If you developed under the current density, would the road extension still be required? 30 TARAP ANI: Well there w~ll be some traffic mitigation required. What that is and whether the developer is gonna be inclined at a much lower density to contribute fifty percent of the project, I honestly don't know. We have not had that discussion with him. WELCH: I'm not really; focusing on the cost but the need for the road, the mitigation under the current density. If was fully developed under the current density, would you still need to develop that road; that alternative access. TARAP ANI: Well, some traffic mitigation will have to be done. I think the issue again-- I you donlt wanna talk about dollars but it is partly an issue of dollars because the impact fees that the city's portioI1 of the impact fees will not pay for either proposal, north or south. The County so far 'has not been inclined to contribute any or a portion of their share of the impact fees to improve the County's roads to the south. So what is the City to do? And the developer with this proposal has committed half of the cost and the city, you know, although not a I capital project, agreed to fund the other half. Whether or not he would do that at the smaller number of units whether-- I honestly don't know. WELCH: Okay. I'll let your statement about the Co~ntyls unwillingness to improve the roads pass. . . thank you. (laughter) T ARAP ANI: Well, unless someone wants to contradict me, 1-- any other questions? CHAIRMAN: Any other questions.. . okay. T ARAP ANI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Brian, I do have some questions on your recommendations. You mentioned that there should be provisions to minimized the character change to area and the long term concurrency policies. Could you explain how the long term concurrency policy would apply td this, if it would? SMITH: Yes. Right now that's a county policy, that isn't a city policy. They have a standard concurrency program. But we did check this against the County program; if it was in the County. And this range of U.S. 19 has trips that go from about 74,000 a day to 82,000 a day in that segment from Sunset Point to Enterprise. And the current trip level ri~ht now is 79,000 so it falls within that so therefore, it's an acceptable within the range for long 31 term concurrency.. .more a matter of how they treat the project to make sure that they, you know, do the mitigations as called for. So this particular project wouldn't have been an issue of concurrency, it was just to make sure they were following it. CHAIRMAN: Okay. How about the minimizing the character, what did you mean by that? SMITH: That.. . almost operates to be honest at the site plan level. It's when they design the project to make sure it's compatible in terms of appearance and that sort of thing. Also the idea of doing the traffic calming and sort of minimizing the impact on the community. That's what we :were talking about there. CHAIRMAN: Can we require that? SMITH: No, but this was some-- we couldn't require it, it's more just a tie to the case-- approval with or withoutit. CHAIRMAN: Ahight, any questio~s for Brian? At this point, does anybody have any further questions or discussion? I just wanna mention that, you know, I think we're setting precedent here. That once you start towards going from a single family home in that kind of zoning, that you will see further applications coming back for multi family and higher density. TODD: And I have to concur with you. I have a problem with this particular application for that very reason. It doesn't comport with the other development in the area at all. LA TV ALA: I agree with that. The idea of the road is a great help but it-- I'm not gonna support the increased density. CHAIRMAN: I just think, you know, you look and when we do our zoning cases, we usually look towards the cO!llpatibility within the neighborhood and this is changing that entire neighborhood towards a different density and a type of construction. You know, you're going to multi family rather than single family homes. It's a beautiful area. LATVALA: It is. CHAIRMAN: Any other comments or a motion? This would require, since it has ppe approval, we would have to if you want to deny it, would require a super majority. 32 " LATVALA: I move to deny the recommendation. TODD: Second. CHAIRMAN: All those in favor say aye. (response) Anyopposed? It's denied. Alright thank you very much. Moving on to case CW 03-23. -' 33 '" ()tl1 ~ ~ ~. /11 (18 '\. \ . r ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER that was there that we are willing to give you a little bit of a fudge factor but this is not granting you 130 feet; that is, the faGt that the medium density designation has absolutely no variance availability to it and no way to exceed that 50 feet and what they are looking at could possibly have an additional six to eight feet w~ felt like it was prudent to give them the high density especially with the proliferation as you see the already existing high density designation in the area. HACKWORTH: Just to follow up on the, the current use is commercial general and you mentioned that the intensity there could be hotel; I mean if it was redeveloped. Is it your representation that the commercial general intensity would be higher than a possible residential high? GINA: I think when you look at the traffic generation rates of commercial uses that in fact is true and we believe that from a maximum development potential a residential land use category would reduce tr~ffic impacts. JACKSON: I have to say this, and I appreciate what Commr. Hamilton said, but the fact is once you rezone that to high density, it is hard pressed to limit what people do in that category ~d we have seen that in past action of this Council where we have approved things with the idea of a certain concept planned and that concept plan is evaporated and changed so I think medium would protect the height for the abutting property owners. GINA: If! could, I really would like with all due respect I would like this Council to consider the density, the height is really a local matter that has been decided by our local city commission. What we are here asking you for is residential high land use category and we believe that it is compatible with the land use category that exists currently on Island Estates. JACKSON: ~ , Then I have to votle against it because I do not believe it is compatible because of the implication of th'e zoning and if this deal fell through and you wanted to go back to the medium density for another development you then have to pay a premium to the developer, the owner because it is down zoned. It is important to this Council to consider the implications of the land use plan that is before them. CHAIRMAN: Will they have a requirement height in their cities. They cannot go any higher than 55 or 60 feet; whatever your height is, right? 19 ,-' " ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER HEALEY: . There is some confusion I think. There are two 'separate classifications that the city will apply to the p_rorerty. One is the land use plan classification which will be residential high; that is what they are asking us to amend our plan to comport to their amendment; and that is all we deal with is the plan classification but at the city level, the county level as you all know, in addition to the plan category there is a zoni_ng designation. I think part of the confusion here has been your two classifications are residential medium high and residential high for the zoning- GINA: Oh, high density residential and medium high density- HEALEY: That governs primarily the height. Both would allow the density that is being proposed under the residential high plan category but it would speak to the permitted height of the building and' as Gina has conveyed and it is accurate, our decision here today is whether residential high plan category is appropriate. The details then of the building height, setbacks, all of the compatibilitY issues with'respect to the site plan, parking layout, are all functions of the local zoning code 'and that is properly left to them to decide what works best on that site. Having said that, I do not disagree with Mayor Jackson. If you approve residential high and they later seek a zoning change or more latitude under the higher zoning classification, that is an issue that is left to the city and would not come back to the Council here to arbitrate or have a say in so as long as we understand that; that is the proper division of roles that we have always subscribed to. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions of Gina? (No). I need a motion to accept or deny HARRlS: DJ- Move approval of the recommendationlHackworth. Passes 11 to 1 with Mayor Jackson dissenting. CHAIRMAN: Case No. 10, CW03-22, City of Clearwater. HEALEY: Let me take a minute to explain a little bit of background on this while Theresa comes up and will highlight the issue for you. It is a request for amendment from Clearwater, from residential suburban with some preservation and water drainage feature to residential low; basically 2.5 units an acre to five units an acre for the residential portion of the property. It 20 , ~ >- , .~ . ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER is an amendment that Council considered previously back in September 2002 and by a vote of 6 to 5 you had: recommended denial of the amendment. It went to the BCC as the CPA in October and at the City of Clearwater's request for a continuance, it was continued for the specific purpose of allowing Clearwater to develop additional information, to work with the applicant, and to remand it to the council for additional consideration or reconsideration so it is an amendment that was previously here and before you that you did take action on. Clearwater has requested that you reconsider it. I recommend to you that you do hear the reconsideration and take whatever action you determine appropriate. Theresa will repeat some of the background information just to remind everybody where it is and what was that issue. . You do have some considerable backup materials here that I would refer you to. We included all of the information from the original case, Case 02-39 so you can go back to it. We included in your backup the minutes from both your meeting in September and the CPA meeting in October as well as the letter of transmittal remanding it back to the Council from the County Commission Chairman Todd at the time. Does the Council have any questions about the process. It is different than the normal case that comes to you in that I have not as your staff ma~e a separate recommendation. Weare asking you to reconsider the amendment on its merits with whatever new or different information Clearwater chooses to bring forward that would persuade you to do differently than you did before. BEVERLAND: We made our rec~mmendation by our vote. We sent it to the BCC; why they did not make their decision, I do not know. They should have made their decision there. I do not understand why they sent it back to us; that does not make any sense to me. They had their reasons; that is fine. HARRIS: There have been times when the applicant asked for reconsideration and we do that. - BEVERLAND: I understanq. that. HEALEY: It was based on Clearwater's request that it be continued. BEVERLAND: I understand that too. We sent this by a 6 to 5 vote; we told the applicant to make agreements either to the BCC or make agreements with the citizens out there. We went through this and I am going to tell you right now. If they have not made some agreement with those citizens out there, I am going to vote the same way I did before. If they come 21 '- ../ . ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER back with som~ kind of small concoction about the street, I do not care about the street; I care about the citizens out there. I would, which I am not going to do, just as soon make a motion to send it back to the BCC but I am going to make myself very plain here. It should not have come back to us but it has and I am going to vote the same way I did before unless they made some kind of conditions with those citizens out there. HEALEY: Mayor you hav~ reminded me of one additional piece of information that I should have brought to your attention too. ' There is a letter from the attorney, Mr. Figurski, who represented the adjoining property owners previously in your backup requesting a continuance. When Mr. Figurski made that request of me I told him it was not up to staff to recommend a continuance; that really Clearwater here is the applicant; the request for continuance should be made through Clearwater as the applicant; that mayor may not be requested of you specifically this morning but I wanted to at least refer to Mr. Figurski's letter so that you could see it and know about it in the backup materials. CHAIRMAN: I need to have a motion to either continue this or not to continue. No point in going into all this dialogue if we are not going to - DIDONATO: We have not heard anything that is different. : CHAIRMAN We do not know if anything is different until they bring it forward. DIDONATO: I would like to hear it first. FOSTER: Procedurally a motion from the affirmative side before I guess to reconsider is that what we are looking at doing? Do we need a super majority to do that? HEALEY: I do not think so because technically under our rules and Jewel and I have conferred on this, the Roberts Rules of Order, we can technically reconsideration has to come at the same meeting from a person in the majority on the majority side of the decision so technically it is not a reconsidered action; it was continued and referred back to us is probably the proper term by the CP A requesting that we rehear the case specifically any additional information that Clearwater would bring forward that we did not hear before. 22 ~ '- . ROUGH VERBAT~M TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M.:- CAROL JONES, ,BOARD REPORTER FOSTER: Now is there a new application out there? HEALEY: They submitted a new application and we have given it a new application number; we have related it to the old one so that you could see both. Whatever additional information they submitted as part of that is here and I do not know that the details of what; really is nothing specific other:than the application form that is different that before. I understand they have information they want to convey to you that is different than previously. FOSTER: I want to make sure I understand. Have they gone through the processes with a new application or are we going to have to _ HEALEY: There is a new application; they have filed a new application to _ FOSTER: Brand new so it is not a reconsideration but is a _ HEALEY: I guess it is a matter of semantics; it is a resubmission of the prior case. Do we agree it is a resubmission of a prior case that has not been concluded. THERESA: This is 22.18 acres in the City of Clearwater on the east side of Chataugua Avenue (refers to maps). Vacant site. Application IS to change the density from residential suburban at 2.5 uni~s pe~ acre to residential low at five units an acre. FOSTER:: We did not address the continuance and rather than hear this entire case, if this Council is leaning towards a contiuance because the OPposition attorney was not prepared or is not here to hear this, shouldn't we vote on that? Someone is asking for a continuous. The opposition is not here; rather than hear this presentation and then consider a continuance which we may or may not grant and do this whole tIling over again. Shouldn't we dispense with the continuation- HARRIS: I thought the applicant had to ask for a continuance. HAMILTON: The attorney is not here- 23 ../ . ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER FOSTER: But he submitted a request in writing- HAMILTON: The attorney is not here because of personal reasons and he is out of town. There are other attorneys in his office that could be here to represent him and the city of Clearwater as the applicant sees no reason to continue the item. The residents are here to speak; they can speak. We havy the information from the attorney in writing. Someone from his office could have been here. FOSTER: As a matter of equity and granted the applicant is not asking for a continuance but as a matter of equity and the fact that we based our decision in great part on the opposition's position. I am going to move we continue this to our next meeting. BEVERLAND SECONDS . DIDONATO: This has been going on at least since September and how much time does somebody need to get ready first of all and second of all I think you do have to honor the applicant and the applicant is not requesting us to do that and I think we have an obligation to at least hear what it is they are trying to get to us. Here we are shutting them down and not even giving them a chance to do that. I am not comfortable with it and I think we should agree to hear the applicant's case. HARRIS: The applicant really made all kinds of concessions to listen to the concerns and that was why the continuation was requested from the County Commission and at this point the applicant has done what we asked him to do and I think it is up to us, it behooves us to listen to them. BENGSTON: I concur wholeheartedly. I think we owe the City of Clearwater the application the chance to hear their case, now, today. GALLUCCI: I concur also. I believe that these people have taken their time also; made different arrangements to be here today because they have been given notice and I would dare say that some of them probably have taken time off from work to be here so I think in courtesy to them and giving property notice to all parties that they are here to speak and give us their reasons why or why not it should happen. 24 " ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19103 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER JACKSON: You said it is a new application; went back through; did it go back through the public hearing process at Clearwater since it was brought to us before? Has it gone back through the same process it went through originally that gives the people a chance to look at the new information. HEALEY: I do not believe it has but Cyndi can answer that more completely but I do not believe it needed to or did go back to Clearwater. They approved it at first reading and then it moved to our forum and it was our action here that caused the additional discussion between the adjo~ng property owners, the applicant and apparently a contract purchaser so I do not believe there was either any cause or reason to go back to the City. JACKSON: Like Mayor Beverla~d said we are dealing with the same thing we dealt with in October. (lots of voices talking at once) CHAIRMAN: I would like t,o call the question? The motion is to reconsider for this month- no the motion would be to continue this case for one month. Fails 2;-10. HACKWORTH: This happened on September 18, I am appreciative that we did not continue it because I was not on the council on September 18 and the way this is going I may not be on the Council when you finally hear it so the question I have though is you had a staff recommendation on september 18, 2002 and it was denial? HEALEY: The staff reco~endation was to approve the amendment with certain conditions. The Council in fact denied the- HACKWORTH: And you have a PAC recommendation to approve (yes). Now we currently have a PAC recommendation to approve but we do not have a staff recommendation. HEALEY: That is correct. HACKWORTH: Does your previous staff recommendation stand? HEALEY: 25 " ROUGH VERBA TJM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER It stands but I would simply qualifY further or explain that Commissioner with respect to obviously we have a set of information that we review the case on and make a recommendation to you. There was considerable testimony from adjoining property owners and from the attorney representing them at the hearing that I think weighed heavily in the Council's decision and I did not think it appropriate for me to make a countervailing recommendation when in fact I have no additional information in front of me that would cause me to either change or reaffirm my earlier recommendation. THERESA: On September 18, 2002 it came before the PPC; at that time staff recommended approval; the PPC recommended denial by 6 to 5 and in your packet, exhibit 1, ..... . Findings by the Council at that meeting which found that it was not consistent with the rules for the residential low category; that it would impact the transportation system; and that it is adjacent to Pinellas County and could possibly have a negative impacts on the unincorporated County. When it went to the CP A, the City requested a continuation so that they could work out some of these issue and the CP A allowed them to do that by a vote of 4 to 3. What is different according to what the city has submitted to us and there is a copy of some of these items in the packet as well. On March 6 the City approved funding to extend Chataugua Avenue north to Enterprise so (refers to an aerial) and according to the City they have some different configurations that they are considering but that is the basis of Clearwater's revised application. It was approved by the City Commission on ... and on March 10 the PAC recommended approval subject to these traffic improvements. The basic application stays the same, the request to go to rl while maintaining the water drainage feature and preservation categories remains the same. I also have photographs of the site for the members who were not at that meeting at that time but in the interest of what I am hearing as far as what your concerns are. GALLUCCI: Are you saying that original findings it was the amended area would impact Highway 19 because all of the traffic would go in and out that way but by Clearwater amending their roads so that they are cutting through to Enterprise that would take away? THERESA: We have not found that; that is what Clearwater is submitting to you and they can present that more. They feel that is addressing the Council's finding at that time in September. GALLUCCI: And what is your _ 26 ROUGH VERBATIM,TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - ~AROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER HACKWORTH: i But again it is Just that extension. There is no other provision in your traffic management proposal that addresses traffic. PERGO: The only other provisions in our transportation management plan that addresses traffic is the fact that there is currently construction of interchanges on US 19 at Drew Street and funding for construction in the next fiscal year by the way 02/03 for two additional interchanges on US 19. HAMILTON: Bob can you in your traffic study, traffic counts of town houses of five units per acre versus trip counts versus single family homes; that was done. PERGO: Virtually identical. ~orty six single family lots which could be developed on this property right now under residential suburban generates the same amount of traffic as 90 town homes. In fact, I do have the statistics. I was kind of rushing through before but now that you have asked the question, I will elaborate. Single family attached town homes, 90 of them would generate 527 daily trips of which 49 would occur during the pm peak hour and of those 49 only a portion would use US 19 so I am submitting that the amount of traffic that would use US 19 would be!hardly recognizable. HACKWORTH: And that is based on a kind of a standard designation that says a town house generates less traffic than a sin~le family residence. PERGO: Yes that is the In~titute of Transportation Engineers' sixth addition which are trip generation rates that we use for all of the traffic reports that we do. HACKWORTH: And do you know that the difference is? PERGO: Yeh. A single family home generates approximately ten trips a day; a town home generates approximately six trips a day and on a pm peak hour basis the ratio is one trip for a single family detached home and Y2 trip per unit for attached town home. HACKWORTH: And what is the, have you got to the point with Ruttland Homes that you know the size of the proposed town homes. 39 ., .. ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAAOL JONES, BOARD REPORTER PERGO: I do not know iq can answer that. I would need to talk with Mike. We know that the town homes would be two story buildings, constructed in accordance to city code. HACKWORTH: The reason I ask is because I have heard that differentiation between a town home and a house a lot in my city and elsewhere and it seems to me that a lot depends on whether you are building 2,000 sf single family residence or whether you are developing a 4,000 sf town house. If you are developing a 4,000 sftown house then I do not buy that there is less traffic generation. There is probably going to be a two to three car garage and more inhabitants of the structure so I:wouldjust like to, I understand the standard number and that is probably what we have to use but I would like to hear, it would be helpful to me to hear conceptually what they are thillking of size of town homes there. GALLUCCI: Can you tell me what kind of traffic is generated by those commercial properties, Dimmit Chevrolet, the cadillac property and the shopping center on a daily basis. PERGO: Without knowing the square footage of them I could not calculate the statistics. I know it is tremendous; it 'is a tremendous amount of traffic. GALLUCCI: In and out of Dimmit Service Center. PERGO: In and out ofDimmit service center and I understand the roads behind the service center are used to test drive vehicles as they are repairing them and preparing them to get back to their customers. The City of Clearwater actually did traffic counts on Chat ave and I believe there were just around .J,OOO trips a day using Chat Ave. MIKE ROLENBACHER, ROTTLUND HOMES: The question at hand was the size the units would be. I have a rendering of the actual building. This is:the rendering of the outside of the structure. I am currently building the same exact product on ther comer of Virginia and Keene in Dunedin. The inside units are 1740 sf and the outside units are 1970 sf. Two bedroom. HARRY CLINE: We represent the land owner, the Dimmits and if you recall I came here back in whenever it was and there were concerns here one of which being we did not have a developer and everything was conceptual so you see what we did. We went out and contracted to Rottland 40 ROUGH VERBATIM iTRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER and they are really naw in the driver's seat but let me say it seems to. me that they did what yau asked themus to. do. at that paint. They have, I think successfully, dealt with the traffic situatian that cQncerned this baard back whenever. Two., they met with the neighbarhaad and nat everybady aut there is in appasitian. I have a letter I will leave with the Clerk; they have never have been to. the extent yau believe that is misnamer. Here is a letter fram Carltan Ward who. represented two. families aut there back in June when the ariginal applicatian was 7.5 units which staff supparted and it was dawnzaned palitically to. five and at that paint thyse two. families said they supparted aur proj~ct sa it is nat upiversally appased aut there and as a result af the neighbarhaad meeting I believe that ather falks are naw in agreement based upan representatians that the develapers are making. That remains to. be seen. Relative to. what is befare yau the glabal issue is this appropriate land use plan changes. We submit it is because af the transitianal situatian this property is in. Every property shauld be loaked at laaking aut and say what is fair in its use and we have a 1,000 feet af cammerqial frantage and the ather side we have gat single family. This is ideal transitianallandiuse planning. It is what zaning and land use is all abaut; it is gradatian in and gradatian aut sa yau do. nat have these precipices af canflict af intensity af use sa I think that in itself supparts this. I ask yau to. suppart it. The traffic I submit has been mitigated to. the satisfactian afClearwater and I hape yo.u and I ask yo.u to. approve it. All staff brings it to. yo.u with reco.mmendatians o.f approval. BEVERLAND: Transitianalo.fwhat. CLINE: Transitian to. caJ1U11ercial. Lao.k at that map. This is aver 1,000 feet o.ffro.ntage that is an intense cammercial usage and it has gat single family up here and single family here. TIris property is appropriate far a stage in ar step into. single family simply because 2.5 units and five units per acr~ are regarded as campatible. Single family besides cammercial generally is nat fram a planning standpaint. BEVERLAND: Wauld no.t also. 2.5 units an acre be a gao.d transitio.nal zo.ning. CLINE: I am no.t a Planner Mayo.r. Yo.u have heard the planners and the professio.nal staff suppo.rt this and they are saying this is gaad land use and zo.ning. They wauld nat do. it o.therwise. They think it is' mare appropriate far transitio.n. Yo.u generally do. no.t want to. have cammercial and a single family hause next daar; they do. nat generally work well together. 41 ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER BEVERLAND: I am having a problem here with the word transitional. Transitional from where they sell the , cars to the lake; is that what we are talking about as transitional. CLINE: Well it is into this zone but I am talking about abutting this property commercial. It is not appropriate to have single family. On the other hand abutting single family up here with , townhomes at this density level is not inconsistent. This is a good bridge between. There is nothing wroiIg with having these townhouses five units per acre from a planning standpoint next door to single family but the lake happens to be here but where are usage is single family here, and single family here. ED HOOPER, I am here on behalf of the builder and the land owner: It is a shame that some projects have greater term limits th~ some of you sitting there will enjoy but so be it. I have been involved in the project since day one and have seen it go from a 7.5 unit per acre request to what it is today at five units per acre and I followed that process very carefully at the city level, this level, and the county level. I was also in attendance at the neighborhood meeting that was referenced earlier. The most points that I want to get across to you; most of them have been covered by the experts in this arena. What was interesting is that at the neighborhood meeting I did sit in the back of the room with the surrounding residents and some of them finally understand and you are going to hear after our presentation~ I am sure every horror story known to mankind. Some finally looking at a proposed site plan and a proposed site plan of what 46 single family homes on that property would do if they got it. There is more greenspace and open space with the clustering effect of 90 units than there is with ~ acre homesites everyone having a pool so now you got 46 swimming pools. One statement was even made some of these people might have kids and they will be in the pool making noise; yeh they might. I hope all of them have kids. It is interesting, Mayor Beverland rais~d the question of the vote in Clearwater; it is interesting as we sit here today one of the two that voted against this project has now become what I think is the leading proponent in Clearwater of transitional zoning; appropriate buffers between two very different zones. If this was before his today I am not sure his vote would still be no, I will not speak for that gentleman but he is now understood that transitional zoning is in the right place a very appropriate consideration in any decision you have to make. It has not been mentioned here that the cut through traffic concern you will hear after me, please understand from the northern most portion of the Dimmit Chev property, First Avenue, if there is concern about the new road going out to Lake Chat out to Enterprise 42 ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRlPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER Road for cut through traffic, stuck in northbound US 19 traffic, about ten feet from that exit on First Avenue is a continuous right turn lane all the way to Enterprise Road; that is the most expedient way if somebody wants to cut off on Enterprise Road not through neighborhood and park land. Commr. Hackworth and it was not presented here today this proposed road but to Enterprise is going to go through a city park. At the city commission meeting it was, even offered that this is probably going to be north Clearwater's new dog park and any of you that are familiar with Clearwater Parks understand Clearwater does not just mow the grass in their parks, our parks have sidewalks; we have amenities and I think if it is going t9 be a heavily used, heavily successful new dog park, they will have the pedestrian means of comfort and passage that we expect of all the parks in Clearwater. My closing cornrne!it and I hope he does not take this personal, Mayor Beverland I like you. I am disappointe4 that any public official would declare what his vote is going to be before he hears the testimony and the public input but I still like you. (discussion ensued regarding allowing questions to be posed to Mr. Hooper) BEVERLAND: I keep hearing this word transitional and you say it is a great transition~l piece of land between residential and residential; what is wrong with leaving it all residential? That is a better transition. HOOPER: It is all transitional Mayor. Nobody is asking you for a change from residential to anything but that. Residential low as a matter of fact. BEVERLAND: Okay suburban.: HOOPER: It is still residential low. etc etc etc. JACKSON: I would submit that if you 2.5 units per acre you would adequate buffering between that but I am sick ofheapng about transitional because all you are looking at is east and west. Tell me about your transitional north and south when you estates north and south and you are telling me that is transition to go form 2.5 to five to 2.5. It is convenient for people when they are asking for land use plans to be myopic and say east and west transitional, 60 units per acre would be a good transition between a commercial and a lake, you talk about 43 ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PL~G COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER transition but you got to look at all four sides of it. You have to look at the north and south I and say is that a transitiqn and do not just give us half the pie, look at the whole picture. HOOPER: I believe that this time we have looked at the whole picture and trying to do what is best for what is offered: We may disagree- JACKSON: Throw out the ""ord transitional, use some other argument other than say it is a transition because it is not a transition for those that are north and south. HOOPER: I will substitute. better. BENGSTON: You mentioned a minute ago, you came out First Avenue and went north on US 19, short way up the road ther~ is a road that goes to the right; that goes right back to Enterprise so the builder, the developer, the city has seen fit to add another way to get to Enterprise, is the developer paying a majority of the costs of that road? HOOPER: The road going out to Ent~rprise Road? My belief is the developer is paying exactly half. GALLUCCI: Oh no Mr. Hooper you cannot go yet. I would like the question answered what can Mr. Dimmit do with the property now ifhe wanted to? Can he park cars on it? HOOPER: I am not qualified to answer that. CHAIRMAN: He is not the guy we should be drilling. GALLUCCI: I would like the answer to my question because it keeps coming up with transitional and people not liking the word transitional. I would like to know what Mr. Dimmit can legally do with the prop:erty now? CHAIRMAN: You will have to ask the applicant and not the guy who is in favor of the project. CLAYTON: Currently the property allows 2.5 units per acre. I am not really sure of all the uses that the county would allow them to do because cUlTently this still has county zoning on it. If it were 44 ~ ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNfNG COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - ~AROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER in the city und~r the current land use designation, its zoning would allow single family homes but I really cannot say definitely about zoning because it is zoned in the county. CHAIRMAN: I think the question was what could Dimmit do with their piece of property if it is not approved today. Could they park cars on it? CLAYTON: I do not believ~ under the zoning district that we would give under the our low density residential that tlIey could park cars but ifthis was approved potentially they could through a public hearing process. JEWEL WHITE COLE, ATTY: One of the things I do with the county is zoning, code enforcement in particular and I can tell you that if the property as zoned in the county carries a residential zoning, Mr. Dimmit would not pe aBle to park cars there; that would be considered a commercial use and that is something we routinely discuss with people and in a code enforcement arena. It would be considered sales, storage, it could be considered any number of things, all of which would be commercial and it would not be allowed. If it is a residential zoning, he would be limited to whatever density is provided by the zoning. OPPOSITION: DON SUTTON, THIRD A VB NORTH, CLEARWATER: Thomas C. Signor, Clearwater Linda L. Gangelhoff, Clearwater Brian D. Gangelhoff, Clearwater Charles C. Carter, Clearwater Steve McConihay, Clearwater Maryann Carter, " Marsha Silvera, Clearwater Donna Silvera, Clearwater Raymond Baker, St. Petersburg PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED REBUTTAL 45 (~ .. ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - <;:AROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER CYNDI TARAPANI, :pLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: I want to clarify a couple of things. First of all we are here back before you and spending a much higher l~vel of discussion on this plan amendment than any plan amendment that you would in your city or in the county and that is because the BCC was concerned about some things that normally would be reviewed at the site pl~ review level. We agreed and the developer agreed to try and work those issues out and that is what we have been doing for the last four or five months. Again the compatibility issues are site plan issues. The developer does have a contract purchaser, does have a proposed site plan; it is not binding, we are not suggesting that it is but just for illustrative purposes with the neighbors and they were not interested. At least some of them were not, some were. Traffic mitigation was the second issue and I would like to point out a couple of things about the road system. As you can see on the aerial there and from the plat maps there are a lot of paper streets in this area. By that I mean toads that are dedicated public right of way and not constructed. Second A venue is built, 'Third Avenue is built, Fourth is built just as a little driveway. Chat ends somewhere between 'Third and Fourth but there are other paper roads in this area, 'Third being one, the rest of Third and there is an additional road system in here. Chat Avenue actually was a right of way and was vacated some time ago so these are all the public road systems and I keep hearing as though this road system is something nobody else is ever allowed to drive on but it is public road system. The developer's portion of the number of trips that his project would put on this extended road Chat Avenue is in the 15 to 25 percent range and it is obviously a little bit of a art program because you cannot,exactly anticipate because there ar~ no trips out there yet. He is committed to pay 50 percent of the cost of that road without knowing the exact costs of the road. Ware estimating it at between $350 and $375,000. He has committed to the City Commission to pay half whether it is him or whatever other developer that chooses to do that. We thought that was going above and beyond to solve the traffic issue. As it has been pointed out many, many times the road system to the sOllth goes through the County; it is an extremely winding meandering road and quite a long distance frankly to get down to Sunset Point. We all felt that the planning staff and the engineering staff that Chat as a more direct route to Enterprise and which quickly and safely as your Director has pointed out to you gets you to Enterprise and then to US 19 is a much preferred alternative. Again, the developer is paying half of that which is much more at least two times his obligation. We are the most intensely developed county in the State of Florida and if you look at this property they are next to several car dealers, they are within striking distance, certainly walking distance of several shopping centers and 46 .) '" ROUGH VERBATIM :TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - ~AROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER they are within a mile of a regional mall. I think it behooves us as policy makers to look at the overall pictUre and what might be the best use for that property. It set vacant for sometime because it does have those site constraints. 1 mean the other folks that are here today are much removed from some of those negative aspects although they do have to pass by them on their way in; this site is right up next to a car dealership and right up next to commercial uses that back onto US 19. Unfortunately the back end of commercial uses are generally not th~ir best end and so that presents a site constraint. The proposed use is still residential. I keep hearing this whole talk about transition; there is no transition needed because it is the same use. It is residential; it is people who are going to live in those houses just like the people who live there today. Again, when the city staff looked at it and the city commission we;felt that there should be a balance and I know you all look at this issue in your cities every single day, you have to balance existing property owners and their rights and a property owne~ with a new use. We tried to do that with, and the city commission reduced the density from 7.5 as requested down to 5; everywhere else around it to the north and south it is 2.5 and on the west you have the most intense commercial corridor in the entire county. We tried to balance all those; we felt like this was a good compromise with all those constraints and we do recommend approval. BEVERLAND: Would you point out the park area. (she does) Can you tell me what the original plans of the city were fot that park area? T ARAP ANI: We land bank like many cities would do for park lands. We have an open space fee that allows us to purchase.property; this is on the very long range plan because we did not have funding for it and the recent parks' plan in the last six months or so determined in the north part of the city we prefer to have a dog park. BEV: So there is priml;lrily a park for the City of Clearwater? TARA: The property was purchased as a park, it has the open space and recreation plan categories; it is intended to be some sort of park; it has only been in the last six months when the master plan was done that it was determined that a dog park in this area will be appropriate. It was never decided that this would be the dog park until fairly recently so it is a park land. 47 \> " i ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER BEVERLAND: Could you direct your pencil where the proposed road is going to go? TAMP: Exact dimensions are not shown but the idea is as you can kind of see it from the aerial, it is not great, there is a wetland here, there is a wetland that is here so the idea would be to wind the road in that general vicinity, again, just corning up from the existing right of way and curving it through for two reasons as been pointed out. One, to avoid the wetlands and not to have any ~itigation to those and then secondly to have that road by its very design function as a traffic calm road. BEV: So you are going to put a road right through your park. It has been brought up that there is a possibility that Dimmitt is going to use that road; there is a possibility that the shopping center can go into that road which there is the possibility that road is going to be a major road to Enterprise. Is that correct? TARAP: I do not know what you mean by a major road. It is two blocks long so I would not really call it a major road. BEV: Lets say it is going to be a road that a lot of people are going to use to get to Enterprise, how is that. T ARAP: How do you define a lot? Will some people use it? Sure the people that are there I would expect will use it. DECESARE: Will that Chat Road be built if this is denied? T ARAP: It will be built at some time. Until this developer carne forward, we did not have any funding but the ,commission determined the funding that they would pay half and the developer would' pay half DECESARE: That did not answer the question. If this was denied, you would not build until another developer is that it? T ARAP: We probably would not. 48 . ROUGH VERBATIM!TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNIl'fG COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER CHAIRMAN: - The only ingress and egress is through this development, you cannot get in it through Enterprise? TARAP: You cannot currently approach the site, only through, from 19 and all on First Avenue. CHAIRMAN: So if anybody wants to use the park has got to go through the development to get to the park right now the way it stands. HAMILTON: It is n~t a park right now. Right now it is just open space. TARAP: That is the use we are contemplating. It seems with the success of the Crest Lake Park, the dog park that opened recently and the desire for one in the north area and this land with its location it seemed the right size and the right place for a lot of reasons. CHAIRMAN: And if you do make the road going through there would you also have parking for people who use the park? TARA: Yes the road would be part of the entire park development. Obviously, the road would function for carrying traffic and it would also function to bring people into the park; there would be parking, we would improve the park. It is intended at this point it would be a dog park and those improvements that would go with a dog park. BEVER: The entrance to the park because they have a sign there, the entrance to the park was to be off of Enterprise Road and no other road. TARA: There are currently, there were no plans about how exactly the park can be done just as you have in your comprehensive plan, it was land banked for that. How you will get in and out of it was yet to b~ determined. It seemed to us that this gave us an opportunity to do a bunch of things. One is, to accelerate the development of that park; the second is to build a road that would not s~rve just this development but the other folks that live in that area. Not just this project but :city and county residents that live there who are shortly going to have difficulty getting onto US 19 because you can no longer go south from First Avenue so it 49 ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER seemed to us toiserve all of those possibilities; we always anticipated it to be a park; and that this road as a ndeandering road to do the traffic calming would fit in with that goal as well. JACKSON: Was this road p'art of your five year plan? TARA: No it was not. JACKSON: So this road developed as a result of this increased density. TARA: No the road was not on the CIP. The road is not just for the developer. It is a public dedicated road that anyone can drive on and use that road. It will benefit not just this project but everyone el~e city and county that lives in that area. JACKSON: Second question. Would you approve a site plan and a development order for this property at 2.5 units per acre without any road improvements? , TARA: We had not done that analysis because that is not what is on the table. It is likely that even at 2.5 units an acre some improvements will be made. Whether the developer is going to be willing at 2.5 units an acre at a much lower density to participate at the 50 percent level, I do not know. We have not asked that question. Then the other alternative we are back to is the southern route which is not as well preferred for a variety of reasons and frankly we cannot get the county so far to commit to dedicating their share of the impact fees to that road to benefit their county residents so we were kind of stuck. etc ec. JACKSON: It still puzzles me throughout the whole thing when the road came out, why a city would put a road through a .park..... ...My question is how many homes in Clearwater are going to be serviced by this road eliminating the access to 19. TARA: With all due respect Mayor, if we made that decision on how many people would use a particular road, \X{e would never build any local roads because clearly you have to have a local road system that will serve those local folks. It really does not matter if it serves five or 50 it is just as important to those five as it is to the 50. In this case there are certainly more than five or 50 but again the overall benefit of the road and the park project seem to us we discovered the issue as this project came about and the developer agreed to participate 50 ,> ,; ~ ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER in a fairly meaningful way; that made a decision or the impression in my view that is what the city co~ission relied on in terms of their ability to spend the money. The commissioner ~an speak: to his point of view too but the fact that the developer was willing to pay half wpich was twice his fair share; that was what I believed convinced the commission to go forward with that project. NICKESON: On the vote for, the road dollars; what was your commission vote? HAMILTON: I think it was fqur to one on the road project. HACKWORTH: The position the City of C1l;:arwater took as to the level of service on US 19, is it the F or the C or the D? What were you operating under when you made the analysis on - HAMILTON: I think the major consideration there, while Cyndi is looking up the information, one of the major considerations there was the traffic counts of five units...... ..etc. TARAP ANI: When we read the staff report which was written May 2002 meeting we were showing it as a LOS F. Basically the currently situation at the time we wrote the staff report show 86,000 trips on US 19 6fwhich this project would put a new 400 or so. HAMIL TON: So using that standard F what is the City of Clearwater's traffic concurrency policy of dealing with the development that impacts a LOS F road. TARAP ANI: We have a concurrency program that looks at all those issues; the local road as well as the public road. We felt that this was deminimus, the number of trips that would onto an 86,000 trips a day road; we then received from the State there would be no impact in their opinion; then we started looking at the local road system which is in our process and probably yours too, comes at th~ site plan review process but as I mentioned earlier because there was such interest in that to solve that problem earlier, we pretty much knew there just two solutions, north and south.: We spent this last four or five months doing a more detailed evaluation.etc etc. HACKWORTH: So the City of Clearwater has a standard which is called diminimus and that means that the impact is not of such a, the percent increase is what one percent, less than one percent. 51 .. .. ~ ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER TARAPAN!: ' It is not a particular number. I think you would agree 440 trips on an 86,000 trip a day road. You are going to stop the last guy in that is residential that is coming because it has all these wonderful attributes of the commercial. HACKWORTH: I am not here to argue with you. I am trying to understand the facts. It has been brought up; everything thathappened before that added to the intensity on US 19 is done. What we are doing now is a ;new issue. The determination I am trying to mak:e is there a significant; I mean is there an impact, is there an increase in traffic? If the answer is yes, then I want to hear the story! about how do you mitigate that impact and that has been my line of questioning from the start. I just want to make sure that I understand because I am getting conflicting information. Was the road to mitigate the traffic that is generated by the increased density, yes or no? Was the traffic mitigation provision of extending the road to Enterprise done to mitigate the impact of the increased traffic? T ARAP ANI: Sure. HACKWORTH: So you accept that there is an increase in traffic based on the increased density and you took a step to mitigate it? T ARAP ANI: Correct. HARRIS: This has been a very interesting discussion but it seems as though we are holding Clearwater to a different standard. We were asked to vote on the density and how they do their parks and bank their land and where they build their roads just really should not be a part of this and we are goin~ to start doing that with every request, we are going to have some real serious problem~. We are not the super commission for the cities and that seems where we are going and I 'Vould just like to see us vote on the question and not whether or not we like Clearwater's comp plan. DIDONA TO: I was going to try to stay off of this but I would agree with Calvin, we are trying to do some of the city's work. I would submit to all of us as city officials and county officials that and if you have noticec,l in your meetings this is not the first case that you have come up with and I guarantee you it will not be the last for several reasons. I like to try and look at the whole 52 " .; -:' ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER picture and if w'e do that I would and I am not a planner but I am willing to take stock in the fact that most p'arcels that are 30 acres, 40 acres or less are going to be coming to all of us to ask for some increase in density in most cases and why is that you say, well, some of it is based on property values. If you read the article with Jim Smith about all the money the county is actually losing because the appreciation values of the properties have gone up more than three percept cap allows him to catch up on. What that really is saying is we as officials both in the municipality and in the county need to decide if we are going to do anymore building becaus'e I am not saying we need a moratorium on it but I am saying people have property and they bought it with the expectations of trying to develop it. The costs have gone up on many of these parcels so much they have to come back and ask for some kind of increased density so we need to decide as a county whether or not we want that to happen and if we do not then we should tell everybody out there up front instead of going through this piece by piece because this is going to continue to happen in my opinion and where do you draw the line. To me I would agree with Ms. Tarapani I do not think less than 500 trips on that road is g9ing to mak:e a whole lot of difference. Not only that I think they are trying to do everything they can. If you read the articles, there is a lot of concern with that fourth lane now as far as being able to turn, safety factors would tell you that maybe you do need another outlet so they do not have to try to enter that road with cars going 55 miles per hour. There is just a lot of things to consider and I would agree with Calvin that basically we should decide whether or not we should allow this rezoning and if not, then we need to think long term as to whether or not we are going to allow any more building because again as I say it is going to come back to you and there going to ask for increased densities because it is the only way to make it work anymore. Plain and simple. BEVERLAND: Is tIllS our discussion period before I get called down by somebody. In reference to Calvin on discussing tIle road, yes, we should discuss the road because that is part of the application is to discuss the road. I mean that is why we sent it back and that is why you sent it back to us so we need to discuss the road now I do not think any of sitting here was voted into office to make sure that a developer makes money. I understand that they need to make money; I understand that and there are times that we would vote to increase that but just to vote to increase the density anywhere just so a developer can make money I do not think: we were voted into office for that. We have gotten reports that the community affairs sees nothing wrong with tlUs development; DOT sees nothing wrong with this development; the overall picture sees nothing wrong with tlUs development. Weare losing sight if that is all we look 53 .' . ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. -' CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER at. We need t~ look at what the residents want. We were elected to represent your city, your county; we voted this down some months ago. I made a statement at the time, I am going to make it again; I will mak:e it this time Ed and I like you too by the way. You have to vote with the people, We voted this down; they went to the County Commission; it got sent back to us now ifw~ vote the other way this time, what message have we sent to the people that elected us to represent them. We are telling them to go to haities. You are elected to represent the people, not a developer, not somebody that bought a piece ofland knowing that it was zoned 2.5 units an acre and then he wants to upgrade it; Y-Ou were voted to your cities and your county to represent the people and that is what I am going to do. I may get voted down but that is what I am going to do. HAMILTON: I have got to ask one question. Mayor Beverland, and with all due respect, have you never changed the l~nd use designation in Oldsmar? Land uses change over time and Mr. Pergolizzi put q map up here that had every color of the rainbow within a half a mile of this location and I ,!-m not going to use the transition word. I am going to say directly adjacent to highly commercialized property, five units per acre, is a compatible use and you would, land uses change over time so there is no way for; nobody that ever buys a piece of property is guaranteed in perpetuity unless absolutely preservation land that is been designated by a higher authority to never ever have anything change. Nothing is guaranteed in perpetuity to never change so with that being said I am going to mak:e a motion to approve this agenda item. CHAIRMAN: I am not ready for a motion- FOSTER: And actually I thinlc that a motion is appropriate so we can have discussion on that- I will second the motion that is on the table and then I would like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN: Motion is made and seconded to approve. FOSTER: And then I will make a comment as to why- CHAIRMAN: Discussion on the motion, raise hands. I do not want none of this back and forth. FOSTER: 54 .. .' I. ; ~ ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. -,CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER I would like to discuss why I am going to vote against the motion. We have heard a lot and Mr. Hooper mhde some good points and I have listened to the evidence and I have reserved my judgement until the end. I like you too by the way. It is all about money. The Dimmitt trust wants to ;make money, the developer wants to make money, the City of Clearwater, bless your heart, wants to make money. I want to make money for the City of St. Pete in light of increasing expenditures and trying to balance budget, we have to find new revenue sources; annexfltion is a fund tool so is land use and redevelopment and infill and things like that. Weare all faced with it so I certainly think that the City of Clearwater is acting within their oath to find new ways to generate money but why is the interest of the Dimmitt Trust, the developer, the City of Clearwater greater than those; why is this interest to squeeze every penny out of this piece of property greater than those that have already invested their monies playing by the same rules moving into the same community; why are we placing a greater interest over the abutting property owners. Now with that being said and I respect the developer for wanting to pay half of the roadway but they are also getting a credit from the city's TIP so albeit it is a nice commitment; it is not as big a commitment as we are all making it out to be. I do not hold a lot of sympathy on the; people are saying this trung backs up to a commercial use; it is an ugly commercial use; we are worried about the abutting the back end of this commercial property. Well I do not have a whole lot of sympathy when across the street that same property owner who controls the ugliness of the commercial us~ is also the owner across the street. He can fix up and create buffers on his property ifhe is really worried about abutting ugly uses. All of this being said I am going to go back to tbe findings that we had before. Simply based upon the testimony presented today, our findings before that the proposed RL category is not consistent with the character and density of the site in relationship to the adjoining residential areas; does not serve as a transition; we found before that it will negatively impact the surrounding transportation system; we fo~nd before that the RL designation poses potential adverse impacts on the adjoining jurisdiciton, i.e. Pinellas County. I think the applicarlt had a duty to rebut all of these findings that we made and I do not believe that the applicant met that burden by the construction of this roadway extension. I do not think that simply rebuts all ofthose findings that we painstakingly made before. As far as the transportation system, yeh, 373 additional vehicle trips per day may not be a big dea1. I happen to think it is plus I have to assume that this roadway extension will further increase in number by its proximity to the other commercial uses and finally I trunk the continuance should have been granted because this attorney, Figurski, represents nine propeliy owners. He sbould have had an opportunity to 55 ~~ J> . ~ ~ ~ ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - ~AROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER put in his two cents on behalf of his clients. The County is going to do whatever they want, Calvin, good luck. I am not going to support the motion because I do not think that the applicant met its burden; Clearwater you did a great job. JACKSON: Responsibility to promote the general welfare. I think it was incumbent on the city and the applicant to demonstrate somehow or other we would infringe. I think it part of our expectation, Mayor Beverland hit on it, we are represented to uphold the laws of our community and of the county and one of the law~ of zoning regulations and zoning to me is a protection of people who already live there and I think it is important whenever we make decisions and yes we have changed land use but I cannot think back when we have not sent it back and said:that developer you resolve the issue with your neighbors otherwise there is no promoting g~neral welfare reason to change this land use and infringe on what I think are the rights of people to expect that their zoning means something and that the zoning of the abutting property means something. I have not seen that; the only issue I see of promoting the general welfare here is the city gets some money to put a road through a park they would like to put in. I think the weighing of hindering the adjacent property owners outweighs the welfare of the community of this rezoning. BENGSTON: I feel that our professional unit, PAC, studied this issue; they voted 13-0 to approve it. I think they are professionals; I think we have to look at what they did. I think to a certain extent the gentleman from Clearwater made a very good point in that we need to consider making changes all the time. It maybe right, it may not be right but I think we have to give the man who wants to develop it a chance to see; he has some rights too. I know I would not like to have my area changed but the thing is that we make changes every day and if this benefits people then I think we got to do it. NICKESON: I would have to ~gree that the PAC voted 12-0 at the previous meeting to go ahead and also that it was far fr6m a unanimous vote from us. It was a six to five and I feel that the road will greatly impact, alleviate the traffic problems that I would see with it but on the greater picture I have to refer to what Mayor Di Donato stated when we came up with redevelopment study we are being asked to increase, to look at increase in densities in particular areas and it is never a popular item but it is going to be a tough question that we are going to have to address and I do not see that this particular piece of property warrants a backing away from looking at the overall picture. 56 . - J> . '!" ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/19/03 - 9:02 A.M. - GAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER HACKWORTH: I want to speak to that same point Commr. just made and also the Mayor made concerning request in increased density and then it is going to happen and we need to be sensitive to the fact that these ~e going to happen and we should not just bury our head in the sand but the consideration I think always has to be a level of service in order to provide. We are not going to increas~ if we cannot provide water; we are not going to grant a increase in density if we are not convinced that the proposed transportation system can handle it so I think again my focus on qu~stion to everybody has been to make a determination on whether or not the surrounding system is negatively impacted by an increase of 100 percent density and I am going to give staff one more chance since you deferred without hearing the presentations but I would like to know if after all the presentations you are able to make any suggestion or recommendation to us as to whether or not you believe that the findings have been refuted and have been addressed. HEALEY: Glad to Commissioner. My recommendation to the Council originally and I will go back to that was that the amendment be approved subject to the City limiting the traffic impacts on the site pursuant to its concurrency management system. I believe they have done that. The second supplemental recommendation that was much debated previously was that appropriate traffic mitigation provisions pursuant to the City's concurrency management ordinance be determined and agreed to by the city and the applicant prior to the City approving the plan amendment. That was the subject of much discussion here whether we should force the city to do that or not. In effect they have done that. I think they have met the two conditions that I recommended originally and I would stand by my recommendation to approve the amendment. GALLUCCI: I am going to call the question. CHAIRMAN: All in favor? ayes--( questions arise about what the question was?) She wanted to call the question and I did which was to approve or deny and you all approved it - HEALEY: Can we please call the question again? CHAIRMAN: This is on the motion to approve the amendment. 57 '" . ,"- ,W! ROUGH VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL 3/] 9/03 - 9:02 A.M. - CAROL JONES, BOARD REPORTER Ayes: Hamilton, Gallucci, Nickeson, Hackworth, Bengston, DiNicola, Harris, De Cesare, DiDonato Nays: Jackson, Fost~r, and BeverIand I Approved with 9-3 vote. CHAIRMAN: Yesses carry it 9-3. GALLUCCI AND DINICOLA OUT AT 12:15 PM CASE 03-23 HEALEY: It is coming to you because it is on a scenic noncOmmercial corridor. Our recOmmendation is to approve it with the usual conditions related to location on the scenic corridor and in addition because we suspect that this lot is in a position of others like it that Largo and the County work together to coordinate future amendments in this same location. Are there any questions of staff? CHAIRMAN: Speak in favor,ofit? No speak:ers. FOSTER/HAMILTON 10-0 HEALEY: The PPC operating procedures are proposed for amendment. Final draft form; we discussed this last time;, these are largely housekeeping amendments to update our operating procedures; they are described in the cover agenda memo. My recommendation to you is that approve by the attached resolution 03-1 the updated operating procedures for the Council. BRIEF 10-0 HEALEY: Vested rights ordinance. It is here for a public hearing; again, it is a final draft of the preliminary draft we looked at last time. As we discussed previously and as outlined in the background information this would add a provision to our countywide rules to deal with vested rights under our countywide plan and rules. It came to us originally as I described to you because there was an issue, an application in the County for vested rights that was pending and determined we did not have a process to deal with it. I need to tell you that it 58 Tarapani, Cyndi From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:37 PM Akin, Pam Tarapani, Cyndi Dimmitt DOAH Proceeding Importance: High 1. FYI, the hearing dates in August suggested by Stephen Cole are the same week of the Granite State 11th Circuit argument, which I have planned to attend [a particular date within that week has not been set]. So now there is a good chance I would not be able to attend the Dimmitt hearing as an observer. 2. The Notice of Hearing and Order recently issued again show the City f/u/b/o Dimmitt as a Petitioner. Mr. Cole's letter requesting a different hearing date refers to Cyndi Tarapani as "a material witness in this matter and a representative of the City." I am concerned about this characterization as there are Ch. 120 rules regarding the responsibilities of representatives and the letter seems to imply a possible witness/representative conflict. 3. I assume that the City is not taking an active role per previous discussion. Since DOAH and Dimmitt are still treating the City as a party I will plan to file a clarification that the City is not appearing as a Petitioner and that the Planning Director and staff are not representatives in the legal sense, as opposed to the Planning staff being called as witnesses. Cyndi, I am faxing you the latest paperwork on the case. 1 Re: City of Clearwater, Florida, F or the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, ill, And Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., As Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners vs. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, as Countywide Planning Authority, Respondent Attachment 1: Administrative Law Judge Service Contract between DOAH and the Pinellas Planning Council ''1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SERVICES CONTRACT TIllS AGREEMENT, entered into this l5!!: day Of~, 2001, by and between PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCil.., hereinafter referred to as "COUNCil..," and the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, hereinafter referred to as . - "DOAH." WHEREAS, Section 10(4), Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, provides for ~ t:o~..~ . administrative hearings relative to amendments to the adopted COffi H...-wide future land use plan relating to the land use designation for a particular parcel or a change in the rules, standards, policies, or objectives of said plan to be conducted under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and WHEREAS, it has been determined by the COUNCil.. and DOAH that a contractual arrangement for the provision of Administrative Law Judges is available for the above-stated purpose under the authority of Section 120.65, Florida Statutes; NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration and the mutual promises between the parties hereto, it is agreed as follows: 1. Scope of Services. DOAH agrees to make available to COUNCil.., Administrative Law Judges who function as full-time Judges for the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Heanngs, to conduct hearings as provided by statute. Such Administrative Law Judges shall, where possible, be persons familiar with cases involving the issues at hand. 2. Compensation. COUNCil.. agrees to compensate DOAH the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per hour for an Administrative Law Judge's services in preparing for, traveling to, conducting hearings, and preparing Recommended Orders. ~ I J Additionally, COUNCIL agrees to pay the actual travel expenses of the Judge in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. DOAH agrees, whenever possible, to arrange the travel schedule of such Judge in such a manner that the Judge can accomplish other work during a trip, and, in such instances, travel expenses and hourly compensation will be prorated for services to COUNCIL. DOAH agrees to provide COUNCIL an itemized statement of the charges and costs described therein. COUNCIL agrees to remit payment in accordance with Chapter 218, part VII, Florida Statutes. 3. Court Reporter. Effective July 1, 1994, DOAH implemented an in-house court reporting program. These court reporters 'are the official reporters for DOAH and will be '?:")~/4.s C _....~' :Dr!! , utilized ~ the court reporters in any hearings in YeR corn~ ~ within this Agreement. COUNCIL agrees to compensate DOAH at the current rate (attachment 1, pages 1-2) for any transcripts ordered by COUNCIL. If DOAH court reporters are not available, DOAH will secure an outside court reporter for the hearing. COUNCIL will be responsible for the appear~ce fee charged by the outside court reporter regardless' of _whether COUNCIL orders the transcript. COUNCIL will also be responsible for the transcript fee charged by the outside reporter, if COUNCIL orders the transcript. 4. Video Teleconferencing. In the event a hearing is being conducted by video teleconferencing, COUNCIL will be responsible for reimbursing DOAH at the current video teleconferencing rate (attachment 2}for the time the equipment is used. 5. Contract Management. Contract management under this Agreement shall be provided by Deputy Chief Judge James W. York. 2 . I \ , 6. Term. This Agreement is for a term of one (1) year, and may be amended from time to time by mutual agreement of the parties, and may be terminated by either party for the convenience of that party upon thirty (30) days' written notice. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed for succeeding one (1) year periods unless cancelled as provided herein. 7. Reauest for Services. COUNCIL, in order to request the services of an Administrative Law Judge, shall initiate a letter to the Chief Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, requesting the services of an Administrative Law Judge and shall include with such request a copy of any materials relevant to the request. DOAH agrees to make every effort to provide an Administrative Law Judge within thirty (30) days of its receipt of the letter initiating such request. PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL STA TE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS By:~~d/-7 ~~t::...~~ :v. ~c.~- By: APPROVED AS TO FORM OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY ~~~CR;; Attorney 3 Re: City of Clearwater, Florida, For the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, ill, And Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., As Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners vs. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, as Countywide Planning Authority, Respondent Attachment 4: Above Referenced Petition for Administrative Hearing and attachments thereto received April 21, 2003 --~, " , . -J >. Re: City of Clearwater, Florida, F or the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, ill, And Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., As Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners vs. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, as Countywide Planning Authority, Respondent Attachment 5: Pinellas Planning Council Agenda Memorandum and minutes for meeting of September 18, 2002 '" . Re: City of Clearwater, Florida, For the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, ill, And Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., As Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, .Petitioners vs. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, as Countywide Planning Authority, Respondent Attachment 6: Countywide Planning Authority Agenda Memorandum and minutes for meeting of October 15,2002 I/O '\ '. Re: City of Clearwater, Florida, For the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, ill, And Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., As Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners vs. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, as Countywide Planning Authority, Respondent Attachment 7: Pinellas Planning Council Agenda Memorandum and minutes for meeting of March 19, 2003 ~ r, , 'ii Re: City of Clearwater, Florida, F or the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, ill, And Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., As Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners vs. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, as Countywide Planning Authority, Respondent Attachment 8: Countywide Planning Authority Agenda Memorandum, minutes, and Resolution No. 03-55 for meeting of Aprill, 2003 "\ Exhibit ill '. ./ .. ~1~~._ ~~..~~~~ ~;-:;'.' \ I / ~\ ... : ,.....,:......'r-!Tr...- : , ': · ,n.- -~~: .~~ ==:::. ~, .~~-=- ~, '\~'x"'"'"" 'C..~,l ~~1 CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OmCE Box 4748, CLEARWAmt, FWRIDA 33758-4748 ." em H.w., 112 SOlTI'H OSCEOlA AVENUE. CuARwAn:R, FWRIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (J27) 562-4040 FAX (J27) 562-4052 em MANAGER February 19, 2003 Received FEB 1 9 2003 Pinellas Planning Council Mr. David P. Healey, AlCP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 RE: LUZ 02-02-03 - Application to Amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan . Dear Dave: The City of Clearwater requests an amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for 23.0 acres of land located 2301 Chautauqua Avenue from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) to Residential Low (RI) and Preservation (P). This amendment was passed on frrst reading at the June 6, 2002 City Commission meeting. Attached please find all required information for this request. ' If you need any additional.information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely yours, ~cU Gina L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager BRIAN). ACNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHJn;EY GRAY, VICE MAYOR,COMMISSJOJ\"ER H0\7 HA.\IILTOI\, CO~IMISSJO~"ER Ffl61'4I>~~91Nmui Use ~,~r.s\PPC\TrD1Lmlitull~~t)j~IIbc ''EQUAL EMpWYME"" A."'D AFFiRMATIVE AcnoJl: EMpLOYER" \~ ~- ~~~~~ ..,~t'\IJ ':. ..... ....~..." / ~ - ,. .- ..,~ . 'I _=-=. _ c:::z:~ ..C~ == 9" .....-- ~Iit ~~~-..~ ~~~~fI CITY OF CLEARWATER loNG RANGE PlANNING DEVELOPMENT REvIEw PLANNrnG DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 Soum MYR11..E AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (J27) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 August 13,2002 R~ce;ved AUG 1 6 2002 PinelJas Planning' Council Mr. David P. Healey, AlCP Executive Director Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 850 Clearwater, FL 33755-4160 RE: LUZ 02-02-03 - Application to Amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Dear.Mr~ The City of Clearwater requests an amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for 23 acres ofland located at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) to Residential Low (RL) and Preservation (P). This amendment was passed on:first reading at the June 20,2002 City Commission meeting. Attached please :fi11d the staff report for this request. If you need any additional iriformation, please cop.tact me at your convenience. Sincerely yours, ~U Gma L. Clayton Long Range Planning Manager ". ... ! r \ J'":' .- T__ .. . .."',....., ';" --. ,. - ...,.- ,- r.... j .D j "B" BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-t:OMMlSSIONER En HART, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHlTh'EY GRAY, COMMISSIONER Hon HAMn.TON, COM/lUSS10NER * BUL]ONSON, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" r . SEe. ~i.l..3 DETERrvUNA TJON. 5.1..3.1 5.1..3.2 5.1.3.3 5.1.3.4 5.1.3.5 5.1.3.6 5.1.3.7 eJ -_/ 5.1.3.9 Amendments to the FLUP shall be reviewed by and require the approval of the 'CP A upon recommendation of the PPC. PPC Action. The PPC may recommend approval. denial, continuation or alternative action to the CPA; any of which such recommendations shall constitute action by the PPC within the stipulated sixty (60) day period. Notice of DenillL The PPC shall, within five (5) days, notify the applicant in writing of any recommendation by the PPC to deny an amendment eligible for administrative hearing and shall advise the applicant of their right to apply for such administrative hearing and the time limitation applicable thereto. Riehl to Administrative Hearing. H the PPC recommends denial of an amendment to the FLUP relating to the land use designation of a particular parcel of land, any substantially affected person may apply for an administrative hearing within twenty-one (21) days of denial. Applications for Administrative lI~e. All applications for administrative hearing by a substBntially affected person will be filed with the office of the PPC within twenty- one (21) days of denial. Said application will be in a fonn for consideration under, and subject to the procedures of, Chapter 120. F.S. Clift Consideration. The CPA shall consider an application for amendment of the FLUP upon receipt of the recommendation of the PPC. Public Hearlnll bv CPA. The CPA shall hold a public heming, advertised and noticed U Tequired. by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended.. prior to taking action on a requested amendment of the FLUP. CPA Action. The CPA may approve or deny the application for amendment upon consideration of the recommendation of the PPC. Any action by the CPA contrary to the PPC recommendation shall require a majority plus one vote of the entire CPA. Weill to- Admlnl6trative Heafine. If the CPA denies an amendment which was recommended to be approved by the PPC, any substantially affected penion may apply for an administrative hearing within twenty-one (21) days of denial. Final Action bv CPA After Administrative HeartUl!. Final action by the CPA subsequent to any administrative hearing shaJJ be based upon the findings of fact of the administrative hearing officer. Countywide Plan Rules September 30. 2000 5-) a" -~ - , } ) "'\ ,,"-- PINELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL AGENDA MEMORANDUM \.. ~ I AGENDA ITEM: VB-9. I MEETING DATE: September 18,2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan Map From: Residential Suburban - RS: Preservation - P: Water/Drainage Feature- W/DF To: Residential Low - RL: Preservation - P: Water/Drainage Feature - W/DF Area: 22.18 acres CASE #: CW 02-39 JURISDICTION: Clearwater (LUZ 02-02-03) LOCATION: East side of Chautauqua Ave., from 103 ft. south of Second Ave. N. to Second Ave. S. TYPE: Regular Map Amendment RECOMMENDATION: Council, Based On Accompanying Findings (1. A. & B. [1-6]), Recommend That the Proposed Amendment to Residential Low. Preservation and Water/Drainage Feature Be Approved. Subiect to the City Limiting the Traffic Impacts on the Site Pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System. Separate and in Addition, it is Recommended the Appropriate Traffic Mitigation Provisions Pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management Ordinance be Determined and Agreed to by the City and the Applicant Prior to the City Approving the Plan Amendment. I. FINDINGS Based on the background data and analysis in this report, the following fmdings are submitted for consideration of the recommendation for approval of the amendment request: A. The proposed amendment is considered a "regular" amendment because it exceeds the subthreshold size limitations in the Countywide Rules and because it impacts one or more of the six Relevant Countywide Considerations contained in the Countywide Rules. The - ~ - two impacted considerations are: Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard and Adjacent To or Impacting An Adjoining Jurisdiction. PINELLAS PLA!iNING COUNCIL ACTION: The Council recommended denial of the proposed amendment from Residential Suburban, Preservation and Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low, Preservation and Water/Drainage Feature. (Vote 6-5) COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY ACTION: 10/15/02: The Board continued the amendment and remanded to the Council. (Vote 4-3) 1 \\PLAN_COUN\VOLI\USEllS\WPDOCS\LUlCASES\02 _\Seplembcr\CW 02.391' cIw doc ,. . I ! , ~_ J -. "' CW #02-39 FINDINGS · The request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Residential Low (RL) is not consistent with the Rules Concerning the Administration of the CountYwide Plan, as concerns the application of the RL category to the subject area. In particular, the proposed RL category is not consistent with the character and density of the site in relationship to the adjoining residential areas and does not serve as a transition between more suburban and more urban residential areas; · The proposed RL designation will negatively impact the surrounding transportation system including U.S. 19 which operates at a LOS "F" as well as the limited capacity and configuration of the local road system in unincorporated Pinellas County; and - · The proposed RL designation poses potential adverse impacts upon the adjoining jurisdiction, Le., Pinellas County, with respect to the interests of the County residents, its precedential implications for future plan amendments and demands on the local county road system. Based on these fmdings the Council recommends denial of the amendment as requested. ~ ~ S.-UBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater " B. A summarized evaluation of the impact of the amendment on the Relevant Countywide Considerations is as follows: 1) Consistency with the Countywide Plan and Rules - The amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules for the application of the Residential Low (RL) plan designation because the site is well-suited for low density, non-intensive residential use consistent with the natural resource characteristics of the site. 2) Adopted Roadwav Level of Service (LOS) Standard - The amendment area will impact a segment of US Highway 19 N., the LOS for which is below "D" (currently operating at LOS "F" from Enterprise Rd. to Sunset Point Rd.). The supporting traffic analysis applicable under the countywide standards shows an increase in traffic volume with respect to the amendment, and as the site is currently vacant, actual traffic will increase as a function of development of the site. 3) SceniclNon-Commercial Corridors (SNCC) - The amendment area is not located on a designated SNCC. 4) Coastal Hi2h Hazard Areas (CHHA) - The amendment area is not located within a CHHA. 5) Desi2nated DevelopmentlRedevelopment Areas - The amendment area is not located within a designated development or redevelopment area. 6) Adiacent To or Impactin2 An Adioinin2 Jurisdiction or Public Educational Facility - The amendment is adjacent to another jurisdiction (pinellas County), but does not adversely impact the adjacent jurisdiction or a public educational facility. In consideration of and based upon these findings, it is recommended that the proposed amendment of the Countywide Plan Map to Residential Low, Preservation, and Water/Drainage Feature Be Approved, Subject to the City Limiting the Traffic Impacts from the Subject Property Pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System. - .' 2 ~. <\ J ,---' SUBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater .I -. IL BACKGROUND This regular amendment to the Countywide Plan Map has been submitted by the City of Clearwater to the Council for review in accordance with Division 5.5 of the Countywide Rules. Parcel ID#: N 32/28/16-00000-240/0300, 0400; S 32/28/16-00000-31 % 1 00; 14922-038-0040 Existine Use: Vacant Proposedl Use: Townhomes Analvsis The amendment area was recently annexed to the City of Clearwater and is 22.18 acres in size and vacant, with 4.61 acres designated as Preservation (P) and 1.35 acres classified as Water/Drainage Feature (W/DF). The P and W/DF areas are not proposed to be changed as a function of this amendment. Approval of the proposed amendment to Residential Low (RL) for 16.22 acres, and allowing 1 unit/acre for the area transferred from areas classified as Preservation would allow for the development of the site with a maximum of 86 residential units. Because this amendment affects a roadway with a LOS below "D", and because it is located adjacent to another jurisdiction (pinellas County), it has been reviewed as to its impacts, as set forth below: Adopted Roadwav Level of Service (LOS) Standard The amendment area impacts US Highway 19 N., the LOS for which is LOS "F" (US Highway 19 N. from Enterprise Road to Sunset Point Road). Primary access from the site will be obtained from First Avenue North, a roadway that leads directly to US 19. The 2001 LOS on this portion of US Highway 19 N. is "F", with or without the amendment. The projected 2020 LOS is "F", with or without the amendment. It should be noted that the portion of US Highway 19 N. that serves this site is classified as a 6 lane divided principal arterial. I Even though US 19 is at a LOS F without the development, the 827 vehicle trips expected to be generated by the development should be taken into consideration in reviewing the amendment (see discussion below under Traffic Characteristics). 3 I ~' SUBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater .I -. " Traffic Characteristics ,A comparison of existing and proposed Countywide Plan categories indicates that the existing RS category could be expected to generate approximately 454 vehicle trips per day (vtpd) for the site, while the uses normally associated with the RL could be expected to generate approximately 827 vtpd, a net increase of 373 vtpd. Because the subject site is vacant, actual traffic increase to the roadway system as a function of development will approximate 827 vtpd. The majority of those trips will access US 19 at First Ave. N. The city has not analyzed or provided information as to what types of mitigation measures would be employed to offset the impacts from over 800 new vtpd. The secondary access south of the site on Chautauqua Ave., Third Ave., Fourth Ave, and Lake Shore Drive is narrow and meanders through low density residential and natural areas that are in unincorporated Pinellas' County. This roadway is not adequate to handle any great volume of traffic and therefore the First Ave. entrance on US 19 will experience most of the traffic volume. Once the project is built, there is no way to limit traffic on these secondary access roadways. Additionally, since this roadway is in another jurisdiction, all improvements must be coordinated with that jurisdiction (pinellas County). Concurrency Development on this site will be required to meet the City's Concurrency Management System requirements, which are enumerated in Section 4-901 of the City's Land Development Code. Mitigation measures under the City's Concurrency Management System could include system improvements such as turn lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes; special travel studies; and alternative transportation programs that provide incentives/disincentives such as access to mass transit, car pools, van pools, and limited parking (See Exhibit 1). However, the city has not provided information as to what types of improvements will be made and whether or not the traffic can be mitigated pursuant to their requirements. Additionally, any improvements to roads in Pinellas County must fIrst be approved by Pinellas County. Adiacent to or ImDactinf! Another Jurisdiction or a Public Educational Facilitv The northern, southern, and eastern boundaries of the subject site are adjacent to enclaves within the j,urisdiction of Pine lias County. In particular, consideration has been given to the following: · Existing Use - The properties in Pinellas County that adjoin the subject site to the north and south are developed with single family homes designated RS, which allows for a density of 2.5 units/acre. Although the RL designation allows for 5.0 units/acre uses, a 100% increase in density, the proposed RL designation is still considered low density and appropriate for the natural characteristics of the site and the surrounding area. 4 \.... $UBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater I Lake Chautauqua to the east is in Pinellas County and does not appear to be negatively affected by the amendment to RL. It should be noted that currently a 4.6 acre area designated as Preservation runs north and south along the lake shore and will provide a buffer between the proposed development and the lake. · Plan Classifications - The amendment is consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules for the application of the RL plan designation because the site is well-suited for low density, non-intensive residential use consistent with the natural resource characteristics of the site. .- · Service Responsibilities - The subject site is within the Clearwater Planning Area, sewer service area, water service area, and is within the Clearwater Fire District. However, most of the roads south of the site are under the jurisdiction of Pinellas County and all improvements must be coordinated with them. · Public Educational Facilities - The subject amendment site is not located near a public educational facility, nor will there be any negative impacts to a public educational facility, or its enrollment, which could increase by approximately 28 students (86 residences @ .33 students/ residence), as a result of the proposed amendment. Local Government Transmittal On July 18, 2002, the City Commission, acting as the applicant local government, gave initial approval to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan, and authorized an application for amendment of the Countywide Plan Map as referenced in Attachment 1 (Local Government Transmittal Le.tter). In summary, the proposed amendment to Residential Low, Preservation and Water/Drainage Feature is consistent with the Countywide Rules and policies and the subject area is an appropriate location in which to apply these Countywide Plan categories. It is recommended that the proposed amendment be approved, subject to the City limiting the traffic impacts from the subject property pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System. Separate and in Addition, it is recommended the appropriate traffic mitigation provisions pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management Ordinance be determined and agreed to by the City and the ':!pplicant prior to the City endorsing the plan amendment. I Planners Advsory Committee (f AC) The PAC recommended approval of the amendment consistent with the staff recommendation (Vote 12-0, sef: Attachment 3 for their draft minutes). 5 ", SUBJECT: Case #CW 02-39 - Clearwater r "- IlL LIST OF FIGURES, EXHIBITS & ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 Location map Figure 2 Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Black & White Figure 2A Existing Countywide Plan Category/Subject Area - Color Figure 3 Black & White Aerial Figure 4 Jurisdictional Boundaries Exhibit 1 City Concurrency Provisions Attachment 1 Local Government Transmittal Letter & Staff Report Attachment 2 PPC Disclosure of Interest form Attachment 3 Draft PAC Minutes Attachment 4 Correspondence " . - - 6 4 . TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of County Commissioners, in Your Capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority THROUGH: Stephen M. Spratt, County Administrator FROM: David P. Healey, Executive Director _ ~ / Pinellas Planning Council ~ SUBJECT: October 15, 2002 Countywide Planning Authority Agenda Part III - Public Hearing Agenda Re: Regular Plan Map Amendments DATE: October 1, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: THE PlNELLAS PLANNING COUNCIL RECOMMENDS THE BOA..lill, IN YOUR CAPACITY AS TIffi COUNTYWIDE PL~""JNING AUTHORITY, APPROVE CASES #CW 02-36, CASE #CW 02-37 CASE #CW 02-38, AND CASE #CW 02- 41, DENY CASE #CW 02-39, AND CONTINUE CASE #CW 02-40 AS OUTLINED BELOW: · EXlii6if ITf..A: Case #CW 02-36, ciearwater - a regular mnendme~t- tfutt- p;op-=Oses t~ amend 10.14 acres located on the south side of S.R. 590 and 770 feet west of McMullen- Booth Road from Industrial Limited and Water/ Drainage Feature to Residential High and Water/Drainage Feature. e Exhibit Ill-B: Case #CW 02-37, Largo - a regular amendment that proposes to amend 9.70 acres located on the east side of 58th Street North and approximately 920 feet north of Ulmerton Road from Industrial Limited; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature to Institutional; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature. · Exhibit ill-C: Case #CW 02-38, Safety Harbor - a regular amendment that proposes to amend 41.20 acres generally located between the east end of Cypress Hollow Court and the west end of Green Springs Drive and approximately 150 feet North of the Florida Power Company transmission lines from Residential Low and Preservation to Institutional and Preservation · Exhibit ID-D: Case #CW 02-39, Clearwater - a regular amendment that proposes to amend 22.18 acres located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue from 103 feet south of Second Avenue North to Second Avenue South from Residential Suburban; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature. · Exhibit ill-E: Case #CW 02-40, Seminole - a regular amendment that proposes to amend 7.63 acres located on the north side of 102nd Avenue North and 300 feet west of Seminole Boulevard from Institutional to Commercial General. .~ · Exhibit ill-F: Case #CW 02-41, Tarpon Springs - a regular amendment tl;1at proposes to amend 9.47 acres located on the south side of Gulf Road and 1,725 feet east of Florida Avenue from Commercial Neighborhood to Institutional. . \ DISCUSSION: The Board, in your capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority, has received six (6) cases concerning regular amendments of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan map as described below: Case #CW 02-36 is a request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Residential High and Water/Drainage feature on 10.14 acres, located on the south side ofS.R. 590 and 770 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road in Clearwater. Approval of the proposed amendment would recognize the exis1ing apartment use and density of the subject site, as well as recogni7.ing the existing on-site retention pond. The Planning Council, by a vote of 12-0, recommended that Case #CW 02-36 be approved. Case #CW 02-37 is a request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Institutional; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature on 9.70 acres, located on the east side of 58th Street North and approximately 920 feet north ofUlmerton Road in Largo. ~-:-- --.--.~"'!he-.-~ -is currently developed \Vim an offic<Yaii.cfwareli6iiSe. The pioQosea ameIidmerif wo'UId' allow for the development of the St. Petersburg CollegelPinellas County Epicenter. The Planning Council, by a vote of 12-0, recommended that Case #CW 02-37 be approved; subject to the City limiting the traffic impacts on the sit~ pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System. Case #CW 02-38 is a request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Institutional and Preservation on 41.20 acres, generally located between the east end of Cypress Hollow Court and the west end of Green Springs Drive and approximately 150 feet north of the Florida Power transmission lines, in Safety Harbor. The subject area is currently vacant. The proposed amendment would allow for the construction of a church and church-related uses. The Planning Council, by a vote of 12-0; recommended approval of Case #CW 02-38; subject to the City limiting the traffic impacts on the site pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System. Case #CW.02-39.fit!s a request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Residential Low; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature on 22.18 acres, located on the east side of Chautauqua A venue from 103 feet south of Second Avenue North to Second Avenue South, in Clearwater. The subject area is currently vacant. The proposed amendment would allow for the development of the site at five dwelling units per acre. The Planning Council, by a vote of6-5, recommended denial of Case #CW 02-39.: itJ'll. t:ly: t-1C3UHcIU:iHAHHlLLj 7279443711j SEP-12-02 15:53j , PAGE 1 FIGURSKI & HARRILL 2435 U.S. Highway 19, Suite 350 HOliday, Florida 34690 (727) 942-0733 Fax; (727) 944-3711 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: September 12, 2002 To: David P. Healy, AICP Fax No: 464-8212 RE: From: Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES ~NClUDING THIS COVER SHEET: ~ ***This facsimile message may contain privileged and confidential information intended for the recipient only. *** If you do not receive all the pages, please call our office as soon as possible. "l'\ ~ENT BY: FIGURSKI&HARRILL; 727 9443711; SEP-12-02 15:53; PAGE 2 . ., -.. OERA.LD A. FIGURSKI, P.A. J. BEN HARRIll... P.A. .sHELLY MAY JOHNSON FIGURSKI & HARRILL ATTORNEYS AT LAW Tl IE HOLIDAY TOWER 24.350.::;. HIOH\ii'iW 19 SUlTE350 HOUDAY. FLORIDA 34691 lE..EPHONE: (727) 942-0733 FAX: (727) 944.)711 EMAIL: l:1w@fl~un.lcih(lrrill.com September 11, 2002 Mr. tvlark Neuse Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 RE: Request for Review/ City of CJearwater/Land Use Plan Amendment from County Residential Suburban and Preservation to City Residential Urban ~nd Pre~_erv~tiQn 9f I?roperties at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue (M&B 27/03, 24/04, 31/01 and Lot 4, Block 381 Unit 1, Section A Chautauqua "On the Lake" Section 32-28S-15E) (Lawrence H. Dimmitt III &. Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr., Trustee) LUZ 02-02-03. Dear Mr. Neuse: Further to my letter of July 11, 2002, regarding the above-referenced Request for Review, I enclose herewith specific citations from the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan and the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan as it would apply to this request. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. . RSKI rnjp Endosure cc: Families Case #CW 02-40 is a request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Commercial General on 7.63 acres, located on the north side of 102nd Avenue North and 300 feet west of Seminole Boulevard, in Seminole. The subject area is currently occupied by a vacant hospital building. The proposed amendment w~uld allow for the construction of a Kash N' Karry grocery store and associated retail space totaling 70,000 square feet. The Planning Council, by a vote of 11-0, recommended continuance of Case #CW 02-40 to the October 16, 2002 PPC meeting and subsequent November 5, 2002 CPA meeting. Case #CW 02-41 is a request to amend the Countywide Plan Map to Institutional on 9.47 acres, located on the south side of Gulf Road and 1,725 feet east of Florida Avenue, in Tarpon Springs. The site contains three parcels, all owned by the Pinellas County School Board. One parcel is developed with the vacant 53,000 square foot Tarpon Village Square Shopping Center. The remaining two parcels are currently vacant. The proposed amendment would allow for the combination of these three parcels and the subsequent redevelopment of the site with Sunset Hill Elementary School. ----------------- - ------~---- - -- -- --- - - -" - - - - - ----------------------- The Plarining Council, by a vote of -11-0, recommended approval of Case #cW 02-41, subject to the City maintaining a zoning designation on the site that would limit the potential number of residential dwelling units per acre consistent with the location of the property in the coastal high hazard area. With this transmittal, the complete record of the" public hearing held by the PPC on these case.;5 is on file with the Clerk and is available for review by the Board or any interested party. JEB BUSH GOVERNOR Florida Department of Transportation U201 N. McKINLEY DRIVE. TAMPA, FL 33612-6456 . (813)975-6000 . 1-800-22'-7%20 1:" v\ VI'- :.j \11 1/ I "_~ 1 ~.I..- '__' I . ).'/; r. r /},r/ , ~ ',,-' it / 1\ J.' f I): (l..I0-,Tj- l' v (..V .~ \..... '--' 6- , . THOMAS F. BARRY, JR. SECRETARY August 23, 2002 Mr. Charles Gauthier, AICP Chief: Office of Comprehensive Planning Division of Community Planning Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Received SEP 1 8 2002 Pinellas Planning CouDdJ RE: City of Oeanvater Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 02-1 Dear Mr. Gauthier: The Department has conducted a review of the above referenced document in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 93-206, Laws of Florida; Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and the Department's Review Guidelines for Local Government Comprehensive Plans. We do not expect the proposed amendment to have an adverse impact on the Florida Intrastate Highway System, or a significant impact on the Florida Transportation System. Should the application vary upon a future re-submittal, we would request the opportunity to review it. The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Amendment. If you have any questions, please call me at SunCom 512-7801, or (813) 975-6444. Yours Truly, PtUr{JjL~ Carol M. Collins LGCP and CMS Coordinator cc: Bob Romig, Director of Policy Planning, FDOT Cynthia Tarapani, AICP, Director of Planning, City of Clearwater · Gina Clayton, L?ng Range Planning Manager, City of Clearwater www.dot.stateJI.us ~ENT BY: FIGURSKI&HARRILLj 7279443711j SEP-12-02 15:54; PAGE 4/6 . , ~. "Although the site is located east of U.S. 19, substantial alternative access exists to limit project impact on U.S. 19." The Dimmitt traffic analysis does speak to alternative access as is shown by aerials and maps. However, the alternative access Is extremely limited. The roadway is narrow, several ninety degree turns need to be negotiated, and traffic must flow through a series of Residential Suburban land use designated subdivisions allowing only 2.5 units per acre subdivisions. c. Section 5.3.5.6. Impacts to adjoining jurisdictions Is addressed In this section. Until this property was annexed by the City recently, it was within the unincorporated area of the County. Property to the East is still unincorporated County. The adjoining County property is zoned ReSidential - Rural and land use- planned Residential Suburban. Adjoining City parcels are zoned Low Density Residential and land use-planned Residential Suburban. Both RR and LOR only allow 2.5 units per acre. II. Residential Classification/Low Density Range - - - S.ection 2.3.3.1 The Rules under which the Pinellas Planning Council operates includes "Locational Characterlstics" for each land use designation. Those set forth for Residential Suburban, the current land use designation, accurately depict how the subject property should be used and explain why this Amendment should not be granted. As suggested in the Letter, the western boundary of the subject property does adjoin the rear of the Dimmitt's car dealerships. Although the staff of the City may have suggested that the subject property would be a transitional area between Dimmitt's commercial and the lake, this acreage Is actually an Integral part of a whole that is comprised of properties with a maximum of 2.5 units per acre. As suggested in the "Locatlonal Characteristics", this particular property is: .....primarily well-suited for residential uses that are consistent with the suburban, non-intensive qualities and natural resource characteristics of such areas..."... "These areas are generaHy. served by and accessed from minor and collector roadways which connect to the arterial and thoroughfare highway network. n III. Review Section 5.5.3.1 of the Rules reads; Relevant Countywide Considerations. In the consideration of a regular plan amendment, it is the objective of these Rules to evaluate the Impact of the amendment on those Relevant Countywide Considerations affected by the amendment, as they pertain to the overall purpose and integrIty of the Countywide Plan. . · The amendment and the rezoning are not consistent with the Plan. ..-... . ~ -'. I ....'....,....,W.'...U. 1~'1I1""'-'-J 1 t:.1 ~'+'+.:II I I j ~c~-I~-U~ l~:~~; t"Alit: ;j .cITY OF CLEARWATER/DIMMITT/LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PINElLAS COUNIY p~ 1. In reViewing a proposed amendment, the Pinellas County Comprehensive "Countywide Plan Rules" primarily concentrate on six (6) enumerated criteria. Secticm 5.3.5 refers to these criteria as "Relevant CountYWide Consfderatlons". -The City of Clearwater/Dimmitt/Land Use Plan Amendment (hereinafter "Amendment") fails several of these Considerations. A. Section 5.3.5.1. This Consideration provides "...the amendment's location and proposed cJassification must be consistent with the provisions of the Goals, Policies and Economic AssumptIons of the CountYWide Comprehensive Plan..." In particular, the following pertinent portions should be noted: "Land Use" - ~ Goal - - The land uses associated with development should be compatible and reasonable in terms of both the land, surrounding uses, and the public interest..." Townhouses which is the use proposed are not compatible with the surrounding area. As suggested in the objections Jetter of July 11, 2002, (nereinafter "Lette~), although the actual use to the west of the proposed site is commercial, the subject property is otherwise surrounded by Lake Chautauqua and other large sections of preservation/recreation open space and a ResidentIal SUburban land use designation allowing 2.5 units per acre. *** "Land Y,g" - - "Policies" - - ""The scale of proposed land development should be compatible with the capacity of existing supporting facilities, such as roads and utillties. This;s especially true where the upgrading of facilities Is not feasible." See discussion below regarding "Transportation". This policy is not met. "TransDortation" - - "Policies" - - "The transportation system should be adequate to serve t.he anticipated growth pattern of the County and its socioeconomic rur'ztlor:. " See discussion below regarding "Transportation". This policy Is not met. B. Section 5.3.5.2. This ConsIderation proVides "...r:1e amendment must not be focated on or impact a roadway segment where the existing Level of ServIce (LOS) is below LOS "0", or where projected traffic resulting from the amendment would cause the existing LOS to faU below LOS "0"." As suggested in the letter, the traffic analysis presented by the Dimmltts spoke to U.S. 19 being LOS F. Quoting from the report submitted to the Commission: ~ENT BY: FIGURSKI&HARRILL' , 727 9443711' , SEP-12-02 15:55; PAGE SIB ,. - - - -- - -. - - - -'- - G .. sewer, garbage collections, and drainage systems and shall provide data on sub-sectors of the City in which service deficiencies exist or in which services are adequate to serve existing and planned new development. This Level of Service status wll1 be considered and made part of the staff recommendation at the time of zoning, site plan, or plat approval. The Level of Service monitoring system shall be adjusted, at a minimum, annually to determine adequacy of service capacity. Should a requested development permit result in approvals which would burden service systems above adopted levels, permission to proceed with the development will not be granted until the City has assured that adequate services will be available concurrent with the impacts of development. 5.1.1 No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of City services (traffiC circulation, recreation and open space, water sewage treatmentl garbage collection, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable levels. Transportation Element 5.4.2 For those roads which are not currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service, or which do not have programmed improvements to upgrade service to an acceptable level, the concurrency management system shall be used to monitor traffic growth, with the dual intent of maintaining average operating speeds and r.e.,strictin9 the a9cregate and individual trips (e.s.) generated by development in the City limits. 5.5 Objective - All County and State roadways in Clearwater, except those Identified as backlogged or constrained by the Pinellas County MPO, shall 9perate at level C average dally/D peak hour. : . -. -. .-. . . J '-'..I - I ~ - ...." . oJ. -..II'" J r""UI: :)/0 ~ " · The Amendment and the rezoning are incompatible with the surrounding area. · Transportation facilities are Inadequate to support the Amendment and the rezoning. · The Amendment and the rezoning do not met and do not conform to the standards of the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan or Clearwater's -own Comprehensive Plan. CLEARWATER'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Not only Is the Amendment and rezoning application inconsistent with the Pinellas County Plan which pursuant to a legislative special act the Arrencrnent must conform, the Amendment is inconsistent with the City's own plan. In particular, we would note the following: Future Land Use Elem~nt: 2.2 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote inti" development that is consistent and ('om~atjbjo$ with the surroundlno environment (e.s.). Policies 2.2.1 On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan approval process- shall be utilized in promoting inti II development and/or planned developments that are compatible (e.s.). 3.2 Objective - Future Land Use in the City of Clearwater sh:::11 be guided (e.s.) by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and implemented through the City's Community Development Code. Map categories an~ further defined in Policy # 3.2.1 below. 5. GOAL - THE CITY SHALL NOT PERMIT DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR UNLESS AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SERVICE (e.s.) IS AVAILA.BLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT. AREAS IN WHICH THE IMPACT OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT EXCEED THE DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE WILL BE UPGRADED CONSISTENT WITH THE TARGET DATES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE APPUCABLE FUNCTIONAL PLAN ELEMENT. 5.1 ObjectIve - The City shafl continue to Implement the Concurrency Management and information system to be used In granting development permits. ThIs system shall continue to consider the current, Interim, arid ultimately desired Levels of Service for traffic circulation, transit, water, . , . September 18, 2002 In response to query by Councilmember Bradbury, Chairman Nickeson explained that the right-of-way for the Marshall Street extension has not been dedicated, however, it will be reviewed at the time the Church is built. Upon call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously (12-0). PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #CW 02-39, PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF CLEARWATER TO AMEND THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, PRESERVATION, AND WATER/DRAINAGE FEATURE TO RESIDENTIAL LOW, PRESERVATION, AND WATER/DRAINAGE FEATURE - DENIED Pursuant to legal notice published in the SePtember 1, 2002 issue of the Pinellas edition of The Tampa Tribune as evidenced by affidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was held on Case #CW 02-39, a proposal by the City of Clearwater to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan from Residential Suburban, Preservation, and Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low, Preservation, and Water/Drainage Feature, re 22.18 acres located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue from 103 feet south of Second Avenue North to Second A venue South. Mr. Healey noted that staff is recommending approval of the request by the City of Clearwater subject to limiting the traffic impact on the site pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System; and that in addition and separately, recommend and encourage the City to determine what the concurrency management provisions will be prior to its final approval of the land use plan amendment. Mr. Crawford presented the staff report including background information and planning considerations, which has been filed and made a part of the record; and related that the site is vacant and contains wooded and preservation areas; and that approval of the amendment will allow for the site to be developed with 86 townhouses. He explained that the City has not been presented a site plan; and that the requested change will continue to recognize the preservation area and water drainage features on the site. Gina Clayton, City of Clearwater, related that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has indicated that it does not. anticipate that the proposed amendment will have an adverse impact on U.S. Highway 19; and that the focus of concern is on the County roads to the south of the site which have not been brought up to current standards. She stated that the City will consider improving and extending other roadways in the area at the time of site plan review; that there are funded improvements such as overpasses and channelizing medians planned for U.S. Highway 19; and that when the City Commission approved the application, it considered the parcel's close proximity to U.S. Highway 19 and its adjacency to an intense commercial use. 11 ~ September 18, 2002 , . Commissioner Hamilton interjected that it is feasible that the property could be developed with single family homes at 2.5 units per acre; and that the footprint of townhouses and their FAR will be smaller and afford less ecological impact. Harry Cline, Esquire, Clearwater, representing the property owner, related that the zoning and land use of the subject property is impacted by the adjacent uses and existing commercial development; and alluding to a comment by Commissioner Bradbury, stated that approximately one-half of the homeowners are no longer in opposition to the amendment. He indicated that City of Clearwater staff, Clearwater Community Development Board, the PPC, and Planners Advisory Committee (PAC) have all endorsed the proposed amendment; and that the applicant is prepared to assume responsibility for all necessary road improvements. Robert Pergolizzi, Florida Design Consultants, transportation and planning engineer for the property owner, related that based on the site's proximity to the rear of the auto sales and service center it would not be appropriate to develop it with estate lots; and that the intent of the proposal is to create a transition area and buffer zone. He noted that a traffic analysis had been done on the site based on 7.5 units per acre, which had been the original proposal by the applicant and subsequently was changed to five units per acre, and based on that analysis it was found that the traffic impact on U.S. Highway 19 will be less than one percent of the existing capacity due to alternative access and the upcoming improvements. Following discussion, in response to the Chairman's call for proponents to the application, the following individuals appeared and being duly sworn, expressed their support: Ed Hooper, Clearwater, Vice-Chairman, Community Development Board, City of Clearwater Joe Burdett, Belleair In response to the Chairman's call for opponents of the amendment, the following individuals appeared and being duly sworn, expressed their concerns: Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire, Figurski & Harrill, representing nine homeowners Stephen E. McConihay, Clearwater Linda L. GanglehofI, Clearwater Donald M. Sutton, Clearwater * * * * At this time, 11 :40 A.M., Councilmember Foster left the meeting. * * * * 12 . , .. September 18, 2002 In rebuttal, Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director, City of Clearwater, indicated that if the amendment is approved by the PPC and the Countywide Planning Authority, there are many more steps that will have to be undertaken by a potential developer; and that implementation is conducted by the City staff, City Commission, and the Planning Board during the zoning and site plan review process. She stated that it is the City's position that it is not appropriate at this time in the development process to require a developer to submit a site plan when he is not prepared to do that and it is not required by the code; and that the City of Clearwater respectfully requests that the second condition be withdrawn. Alluding to the secondary recommendation, Mr. Healey affirmed that it is not a condition but simply a recommendation that the City consider determining what the agreed upon arrangements for traffic will be prior to finalizing the land use plan amendment since some of the solutions may be outside the City's direct control due to adjoining County property and roads. Mayor DiNicola moved, seconded by Mayor DiDonato, that Case #CW 02-39 be approved subject to the City limiting the traffic impact on the site pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System; and separately, further recommend that the appropriate traffic mitigation provisions pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management Ordinance be determined and agreed to by the City and the applicant prior to the City approving the plan amendment. Following discussion by the members and input by Jewel White-Cole, Senior Assistant County Attorney, at the request of the Chairman, a roll call was conducted; whereupon, the motion failed 5 to 6 with Mayor Beverland, Councilmember Bradbury, Mayor De Cesare, Vice-Mayor Henderson, Mayor Jackson, and Mayor Smith casting the dissenting votes. Thereupon, Mayor Jackson moved, seconded by Mayor Smith, that Case #CW 02-39 be denied based on unacceptable impact as to traffic considerations and the relationship and potential impact to the adjoining jurisdiction. Following roll call, the motion carried 6 to 5 with Mayor DiDonato, Mayor DiNicola, School Board Member Gessner, Commissioner Hamilton, and Commissioner Nickeson casting the dissenting votes (Vote 6-5). PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #CW 02-40, PROPOSAL BY CITY OF SEMINOLE TO AMEND tHE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM INSTITUTIONAL TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL - CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 16. 2002 MEETING Mr. Healey referred to Case #CW 02-40, a proposal by the City of Seminole to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan from Institutional to Commercial General, re 7.63 acres located at the north side of 102nd Avenue North, 300 13 EXHIBIT 1 . , 4. Development contributions or site-related improvements which will mitigate Impacts. S. Accident rates at intersections. 6. Other improvements or alternatives. c Traffic S!udies shall he conducted in accordance with NCHRP Highway Capacity _ Manual (TRB Repon 209). _ D. Minimum required standards. A traffic impact study for a development shall demonstrate that the infrastructure requ~eme~ and standards set r~I1h in p011j~S ~ S. i' :. i. i' ~. : ~ ~ S. 5. 1 efthe traffis 61f61:datlOR elemeat and j:lsheles 2&. 3.. a 2. . . e t e oapital imj:lrs"lemem the transportation and capital improvement ele~ents of the comprehensive plan of the city are or shall be satisfied to the extent that such requirements apply to the development. . E. !fa traffic impact study has been approved by the department of transportation of the State of Florida, and such study evaluates the same issues the city requires to be evaluated. it shall b.e deemed to satisfy the requir-ement-s of this section. DIVIS10N 9. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT . C" Section 4-901. Autho'rity and applicability. A . Certificate of concun-ency/capacity required Unless exempted under the provisions of paragraph B below. all applications for development approval shall include an application for a' certificate of concurrency/capacity or a nonconcurrency affidavit. No development approval shall be granted Until a certificate of concurrency/capacity is issued or a nonconcurrency affidavit is executed. B. Exception. No certificate of concurrency/capacity is required for the following: 1. Replacement of structures that do not increase the demand for public facilities. 2. Room additions to residences. 3. Accessory structures to residen:es, including swimming pools. fences and walls. 4. Signs. -. r S. Utility infrastructure fAcilities. 6. Public fAcilities. . -- Page 4 . 53 " 7. Telecommunication towers. 8. Parking garages and lots. 9. Fill-in permits if the original shell permit is vested prior to May 31, ] 990, or passed a concurrency determination on or after May 31, 1990. 10. Expansions that were previously disclosed by the applicant and subject to a concurrency test as.part of the original application ofa phased development. ] ] . Projects that are vested. 12. , De....le~lll<ftt thai gefletll!e. few... th... ) 19 aV""'!le daily Ifip.; "::~: hC'l/ever, #lat aeaitisRaJ eev~spmeHt efdie JaBS is tA.e mtl:lre sA. e permittee v.bieA. '.vould geaer.atc a total of average Baily trips ia eJceess of] ~ 0 trips ';;ithsl:lt ebta:isisg a eertificate sf eOfleurressy/eapaeity. Section 4-902. Application and procedures. A -~ a--- - .... --- _ _... _.... ..... __.. _ .....__ .___ _ ______ An applicatJon for a cenificate of concurrency/capacity shaH be filed with the community development coordinator as part of an application for development approval and shaH include such fees as are required by section 4-202(E). B. The community development coordinator shall review the application and determine whether ffie application complies Vtith the sianaardsln seCfioo'4-903". If the coniril1imty development coordinator detennines that the application complies with the standards7 a certificate of concurrency/capacity shall be issued and shall be valid for a period of two : years or such later period as may be provided for in a development approval. "- C. In the event that an application for a certificate of concurrency/capacity is approved, the applicant shall pay prior to the issuance of the certificate, a fee in the form ofprepayment of the capacity being reserved, or some other financial assurance provided by the applicant that is acceptable to the city. The cenificate of concurrency/capacity fee may be refunded if development does ~ot proceed so long as the city has not expended or obligated the money for preconstruction costs or construction of the facility, if the road impact fee has not been transferred to the county. If the road impact fee portion has been transferred to the county, the applicant may request a refund from the county. D. A certificate of concurrency/capacity may be extended accordlng to the same terms and conditions as the underlying development approval. If a development approval is granted an extension, the certificate of concurrency/capacity, ifany, shall also be extended. E. A certificate of concurrency/capacity may be extended to remain in effect for the life of each subsequent development approval for the same parcel, as long as the applicant obtains a subsequent development approval prior to the expiration of the earlier development approval. Page 4 - 54 . . -' (- I , ( r ( ( <" ( r ( ( ( '( '- F. A certificate of concurrency/capacity runs with the land and is valid only for subsequent development approvals for the same parcel and to new owners of the original parC'el.for which it was issued. G. A certificate of concurrency/capacity shall expire if the underlying development order expires or is revoked by the city and the capacity has not been extended to a subsequent development approval for the same parcel. H. A denial of a certificate of concurrency/capacity may be appealed in the manner provided in Article 4, Division 5. Section 4-903. Standards for certificate of concurrency/capacity. A. In determining whether a certificate of concurrency/capacity may be issued, the community development coordinator shall apply the level of service standards in the comprehensive plan according to the following measures for eac~ public facility: 1. 2. 3. " 4. / \ 5. 6. Potable water: water service area. Sanitary sewer: sewer facility availability. Drainage: drainage basin. Solid waste: citywide. Parks and recreation: citywide. Roads: Section 4-803(C) Standards for Traffic Impact Study. B. For public facilities provided by entities other than the city, the certificate may be issued subject to the availability of such public facilities consistent with pOl:('.. "':R 3.3 of the comprehensive plan. C. lithe capacity of available public facilities is less than the capacity required to maintain the level of service standard for the impact of the development, the applicant may: 1. Accept a IS-day encumbrance ofpublic facilities that are available and, within the same IS-day period, amend the application to reduce the needed public facilities to the capacity that is available. 2. Accept a 9G-day encumbrance of public facilities that are-available and, within the same 90 day period, arrange to provide for public facilities that are not otherwise available. 3. Reapply for a certificate of capacity not less than six months following the denial of an application for a certificate of capacity ~, Page 4 - 55 D. If the capacity of impacted roads is inadequate, the community development coordinator may consider the following forms of mitigation: 1. System improvements, including but not limited to turn lanes, signals, acceleration/deceleration lanes and intersection improvements. 2. Travel time/speed studies conducted using methodology and data acceptable to the community development coordinator. 3. Alternative transportation programs, incentives and disincentives, including but not limited to transit systems, car pools, van pools, limited parking, and staggered work hours. 4. The following are not generally acceptable mitigation strategies: a. Improvements to roads that are not below level of service standards. b. Diverted trips. c. Averaging, i e., system analySis rristead 'OIOY 'lIrik:: DIVISION 10. SIGN PERMIT Secti'on 4-1001. Purpose. ( t It is the purpose of this division to establish procedures for the review and approval of signs in accordance with the standards of Article 3, Division 18. f Section 4-1002. Permit required. ( No sign shall be located, placed, erected, constructed, altered or extended without first obtaining a sign permit, except for signs listed in section 3-1805. Section 4-1003. Application. :~ t ( In addition to the basic information required by section 4-202(A), where applicable, and the fee required by section 4-202(E), an application for approval of a sign shall be treated as a level one approval in accordance with the provision of Article 4, Division 3 and shall be accompanied by plans and specificatioDS, drawn to scale and including the following' A. Legal description of the property where the sign is proposed to be located; B. Name, address and telephone number of the owner of the property where the sign is proposed to be located; Page 4 - 56 , ~ " l: , October 15, 2002 Donald M. Sutton. Clearwater Winston E. Needham, Clearwater Stephen E. McConihay, Clearwater In rebuttal, Harry Cline, Esquire, Clearwater, stated that he represent_s the landowner; and that the continuance is necessary in order to address the traffic impact, as well as other issues. During discussion, Commissioner Seel expressed concern for the expenditure oflegal fees for the nine families; and noted that staffhas maintained that 2.5 units per acre are appropriate. Upon further discussion and following input by Attorney Susan H. Churut~ Commissioner Stewart moved, seconded by Commissioner Latvala, that the motion for continuance be amended to include the directive that it be remanded to the PPC for reconsideration. Upon call for the vote, the motion passed 4 to 3 with Commissioners Todd, Seel, and Latvala casting the dissenting votes. 4486 , ej. .. " , .; October 15,2002 #83d CASE. ##CW 02-39, PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF CLEARWATER TO AMEND LAND USE DESIGNATION ON COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, PRESERVATION, AND WATER/DRAINAGE FEATURE TO RESIDENTIAL LOW, PRESERVATION, AND WATER/DRAINAGE FEATURE (REGULAR AMENDMENT) - TEMPORARILY DEFERRED Chairman Todd noted for the record that the Board is now sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Pmsuant to legal notice published in the September 1, 2002 issue of the Pinellas edition of The Tampa Tribune as evidenced by publisher's affidavit filed with the Clerk, public hearing was held on Case #CW 02-39, a proposal by the City of Clearwater to amend the land use designation on the Countywide Future Land Use Plan from residential suburban, preservation, and water/drainage feature to residential low, preservation, and water/drainage feature, re 22.18 acres located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue from 103 feet south of Second Avenue North to Second Avenue South (regular amendment). Chief Deputy Clerk C. R. Short reported that no correspondence relative to the application has been received; and that the matter is properly before the Authority to be heard. County Administrator Stephen M. Spratt stated that the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) recommends continuance of the proposal; and that staff concurs with the PPC recommendation. Pinellas ~lanning Council Executive Director David P. Healey advised that the PPC has recommended denial; and that the City of Clearwater requested a continuance for a maximum period of six months. Thereupon, Commissioner Latvala moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch, that the proposal be continued. Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director, City of Clearwater, related that the owner currently has a developer; and that the requested continuance will allow for the preparation of a site plan. Upon query by Chairman Todd, Mr. Spratt stated that staff concurred with the PPC denial recommendation prior to receipt of the requested continuance. In response to the Chairman's call for persons wishing to be heard, Gerald A Figurski, Esquire, Figurski & Harrill, appeared and indicated that he represents nine of the 12 homeowners residing in the vicinity; that his clients are opposed to the continuance; and that the determinant fuctor in a land use amendment process is density. In response to the Chairman's call for other persons wishing to be heard, the following individuals appeared and expressed their concerns: 4485 ~. / ,. :t- ~ - . October IS, 2002 Donald M. Sutton, Clearwater Winston E. Needham, Clearwater Stephen E. McConihay, Clearwater In rebuttal, Harry Cline, Esquire, Clearwater, stated that he represents the landowner; and that the continuance is necessary in order to address the traffic impact, as well as other issues. During discussion, Commissioner Seel expressed concern for the expenditure oflegal fees for the nine families; and noted that staff has maintained that 2.5 units per acre are appropriate. Upon further discussion and following input by Attorney Susan H. Churuti, Commissioner Stewart moved, seconded by Commissioner Latvala, that the motion for continuance be amended to include the directive that it be remanded to the PPC for reconsideration. Upon call for the vote, the motion passed 4 to 3 with Commissioners Todd, Seel, and Latvala casting the dissenting votes. #83e CASE #CW 02-40, PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF SEMINOLE TO AMEND LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM INSTITUTIONAL TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL (REGULAR AMENDMENT) - TEMPORARILY DEFERRED TO MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5. 2002 Chairman Todd noted for the record that the Board is now sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Pursuant to legal notice published in the September 1, 2002 issue of the Pinellas edition of The Tampa Tribune as evidenced by publisher's affidavit filed with the Clerk, public hearing was held on Case #CW 02-40, a proposal by the City of Seminole to amend the land use designation on the Countywide Future Land Use Plan from institutional to commercial general, re 7.63 acres located on the north side of 102nd Avenue North, 300 feet west of Seminole Boulevard (regular amendment). Chief Deputy Clerk C. R. Short reported that no correspondence relative to the application has been received; and that the matter is properly before the Authority to be heard. County Administrator Stephen M. Spratt stated that the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) recommends that the case be temporarily deferred to the meeting of November 5, 2002; and that staff concurs with the PPC recommendation. No one appeared in response to the Chairman's call for persons wishing to be heard. 4486 " !"; . . October 15, 2002 #83d CASE #CW 02-39, PROPOSAL BY THE CITY OF CLEARWATER TO AMEND LAND USE DESIGNATION ON COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, PRESERVATION, AND WATER/DRAINAGE FEATURE TO RESIDENTIAL LOW, PRESERVATION, AND WATER/DRAINAGE FEATURE (REGULAR AMENDMENT) - TEMPORARILY DEFERRED Chairman Todd noted for the record that the Board is now sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Pursuant to legal notice published in the September 1, 2002 issue of the Pinellas edition of The Tampa Tribune as evidenced by publisher's affidavit filed with the Clerk, public hearing was held on Case #CW 02-39, a proposal by the City of Clearwater to amend the land use designation on the Countywide Future Land Use Plan from residential suburban, preservation, and water/drainage feature to residential low, preservation, and water/drainage feature, re 22.18 acres located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue from 103 feet south of Second Avenue North to Second Avenue South (regular amendment). Chief Deputy Clerk C. R. Short reported that no correspondence relative to the application has been received; and that the matter is properly before the Authority to be heard. County Administrator Stephen M. Spratt stated that the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) recommends continuance of the proposal; and that staff concurs with the PPC recommendation. Pinellas Planning Council Executive Director David P. Healey advised that the PPC has recommended denial; and that the City of Clearwater requested a continuance for a maximum period of six months. ~ereupon, Commissioner Latvala moved, seconded by Commissioner Welch, that the proposal be continued. Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director, City of Clearwater, related that the owner currently has a developer; and that the requested continuance will allow for the preparation of a site plan. Upon query by Chairman Todd, Mr. Spratt stated that staff concurred with the PPC denial recommendation prior to receipt of the requested continuance. In response to the Chairman's call for persons wishing to be heard, Gerald A. Figurski, Esquire, Figurski & Harrill, appeared and indicated that he represents nine of the 12 homeowners residing in the vicinity; that his clients are opposed to the continuance; and that the determinant factor in a land use amendment process is density. In response to the Chairman's call for other persons wishing to be heard, the following individuals appeared and expressed their concerns: 4485 " . ( ) ) , . DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST ST A TE:MENT PPC COUNTYWIDE MAP AMENDMENT -ATTACHMENT 2 . . SUBMI1TING GOVERNMENT ENTITY: Clearwater PPC. & CITYfTOWN CASE NUMBER: CW 02-39 / LUZ 02-02-03 PROPERTY OWNERSIREPRESENTATIVE: Name: Larry Dimmitt Tre LHO Properties 25485 US Highway 19 Clearwater, FL 33763 ANY OTHER PERSONS HAVING ANY OWNERSIDP INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: Interests: Contingent: Absolute: Name: Specific Interest Held: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER A CONTRACT EXISTS FOR SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: Contract is: Contingent Absolute All Parties To Contract: Name: INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OPTIONS TO PURCHASE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IF SO: All Parties To Option: Name: Name: ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION WInCH APPLICANT MAY WISH TO SUBMIT PERTAINING TO REQUESTED PLAN AMENDMENT: · NUMBER TO BE ASSIGNED BY PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF . ) ~ AlTACHMENT 3 . DrCJft fiAC UJlrNut.. 8apt~Mb~r e, 2002 Case #CW 02-39 City of Clearwater - This 22.l8-acre parcel is located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, from 103 feet south of Second Avenue North to Second Avenue South. The proposed amendment submitted by Clearwater is a request to change the plan designation from Residential Suburban; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature to Residential Low; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature. The subject area is vacant. The proposed amendment would allow for the development of the site with 86 townhomes. Michael Crawford presented an overview of the staff report reconnnending the proposed amendment be approved, subject to the City limiting the traffic impacts on the site pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management System. Separate and in addition, it is recommended the appropriate traffic mitigation provisions pursuant to the City's Concurrency Management Ordinance be determined and agreed to by the City and the applicant prior to the City approving the plan amendment. Gordon Beardslee asked for the rationale behind the five unit per acre designation. Gina Clayton responded by stating that the applicant initially asked for seven and a half units per acre, which was deemed to be too intense. She went on to say that the City feels five units per acre fits nicely between the property designated at two units per acre and the car lot on' th~ wc;:st which is a very intense use. Ms. Clayton added that the City of Clearwater is not in agreement with the additional reconnnendation requesting that the City and the applicant agree to traffic mitigation provisions prior to the site plan review. Ms. Clayton went on to say that the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) has no issues with the proposal. Discussion ensued on this point. Rick MacAulay asked if there is opposition from neighboring property owners and Gina Clayton responded in the affmnative. Ric Goss moved approval of the staff reconnnendation. The motion was seconded by Mike Nadeau and approved. (Vote 12-0; Tom Shevlin abstained) . ' ., - . .' ) JNTY FLA. PINELLAS '31 pG 1056 OFF.REC.BK 95 .' And the said Party of the First Part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Party of the First Part has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above writ- ten. and Delivered Print Name. ee' ( c)t/. -t.' -db?r~- ~~Lc- 'Print Name! ~~ .I/,//~ ..' .. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS . I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day personally appeared before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, LARRY E. DIMMITT, JR., Trustee O/T/A/ dated April 12, 1994, to me personally known and who did take an oath, and known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged before me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal at Belleair, said County and State, this 21st day of November, 1996. In-AlA d /?/~ N ary Publi" ./ Print Name !...J/JA./.("l# L. #E'"/L.c- My Commission Expires: ..... -2- ~ MACFARLANE FERGUSON & MCMULLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1500 SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE SUITE 240 LAKELANO. FLORIDA 33801 (863) _o.e_ FAX 18631 e83-28~9 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET. SUITE 2300 P.O. BOX 1531 (ZIP 336011 TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602 18131 27:s..Z00 ,.AX (813) 27~396 625 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 11569 IZIP 33757) CLEARWATER. ,.LORIDA 33756 (727) _"'866 FAX (727) _2.e~70 IN REPLY REFER TO: February 21, 2002 Clearwater City of Clearwater State of Florida CERTIFICATE OF TITLE The undersigned, BARRY S. CLINE, a licensed attorney at law, does hereby certify that a~ of the date of this certificate that fee simple title to the property described in the attached composite Exhibit -An, public records of Pinellas County, Florida, is presently vested in LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, III, [Parcel A] and LARRY H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee under the amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98 [Parcel B] . EXECUTED this .2.- \ day of February, 2002. MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN By' ~,~ Harry S. Cline \ a H:\Data\Aty\HSC\Corresp.'02\Dimm1tt#2.cert.wpd ~ Pinellas County BCC Meeting Agenda Pi ~ Related Links Visitor j Business : Resident ] Job Openings' C November 3, 2003 Pinellas County BCC Meeting Agenda Commissioners Administration Departments Public Meetings TV18 online Meeting Results Worksession Agenda Guide to BCC Meetings News Service November 4, 2003 9:30 A.M. I NVOCA nON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to the Flag of the United States of Amer PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS A. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Any Person Wishing to Speak at this Time, Excluding Non-Public Hearir the Agenda or Issues Previously Acted on by the Board of County Coml Must Have a Yellow Card Completed and Given to the Board Secretary Table Located at the Front ofthe Board Room. The Chairman will Call E Speaker, One by One, to the Podium to be Heard. Each Speaker May S Three (3) Minutes. jAtIrC - {Me. " (ltJ1 rn tit /rf~ B. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS Any Person Wishing to Speak about a Public Hearing Item Shall Compll Card and Submit it to the Board Secretary at the Staff Table Located at of the Board Room. The Procedure Used by the Board of County Comrr in Conducting Public Hearings is to Have a Staff Presentation Followed Applicant Presenting the Specific Proposal. The Board Will Then Hear C from the Proponents Followed by Comments from the Opponents and a Summary. The Applicant Will Then be Given an Opportunity to Close ar Board of County Commissioners will Decide on the Matter. , 1. Any Person Who Has been Authorized to Represent an Organization (5) or More Members or a Group of Five (5) or More Persons Shall Com 'I Blue Card, Submit it to the Board Secretary at the Staff Table Located a of the Board Room, and Should Limit Their Presentation to Ten (10) Mir , Expected that Others in the Organization or Group will Waive Their Time , 2. Any Other Person who Wishes to Speak about a Public Hearing Item -.-- - Complete a Blue Card, Submit it to the Board Secretary at the Staff Tab at the Front of the Board Room, and May Speak up to Three (3) Minute~ Chairman will Call Each Speaker, One by One, to the Podium to be Hec PUBLIC HEARINGS - COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY Consideration of the Following Proposals to Amend the Adopted Count) Future Land Use Plan: SUBTHRESHOLD AMENDMENTS 1. a. Case #CW 03-63 - S1. Petersburg. Location - 0.2 Acre Located 300 Feet North of 50th Avenue North and 1 West of 4th Street North; Amendment from Residential Medium to http://www.pinellascounty.org/BCCagenda.htm 11/3/2003 Pinellas County BCC Meeting Agenda Page 2 of9 Residential/Office/Retail. b. Case #CW 03-64 - St Petersburg. Location - 0.5 Acre Located on the Southwest Corner of Emerson Aven and 31st Street South; Amendment from Residential Urban and Industri to Residential Medium. c. Case #CW 03-65 - St. Petersburg. Location - 0.4 Acre Located on the Southeast Corner of Dr. M.L. King J North and 72nd Avenue North; Amendment from Residential Urban to Residential/Office General. d. Case #CW 03-68 - Dunedin. Location - 1.0 Acre Located on the South Side of San Christopher DriVE Feet East of Richland Avenue; Amendment from Residential Medium to Commercial Limited e. Case #CW 03-69 - Largo. Location - 0.8 Acre Located on the Northwest Corner of Seminole BouiE 124th Avenue North; Amendment from Residential/Office General and F Low to Commercial General. REGULAR AMENDMENTS 2. a. Case #CW 03-66 - St. Petersburg. Location - 40.0 Acres Located as the Area Bounded by Dr. ML King Jr North, Gandy Boulevard, and Roosevelt Boulevard (Area includes Case 67); Amendment from Industrial Limited; Commercial General; and Residential/Office General to Industrial Limited; Commercial General; Residential/Office General; and Activity Center-Primary Overlay. Ar~Jt} IJ/t!Vn M . 6b (2tt1 fa) '1~o b. Case #CW 03-67 - St. Petersburg. Location - 21.5 Acres Located on the Northwest Corner of Gandy Boule Roosevelt Boulevard; and the East Side of Dr. M.L. King Jr. Street Nortt Part of Case #CW 03-66); Amendment from Industrial Limited to Residential/Office/Retail. ~OAH Case No. 03-1500/Case #CW 03-221#CW 02-39 - City of Clee ~~ation - 23.0 Acres Located on the East Side of Chautauqua Avenue Feet South of 2nd Avenue North to 2nd Avenue South; Amendment fror Residential Suburban; Preservation; and WaterlDrainage Feature to Re Low; Preservation; and Water/Drainage Feature. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC 3. TEFRA Hearing on Proposed Issuance of Pinellas County Industrial Development Authority, d/b/a Pinellas County Economic Development P Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (RAMA Holdings, LLC, Project) 2003, in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,000,000.00. 4. Proposed Amendment to Article VIII, Chapter 42 of the Pinellas Coun Pertaining to the Charitable Solicitations Ordinance. 5. Proposed Amendment to Article VIII, Chapter 26 of the Pinellas Coun Pertaining to the Fortunetelling Ordinance. 6. Proposed Amendment to Article I, Chapter 6 of the Pinellas County C http://www.pinellascounty.org/BCC_agenda.htm 11/3/2003 Pinellas County Bee Meeting Agenda Page 3 of9 Pertaining to the Alcohol and Nudity Ordmance. 7. Proposed Amendment to Article III, Chapter 10 of the Pinellas Count~ Pertaining to the Bingo Ordinance. WATER AND NAVIGATION Pursuant to the Provisions of Chapter 31182, laws of Florida (1955), as it is the Policy of the Pinellas County Water & Navigation Control Author Persons Giving Testimony on Matters Relating to Application for Dredge Dock Permits do so Under Oath. If You Wish to Make Statements or Gi\ Testimony Concerning any of the Water & Navigation Items, Please be I to Stand and Take the Oath When Requested to do so by the Clerk. 8. Dredge and Fill Application D/F-1449 for the City of St. Petersburg, A Bayou, Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg. 9. Dredge and Fill Application D/F-1434 for the City of St. Petersburg, C 1 - 10, Venetian Isles, Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg. 10. Dredge and Fill Application D/F-1428 for The Canterbury School/EIIE Head of School, 901 58th Avenue Northeast, Placido Bayou, St. Petersl C. CONSENT AGENDA CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 11. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held on September 23, 12. Reports: a. Southwest Florida Water Management District Budget in Brief, Fiscal Annual Service Budget from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 20 b. Property Appraiser's Summary of 2003-04 Budget by Appropriation C Accepted by the Florida Department of Revenue Pursuant to Section 19 (b), Florida Statutes c. Internal Audit Division, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Report No. 2003-16 October 9, 2003, Follow-Up Review to Audit of South County Branch Of d. State of Florida Constitutional Officer Financial Report for 2002-2003 County Supervisor of Elections. 13 Other Approvals: a. General - Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Budget Amendment No. CBA-5-03. b. Vouchers and Bills Paid. 14. Miscellaneous Items to be Received for Filing: a. City of Clearwater Public Hearing Notices of Annexation, land Use P Rezoning and Zoning Atlas Amendments Regarding Ordinances Nos. 7 through 7200-03 to be Held November 20, 2003; and Ordinances Nos. ~ http://www.pinellascounty.org/BCC_agenda.htm 11/3/2003 Pinellas County BCC Meeting Agenda Page 4 of9 through 7197-03 and 7201-03 through 7208-03 to be Held December 4, b. Correspondence from the City of Oldsmar Regarding Ordinance No : Voluntarily Annexing Certain Property; Public Hearing Held October 21, c. Correspondence from the City of Pinellas Park Regarding One Ordim Voluntarily Annexing Certain Property; Public Hearing Held October 23, d. Pinellas Park Water Management District TRIM Package for Fiscal YI 2004, Together with Minutes of Public Hearing 2003-2004, Millage Rate Dated September 18, 2003. e. City of Dunedin Ordinance No. 03-01, Creating Chapter 111 and Arne Chapter 134 of the Uniform Development Code to Provide for Historic P and a Historic Preservation Overlay Zoning District, Respectively. f. Resolutions Supporting Continued Inclusion of Local Sources First Po Pertaining to Florida's Water Resources: 1. Columbia County Board of County Commissioners, No. 2003R-39, Ac September 18, 2003. 2. Dixie County Board of County Commissioners, No. 03-30, Adopted S, 4. 2003. 3. Marion County Board of County Commissioners. No. 03-R-264, Adop September 16, 2003. 4. Washington County Board of County Commissioners, Adopted Septe 2003. 5. Jacksonville City Council, No. 2003-1122-A, Adopted September 9,2 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works 15. Approval of an Award of Bid to Oakhurst Construction Company. Inc Construction of Philippe Park Maintenance Building Utilities 16. Approval of an Award of Bid for the Indian Shores and Indian Rocks Reclaimed Water System Project. 17. Approval of the Rankings of Firms and Authorization for Staff to Neg the Number One Ranked Firms Regarding Professional Consulting Sel'\ a. Subaqueous Crossings Projects. b. Addition of Fluoride to the Pinellas County Drinking Water Supply. c. Engineering Services for the Study and Design for the Replacement/Rehabilitation of the Redington Beach Pump Station Nos. and 78. http://www.pinellascounty.org/BCC_agenda.htm . 11/3/2003 Pinellas County BCC Meeting Agenda Page 5 of9 Other Departments 18. Adoption of a Resolution for Assessment of Liens against Lands Cle (Environmental Management). 19. Approval of an Award of Bid to Stan Cisilski, Inc. for Lot Maintenanc. Debris Removal (Environmental Management). 20. Approval of Budget Amendment No. 36 (Management and Budget). D. AUTHORITIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY 21. Approval of an Award of Bid to Pride Enterprises for Laser Printing/[ E. REGULAR AGENDA 22. Items for Discussion from Consent Agenda (County Administrator ar Circuit Court). COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Airport 23. Approval of Addendum NO.8 to the Interlocal Agreement with the Pi County Sheriff for the Annual Renewal of Law Enforcement Services. 24. Approval of Change Order NO.2 (Final) with Ajax Paving Industries, Overlay and Strengthening of the Terminal Apron. Public Works 25. Approval of the Local Agency Program Agreement with the State of Department of Transportation for the Design and Construction of the We Road Sidewalk Project from 119th Street North to Seminole Boulevard. 26. Approval of the Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Professio Services for the Eagle Lake Park Development Project. 27. Approval of the Agreement with Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin LOI Rinehart, Inc. for the Parks System Master Planning Project 28. Approval of Change Order NO.2 and Authorization to Reduce Retail Monies on the Construction Management Agreement with Skanska USJ Inc. for the New Medical Examiner's Facility and Forensic Center. 29. Approval of the Purchase of Vacant Property Located at the Northwl of Gulf Road and Shore Drive, Sunset Beach Park Site. Utilities 30. Approval of the Ranking of Firms and Authorization for Staff to Negc Agreements with Both Firms to be Used on an As-Needed Basis for Ge( http://www.pinellascounty.org/BCC_agenda.htm 11/3/2003 Pinellas County BCC Meeting Agenda Page 60f9 Engineering Services for Miscellaneous Projects. 31. Approval of the First Option of Renewal of Contracts with Various VE the Annual Requirements of Water and Sewer Materials. 32. Approval of an Award of Bid for Water Meters (Cooperative) 2003-21 Other Departments 33. Approval of the Authorization to Demolish Unsafe Structures and CIl Property at 5027 Betty Street North, Unincorporated S1. Petersburg (En' Management). 34. Approval of the Authorization to Demolish Unsafe Structures and CIl Property at 3068 55th Avenue North, Unincorporated S1. Petersburg (Environmental Management). 35. Approval of a Grant Agreement with the State of Florida Departmenl Environmental Protection for the Honeymoon Island State Park AmenitiE (Environmental Management). 36. Adoption of a Resolution to Temporarily Waive the Requirements of 47(a) of the County Code for the Friends of Brooker Creek Preserve, In< Fundraising Event at the Brooker Creek Preserve Environmental Educa (Environmental Management). 37. Approval of the Nineteenth Lease Amendment to the Revised and R Lease Agreement with Community Service Foundation, Inc. (General SE 38. Approval of a License Agreement with Young Life, Inc. for Use of a ( Owned Lot in the Dansville Redevelopment Area (General Services). 39. Approval of the Contract and Addendum to the Contract with the Stc Florida Department of Health for the Operation of the Pinellas County H Department (Human Services). 40. Approval of the Letter of Agreement with the State of Florida througt Agency for Health Care Administration Regarding the Upper Payment L Program for the Provision of Additional Funding for Indigent Health Care Services). 41. Approval of the Florida Medicaid Upper Payment Limit Agreement w Bayfront Medical Center (Human Services). 42. Approval of the Master Hospital Uncompensated and Emergency C. Agreement with Local Hospitals, and Authorization to Execute Individua Agreements Pursuant to the Funding Allocation Chart (Human Services 43. Approval of the Authority to Execute the Master Social Action Fundil Agreement, the Master Funding for Local Social Service Agencies Agrel their Individual Agreements (Human Services). 44. Adoption of a Resolution to Appropriate Unanticipated Grant and Dc Proceeds in the Capital Projects Fund for the Brooker Creek Preserve Environmental Education Center Exhibits Project (Management and Bue http://www.pinellascounty.orgIBCC_agenda.htm 1113/2003 Pinellas County BCC Meeting Agenda Page 7 of9 45. Approval of a Donation of the Former Gulf of Mexico Sponge Comp. Warehouse Building to Heritage Village (Park). 46. Adoption of a Resolution to Temporarily Waive the Requirements of 47(a) of the County Code for the Old Palm Harbor Partnership to Hold it Fundraising Event (Planning). 47. Adoption of a Resolution to Support the Current Membership Comp< the Metropolitan Planning Organization (Planning). 48. Approval to Declare Miscellaneous County-Owned Equipment as SL Authorize its Sale as Scrap Material, and Remove Stolen Items from Co Asset Inventory (Purchasing). 49. Other Administrative Matters. COUNTY ATTORNEY 50. Authority for the County Attorney to Defend the Case of Green Tree v. Allan Johnson, et al- Circuit Civil Case No. 03-7532-CI-15 - Mortgage Foreclosure Involving a Judgment for Attorney Fees and Costs 51. Authority to Initiate Litigation Regarding Pinellas County Board of Cc Commissioners v. Audrey Ludwig and Lawrence Ludwig - Risk Claim N 69782 - Alleged Negligence in the Operation of a Motor Vehicle Resultil Damage to a Pinellas County Sheriffs VehIcle. 52. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Default Judgments on Inferior I Mortgage Foreclosures. 53. Approval of Contracts for Law Enforcement Services for: a. City of Belleair Bluffs. b. Town of North Redington Beach. c. City of Oldsmar. d. City of Safety Harbor. e. City of South Pasadena. 54. Approval of the Recommendation of Settlement in the Case of Pinel v. Menios Papas, et al- Circuit Civil Case No. 01-008225-CI-015, Parce (Fee Simple). 55. Miscellaneous. F. AUTHORITIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY c 56. Approval of the Airmedical Transport Service Agreement with Bayfrc Center, Inc. d/b/a Bayflite. http://www.pinellascounty.org/BCC_agenda.htm 11/3/2003 Pinellas County BCC Meeting Agenda Page 80f9 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 57. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Not to Exceed $2,000,000.00 in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (RAMA Holdir Project), Series 2003. G. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORTS 58. None. H. COUNTY COMMISSION 59. Approval of an Appointment to the Downtown Palm Harbor Review ( 60. Approval of Appointments to the Pinellas County Charter Review Cc 61. Approval of an Appointment to the Pinellas Public Library Cooperati\ Directors. 62. Approval of an Appointment to the WorkNet Pinellas Board of Direct 63. Election of 2004 Chairman and Vice-Chairman. 64. Miscellaneous. ADJOURNMENT **** Persons are advised that, if they decide to appeal any decision made at meeting/hearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and, for sue purposes, they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the procee made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which tht to be based. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEED ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CEF ASSISTANCE. WITHIN TWO (2) WORKING DAYS OF YOUR RECElp. (DESCRIBE NOTICE/ORDER) PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFICE OF ... RIGHTS, 400 S. FT. HARRISON AVE., SUITE 500, CLEARWATER, FL (727) 464-4062 (VITDDO). PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES Public Hearings before the Board of County Commissioners are govern. provisions of Section 134-14 of the Pinellas County Land Development I code provides that at the conclusion of each person's presentation, any may seek the Chair's permission to ask questions of staff. Specifically: 1. At the conclusIon of the presentations by the applicant and any propo affected parties may seek the Chair's permission to ask questions of or' clarification from the applicant and/or the proponents. 2. At the conclusion of the presentation by the opponents, all affected pc seek the Chair's permission to ask questions of or seek clarification fron opponent. http://www.pinellascounty.org/BCC_agenda.htm 11/3/2003 Pinellas County BCC Meeting Agenda Page 9 of9 The applicant's closing comments will address testimony subsequent to presentation. Continuing rebuttal of other than directly preceding testimc be allowed. Because much testimony has already been submitted in writing, the folic guidelines are expected to be sufficient to accommodate efficient preser 1. The applicant should present his or her entire case, including rebuttal (20) minutes. Visit the Citizens Guide to the Board of County Commissionel 6. top Home I Weather About us I Privacy I Disclaimer http://www.pinellascounty.org/BCCagenda.htm 11/3/2003 ~ Clearwater u City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave., 2nd Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Telephone: (727) 562-4567 Fax: (727) 562-4865 Fax Cover Sheet To: Steve Cole Fax: 442-8470 Phone: 441-8966 From: Cyndi Tarapani Date: 7/9/03 Sub[j]ect: Message: Number of Pages including this page 3 Pinellasii County" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I / Consent Agenda o Regular Agenda o DATE: April 1, 2003 AGENDA ITEM NO'3 ot -/1 Public Hearing ~ ~ County Administrator's SiQnature~ ~~~ Subiect: Proposed Regular Amendments to the Countywide Land Use Plan. Department: Planning Department Staff Member Responsible: Brian K. Smith, Director Recommended Action: IT IS RECOMMENDED THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TAKE ACTION ON CASES #CW 03-21 AND #CW 02-39/03-22 OF CLEARWATER; AND #CW 03-23 OF PINELLAS COUNTY. Summary Explanation/BackQround: The Board has received three proposed regular amendments to the Countywide Land Use Plan. These are as follows: Item a, which is Case #CW 03-21, is a submittal by the City of Clearwater. This is a 1.83-acre proposal located on Windward Passage on Island Estates. The proposal is to go from Commercial General to Residential High (up to 30 units an acre). This initiative is to perform a higher density residential project since the Commercial General in the Countywide Plan allows 24 units an acre and the Residential High category permits 30 units an acre. The PPC report documents this parcel as being located in the coastal high hazard area where increasing densities would be an issue. The City has noted that, in this area, the City has a subthreshold case (#CW 03-20) with a change from Commercial General to Residential Medium. The density for that .87-acre parcel would be going from 24 units an acre to 15 units an acre. The City is taking the approach that this initiative balances against the densit increase fo this case in question.lhe PPC has, therefore, recommende approva 0 e case. ounty staff concurs. Item b, which is Case #CW 03-22, is a submittal by the City of Clearwater. This is a 22.18-acre proposal located between Lake Chautauqua and Chautauqua Avenue. The proposal is to go from Residential Suburban (up to 2 1/2 units an acre) to Residential Low (up to 5 units an acre), with a WaterlDrainage Feature involved. This case has had conSiderable community debate. The proposal is to increase density in a residential area that has very limited or protected access. In September 2002, the PPC recommended denial of the proposal since the proposal was not consistent with the character of the area and there were issues of the level of service on U S. 19 and the ability of the local road to take the traffic south and out of this development. The Board as the CPA at its October meeting continued the matter to allow the City more time to evaluate the concerns with the project. The City now proposes to open a road up to the north through a park to Enterprise Road. The Planning Council has now recommended approval of this case. It should be noted that, earlier, the transportation solution was to widen and straighten the road to the south to provide for the higher density of this proposal. That road improvement would have been in the unincorporated area. The current proposal is to do a road improvement, instead, to the north through the City park area, which would be in the City jurisdiction. The County staff would note that, if this density amendment is to be Revised 03-05-2003 Page 1 of 1 approved, there should be pro. -""'1',",0 IDinimize the character change. L,J~~r~a and that the long term concurrencf policies for U.S. 19 wO*Uld apply to this, case. County staff, therefore, concurs with the PPC recommendation of approval, with the understanding that provisions will be made to ensure the project is compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and that the City would apply the appropriate long term concurrency policies to this case. Item c, which is Case #CW 03-23, is a submittal by Pinellas County. This IS a .14-acre proposallocaled on Belcher Road just north of 142"d Avenue North. The proposal IS to go from Residential Low to Residential/Office Limited. The PPC has recommended approval, noting that the sce.nic/noncommercial corridor guidelines should apply to the project and that the County should coordinate with the City of Largo to consider the appropriateness of the Residential/Office Limited category to the adjacent properties on Belcher Road since they are now Residential Low. County staff concurs with the PPC recommendation. Fiscal Impact/Cost/Revenue Summary: None Exhibits/Attachments Attached: Council Documentation, Ordinances Revised 03-05-2003 Page 2 of 2 iRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT r TIME 07/09/2003 11:01 NAME PLAN FAX 7275524575 TEL 7275524557 DATE,TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE 07/09 10:59 94428470 00:01:25 03 OK STANDARD ECM ~ "Uell tIet/Itn' ~~t'~?~ ~ : J1 ~ ,,; f<. - ! TJI run , ~ ~ . "i. '~7 w ,'~ } I ~ ~I l. ~ l' 1'. - ~:. ~) - i:~~tl ~.~ V ~ tr;;.~~~r.'~'" U..r>>..."'" ':','11 --r:'~'oJ~~' It '::':';'t~r.t'J t-r ~ ~ :.to;:,. l"'! ..'.!'~~, "'~ D ,;._~,...~"~rl ~ l'l':~S' "":J5 "'.;.' "', ~:J jt}~~ <;~::~~ ~. ,': ~ I V'i'~~:" . ..~ =' ~, .~ .J,'::.A ;;.:;' 1. .....1~ 1\- j$:.~ ~ /L'~ ~ == I~''''' 'c,.~~ I 'P. ~f _' ~ il.~~'~~' \ =- - ~ . $; , ,,>,' 0l.D TAl/Pot .!lAy HACH........ . ~:c'~~.'~:tb, h BEIaAIR L' ,': ~:::.: :;~~ . :-::t/ ':. ~ 880R1-~ . ~ ~ ",,' :' ~~~: ,i~ it, '~ . " .-!l .e ::::: ~l:P;t~~l{~ 4 ~~ l'~~ '. ~:~ IIEACB 1~,1<}tr~;:1";:~ i~ ~~~~~~;;-.~r~~~ I' -% -. ~.~ L-r~~:..~., \ (.1- - . \.:~., [ " .,: :~).' ~ 'J~-: INDW' l I ,,' '. ' ~~ ;' ,-.tt. " ~ 80.- ~ " ,. \'-;, 'i'~~;.2 ~ .~~~ ~ .. . b"<':-;\,~~it::j,!Qi. IIDlNarGM ~ "')" ., ;' " ~ ':' ',' " I }1;"::~ i --~ ~ y~ ~f(J e..~~JI?~1 ~<'~~':"~j~~~ ~:. _.~ .~~'~;~ J:,;~i:.? 2~~;,:; ~.;.~,~ ~':~,-:: :. i~ DDINCTON::a l/C) \:~i~~:.\,~:::;~::. ~':!~"'. ",~ .: -:.".:/ 8IACII ' . ,. ,'" -' .:' . .' , ';; "-~ '~"'~t... j;.:,,:Li.i. " :~i1 ~ ~ ." '" -........'II"~ --.J~ .'~'.r~. .' ,!:,.. .IT? .~~~~'~; ~i~~~~ -.:4 ~ 0' IaZlCO 'I'IIASVa ISLANJ) ~ . ,..;'-t.....~ ":'a~ '''''_- , ;';"~ ,~j ~ r:~'~. {.1~ Jn~ ~,:'~~i~.:: ..,,- .. _ ~"'i '-~~:.-~ ~. ",.. .....:l::.\c ....~-~. {t....; n-~ '.. ;?J rr ,....\;;.~ ~.', v.:': "'i" '~'i: 'J ~:1J ~ ~~-';,'~',~ ..~ ~ IT- IiIM:H J'Al/PA AtY , 11J/ ~ THE UNTYWIDE LAN RULES co p Effective Date: February 6, 1989 Amended Through: September 30, 2001 \ : \ Re:: City of Clearwater, Florida, For the use and benefit of Lawrence H. Dimmitt, ill, And Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., As Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners vs. Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, as Countywide Planning Authority, Respondent Attachment 3: , Copies o~the Countywide Plan Rules (Article 5, Plan Amendment) and Countywide Planning Authority Resolution No. 90-205 ry and VI) Re: Administrative Hearing Process IDIV.5.1 FLUP MAP AMENDMENTS I GENERAL. SEC. 5.1.1 APPLICATION. Local governments may initiate FLUP amendments in accordance with Section 10 of Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, and the particular procedures established in these Rules. Decisions of the PPC and the CPA, with respect to the disposition of FLvP amendments, are considered legislative in nature. Plan amendments submitted to the PPC shall have been considered at loCal public hearing and a detennination made by the governing body that such an amendment shall be submitted to the PPC for consideration. No amendment to the Countywide FLUP shall be considered by the PPC Wltil the local government applying for such amendment has established jurisdiction and considered any corresponding local government amendment at public hearing. SEC. 5.1.2 PROCEDURES. 5.1.2.1 5.1.2.2 5.1.2.3 5.1.2.4 5.1.2.5 Amendments shall be considered according to the following process, consistent with the more detailed wording set forth in Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended and CPA Resolution No. 90-205. Initiation. Only a local government may initiate an amendment to the FLUP for a particular parcel of property over which it has jurisdiction. Submission of Application. Before an application of a FLUP amendment shall be heard by the PPC, a written application shall be submitted in a form established by the PPC. In order to qualify for formal receipt and action by the PPC, a complete application shall be filed in the office of the PPC not later than twenty-eight (28) days prior to the PPC meeting at which it is eligible to be considered. Determination of Completeness. The Executive Director shall have the authority to make the interpretation as to the completeness of a submitted application to amend the Countywide FLUP.lfthe Executive Director determines that the submitted application is not complete, the Executive Director shall provide written notice to the applicant specifying the deficiencies. No action shall be taken on the requested amendment until the Executive Director determines that the deficiencies have been remedied. Public Healin!! bv PPC. The PPC shall hold a public hearing, advertised and noticed as required by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, prior to taking action on a requested amendment of the FLUP. Recommendation bv PPC. The PPC shall make a recommendation to the CPA within sixty (60) days of receipt of an application for amendment Countywide Plan Rules 5-2 September 30,2001 SEC. 5.1.3 DETERMINATION. 5.1.3.1 5.1.3.2 5.1.3.3 5.1.3.4 5.1.3.5 5.1.3.6 5.1.3.7 5.1.3.8 5.1.3.9 Amendments to the FLUP shall be reviewed by and require the approval of the CPA upon recommendati~n of the PPC. PPC Action. The PPC may recommend approval, denial, continuation or alternative action to the CPA; any of which such recommendations shall constitute action by the PPC within the stipulated sixty (60) day period. Notice of DeniaL The PPC shall, within five (5) days, notify the applicant in writing of .any recommendation by the PPC to deny an amendment eligible for administrative hearing and shall advise the applicant of their right to apply for such adminjstrative hearing and the time limitation applicable thereto. Rieht to Administrative Healine. If the PPC recommends denial of an amendment to the FLUP relating to the land use designation of a particular parcel of land, any substantially affected person may apply for an administrative hearing within twenty-one (21) days of denial. Annlications for Administrative Healine. All applications for administrative hearing by a substantially affected person will be filed with the office of the PPC within twenty- one (21) days of denial. Said application will be in a fonn for consideration under, and subject to the procedures of, Chapter 120, F.S. CPA Consideration. The CPA shall consider an application for amendment of the FLUP upon receipt of the recommendation of the PPC. Public Healine bv CPA. The CPA shall hold a public hearing, advertised and noticed as required by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended, prior to taking action on a requested am~dment of the FLUP. CPA Action. The CPA may approve or deny the application for amendment upon consideration of the recommendation of the PPC. Any action by the CPA contrary to the PPC recommendation shall require a majority plus one vote of the entire CPA Right to Administrative Healine. If the CPA denies an amendment which was recommended to be approved by the PPC, any substantially affected person may apply for an administrative hearing within twenty-one (21) days of denial. Final Action bv CPA After Administrative Healine. Final action by the CPA I subsequent to any administrative hearing shall be based upon the findings of fact of the administrative hearing officer. ~ Countywide Plan Rules 5-3 September 30, 2001 I 5.1.3.10 Subseauent Reconsideration. No plan amendment recommended to be denied by the PPC and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant, and no plan amendment denied by the CPA, shall be accepted for reconsideration or action by the PPC within six (6) months of the withdrawal or denial. .. SEC. 5.1.4 OFFICIAL RECORD. Upon approval of a FLUP amendment by the CPA, an official record copy of said ordinance will be maintained in the office of the Clerk of the Board. The office of the PPC shall maintain a record copy of all FLUP amendments and, upon transmittal of the ordinance amending the FLUP by the Clerk of the Board, shall cause such amendment to be properly recorded on the official FLUP map. InIV.5.2 FLUP MAP AMENDMENTS I SPECIAL. I With respect to any recommendation for an alternative compromise recommendation or request to continue, withdraw, reconsider, modify or substitute a plan amendment which has been submitted for consideration, the provisions as set forth following shall govern. SEC. 5.2.1 ALTERNATIVE COMPROMISE RECOMMENDATION. Pursuant to Section 10(4)(b) of Chapter 88464, Laws of Florida, as amended., the PPC shall forward recommendations for Future Land Use Plan amendments to the applicant local government when said action by the PPC constitutes an alternative compromise recommendation. The process for referral to and action by the local government shall be as hereinafter set forth. 5.2.1.1 The PPC shall transmit any such alternative compromise recommendation "for ~plan amendment to the applicant local government within five (5) days of action by the PPC. 5.2.1.2 The applicant local government shall consider the alternative compromise recommendation of the PPC at an official meeting of the local government legislative body and take formal action to accept or reject the PPC recommendation. The local government action to accept or reject the PPC recommendation shall be as is detennined necessary by the local government to lawfully accomplish such action and in the form required by the PPC. 5.2.1.3 The local government action to accept or reject the PPC recommendation shall be transmitted to the PPC within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the PPC recommendation; except as the local government may require additional time to lawfully accomplish such action and shall request a continuation as set forth below within the forty-five (45) days. If the local government accepts the recommendation of the PPC, and transmits said acceptance in the requisite form within the required forty-five (45) days, or as same may be continued., the PPC staff shall forward this amended application for plan amendment to the CPA with the PPC's recommendation for approval. 5.2.1.4 Countywide Plan Rules S-4 September 30, 2001 , ; 5.2.1.5 If the local government does not accept the recommendation of the PPC as forwarded, or fails to take action in the requisite form or within the required forty-five (45) days, or as same may be continued, the PPC staff shall forward the original application for plan amendment from the local government to the CPA with the PPC's recommendation for denial. iSEe. 5.2.2 CONTINUATION. A request to continue a plan amendment, once fonnally submitted, shall be in writing by an authorized representative of the local government with jurisdiction. Such request for continuation may be submitted to the PPC at or prior to the applicant's opening statement to the PPC and must state a future date for consideration. The PPC shall review such request for continuation, consistent with the public pmpose and intent of these Rules and their enabling legislation, and if approved, shall reschedule the public hearing on the application for amendment to a specified future date. A request for continuation may also be submitted to the CPA subsequent to the PPC action, at or prior to applicant's opening statement to the CPA and must state a future date for consideration. The CPA shall review such request for continuation, consistent with the public purpose and intent of these Rules and their enabling legislation, and if approved, shall reschedule the application for amendment to a specified future date. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the PPC or CPA from continuing a public hearing at anytime in the course of the proceeding, consistent with the public purpose and intent of these Rules and their enabling legislation. ~EC. 5.2.3 WITHDRAWAL. I A request to withdraw a plan amendment, once fonnally submitted, shall be in writing by an authorized representative of local government with jurisdiction. Such request for withdrawal may be submitted to the PPC at or prior to the applicant's opening statement to the PPC and, upOn acceptance of the withdrawal by the PPC, shall remove the application for amendment from further consideration. A request for withdrawal may also be submitted to the CPA subsequent to PPC action, at or prior to the applicant's opening statement to the CPA and, upon acceptance of the withdrawal by the CPA, shall remove the application for amendment from further consideration. $EC.5.2.4 RECONSIDERATION. I The reconsideration of any plan amendment action by the PPC or CPA shall be as otherwise prescribed by the respective operating procedures of each the PPC and the CPA, or in the absence thereof, by motion of a member of the prevailing side on the applicable plan amendment vote, and affirmative action on such motion, at the same meeting at which the initial action was taken. Nothing herein shall prevent the CPA from continuing its hearing and requesting the PPC to reconsider, clarify, or explain its initial action. chuntywide Plan Rules s-s September 30, 2001 '\' 1 SEC. 5.2.5 MODIFICATION. Subsequent to action on an amendment by the PPC and prior to consideration by J)1e CPA, any request by a local government to modify a plan amendment shall require the modified plan amendment to be submitted as for a new amendment, including requisite formal action by the applicant local government to initiate the modified amendment, and consideration and recommendation by the PPC after public hearing. Submission of the modified amendment shall constitute withdrawal of the original application. SEC. 5.2.6 SUBSTITUTION. 5.2.6.1 Subsequent to action on an amendment by the CPA where no petition for administrative hearing has been filed, any request by a local government to substitute a plan amendment shall be as follows: 1. The substitute amendment shall be submitted as for a new plan amendment, including requisite fonnal action by the applicant local government to initiate the substitute amendment, and consideration and recommendation by the PPC after public hearing. . 2. The CPA will hear the substitute amendment in accordance with the otherwise established procedure for plan amendment; and 3. Approval of the substitute amendment by the CPA shall constitute replacement of and otherwise supersede the action on the original amendment; which resultant amendment shall be filed of record with the Clerk of the Board and as is otherwise required. 4. Denial of the substitute amendment by the CPA shall constitute replacement of and otherwise supersede the action on the original amendment; and any further consideration or recourse of the applicant shall be with respect to the substitute amendment only. 5.2.6.2 Subsequent to action on an amendment by the CPA where a petition for administrative hearing has been filed, any request by a local government to substitute a plan amendment shaIl be as follows: 1. ' The substitute amendment shall be submitted as for a new plan amendment, including requisite formal action by the applicant local government to initiate the substitute amendment, and consideration and recommendation by the PPC after public hearing; 2. The CPA will hear the substitute amendment in accord with the otherwise established procedure for plan amendment; Countywide Plan Rules 5-6 September 30, 2001 5.2.6.3 3. If approved by the CPA, the substitute amendment will be forwarded to the Hearing Officer with a joint stipulation for dismissal of the petition for admini~tive hearing; and 4. The order dismissing the petition along with the resultant amendment shall be filed of record with the Clerk of the Board and as is otherwise required. 5. If denied by the CPA, the admini~ve hearing process on the initial amendment shall proceed. Subsequent to action by the CPA, where a petition for administrative hearing has been filed, a local government may move for dismissal of the petition, which dismissal, if granted, shall be filed of record with the Clerk of the Board and as is otherwise required. ~IIV. 5.3 SEC. 5.3.1 ! SEC. 5.3.2 I I i I I , 15.3.2.1 ..1 i 15.3.2.2 FLUP MAP AMENDMENTS I SUBTHRESHOLD. PURPOSE. It is the pmpose of this subthreshold process to recognize and provide for amendments of the FLUF that are minor in nature and have relatively minimal intergovernmental impact or affect on the policies and objectives of the Countywide Plan. In particular, this process shall be designed to accomplish the following objectives: 1. Comply with the legal requirements for public notice and hearing under Chapter 88-464, laws of Florida, as amended; 2. Provide a fail-safe mechanism that preserves the legislative prerogative of the PPC and CPA; and . 3. Minimi7e staff and public time and expense. PROCEDURE. The procedure for subthreshold FLUF map amendments shall be conducted in accordance with the process outlined herein. Official Acceptance. Action by the PPC and CPA for subthreshold amendments shall be considered according to this "official acceptance" process. Notice and Public Hearine. All subthreshold plan amendments shall be advertised, ,noticed and considered at a public hearing as required under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida and as more particularly set forth herein. A single published advertisement and requisite personal notice for all subthreshold amendments shall be provided which shall include notice of both the PPC and CPA public hearings. Countywide Plan RlIles I , 5-7 September 30, 2001 0' 5.3.2.3 Submission Reouirements. A request by the local government for FLUP amendment shall include the local ordinance with appropriate legal description, map, and staff report, and shall be transmitted to the PPC after first ordinance readiJ;1g by the local gov~ent 5.3.2.4 Action bv PPC and CPA. The PPC or CPA shall remove a subthreshold plan amendment from the official acceptance portion of the agenda for separate consideration only upon a majority vote of the PPC or CPA present and constituting a quorum. 5.3.2.5 Continuation. In the event that an official acceptance item is removed from this portion of the agenda at public hearing, it shall not be acted upon at that same hearing and will automatically be continued, noticed and considered at the next available public hearing or as otherwise set by the PPC or CPA SEC. 5.3.3 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. 5.3.3.1 Considerations. In the determination of the level(s) of subthreshold plan amendment, it is the objective of these Rules to properly reflect the following considerations: 1. The appropriate key variables affecting relative impact, including size, intensity, location and aggregation; 2. The relationship and need to coordinate with Chapter 163.3187, F.S. small-scale amendment factors md process; and 3. The overall purpose and integrity of the Countywide Plan. 5.3.3.2 Threshold Levels. The subthreshold plan amendment system shall provide for two screens, Levell and Level 2. The Level 1 Subthreshold Amendment Screen shall consist oftive (5) types of threshold. The Level 2 Subthreshold Amendment Screen shall consist of six (6) Rele~ant Cmmtywide Considerations. The types of threshold for Level 1 subthreshold amendments and the Relevant Countywide Considerations for Level 2 subthreshold amendments are summarized in the accompanying table and set out in detail in Sections 5.3.4 and 5.3.5 below. CountyWide Plan Rules S-8 September 30. 2001 SlEC.5.3.4 LEVEL I - SUBTHRESHOLD AMENDMENT SCREEN. Types of Maximum Plan Adjacent to Scenic Aggregation Threshold Size of Classification! Corridor Limit Amendment Category of Per Year Amendment A lAc. Any Not Eligible 30 Ac. -. B. 3Ac. Same Classifi- Not Eligible 30 Ac. cation OnlY c. 10Ac. Residential at Not Eligible above 30 Ac.. 10 units/ac. or 7.S units/ac. less D. No Limit Same Classifi- Not Applicable Not Applicable cation Only - Less Intensive Categorv E. No Limit Water/DF, Not Applicable Not Applicable Rec./OS & Pres. Categories Only · A, B and C Aggregation Limits Are Cmnu1ative. 5.3.4.1 5.:t4.2 5.3,.4.3. Level I - Tvne A. All amendments of one (1) acre or less, irrespective of the plan classification or category from which and to which the amendment is sought, (e.g. from Residential Low to Industrial Limited) are subthreshold. The subthreshold status does not apply to amendments located on a Scenic/Non-Commercial Conidor and is subject to a thirty (30) acre per year aggregation role for each local government Levell - Tvne B. Amendments of three (3) acres or less within the same major plan classification only (e.g. from Commercial Neighborhood to Commercial General) are subthreshold - subject to the limitations on Scenic/Non-COmmercial Conidors, and the aggregation fonnula Within the Residential classification, no amendment to Residential Very High, which requires an accompanying plan, shall be considered subthreshold. Levell - Tvoe C. Amendments up to ten (10) acres where the density does not exceed ten (10) units/acre (e.g. Residential Low Medium) are subthreshold - without limitations I exCept for a density above 7.S units/acre on a Scenic/Non-COmmercial Conidor and the aggregation role. .... Comttywide Plan Rules 5-9 September 30,2001 " ; 5.3.4.4 Levell - TVDe D. Amendments irrespective of size, providing they are within the same plan classification and made from a more intensive category to a less intensive category are subthreshold (e.g. from Residential High to Residential Medimn). There are no limitations as to location or aggregation. .. 5.3.4.5 Level I - TVDe E. Amendments of any size to the WaterlDrainage Featme, Recreation/Open Space and Preservation plan categories are subthreshold - without limitation, except from Preservation to Recreation/Open Space which shall be considered as a Level 1- Type B subthreshold amendment SEC. 5.3.5 LEVEL 2 SUBTHRESHOLD AMENDMENT SCREEN. Any amendment that is ineligible for consideration as a Level I Screen subthreshold amendment per the criteria outlined in Subsections 5.3.4.1 through 5.3.4.5 shall be reviewed to determine if the amendment qualifies for consideration as a Level 2 Screen subthreshold amendment The amendment shall be reviewed in relationship to the six (6) enmnerated criteria identified as Relevant ColDltywide Considerations. In the event that the amendment does not involve and is determined to be outside the pwview of any of the enmnerated Relevant Countywide Considerations as hereinafter set forth, such amendment shall be considered and processed as a subthreshold amendment, except as otherwise provided for in Sections 2.3.3.8.4 and 2.3.3.8.5 concerning non-substantive minor plan changes within a Community Redevelopment District or Central Business District designated on the ColDltywide FLUP. 5.3.5.1 5.3.5.2 5.3.5.3 5.3.5.4 All other amendments shall be reviewed as "regular" amendments in accordance with Division 5.5. Such amendments will be reviewed only in relationship to the particular Relevant ColDltywide Consideration(s) involved. Consistency with the Countywide Plan and Rules. To be eligible as a'Leyel 2 subthreshold amendment, the amendment's location and proposed classification must be consistent with the provisions of the Goals, Policies and Economic Assumptions of the Countywide Comprehensive Plan (Countywide Plan Policies) and Article 4. Plan Criteria and Standards of the Countywide Rules; Adopted Roadwav Level of Senice (LOS) Standard. To be eligible as a Level 2 subthreshold amendment, the amendment must not be located on or impact a roadway segment where the existing Level of Service (LOS) is below LOS "0"; or where projected traffic resulting from the amendment would cause the existing LOS to fall below LOS ''0''; ScenicINon-Commercial Corridors. To be eligible as a Level 2 subthreshold amendment, the amendment must not be located on a designated ScenicINon-Commercial Corridor as delineated on the ColDltywide Scenic!Non-Commercial Corridor Map, FLUP Submap No. I; Coastal Hi2h Hazard Areas (CHHA). To be eligible as a Level 2 subthreshold amendment, the amendment must not be located within a designated Coastal High Hazard Area as delineated by the Pinellas County Emergency Management Department; Countywide Plan Rules S-10 September 30, 2001 5~J.5.5 5.3.5.6 SI:C. 5.3.6 Desimated DeveloDment/RedeveloDment Areas. To be eligible as a Level 2 subthreshold amendment, the amendment must not involve a new, or substantive change to, a Central Business District (CBD), Community Redevelopment District. (CRD), Activity Center/Secondary (ActS) or Activity CenterlPrimary (AC/P) Plan Category. Adiacent To or ImDactin2 An Adioinin2 Jurisdiction or Public Educational Facility. To be eligible as a Level 2 subthreshold amendment, the amendment must not be located adjacent to another jurisdiction; or adjacent to or significantly impact a Public Educational Facility. ' Interpretations. Any interpretation or dispute with respect to whether a plan amendment is subthreshold or not and the administration of this subthreshold plan amendment process shall be as provided for under Article 6, Division 6.3 Interpretations. rv'~ SEC. 5.4.1 FLUP MAP AMENDMENTS I ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-EXPEDITED REVIEW. PURPOSE. It is the pmpose of this expedited review process to recognize and provide for amendments of the FLUP that result from economic development projects that have been certified by the Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development (OTIED) pmsuant to SB 1154. SEC. 5.4.2 PROCEDURE. 5.4.2.1 5.4.2.2 The procedure for expedited FLUP map amendments shall be conducted in accordance with the process outlined herein. Notice and Public Hearin2. All expedited plan amendments shall be advertised, noticed and considered at a public hearing as required under Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida and as more particularly set forth herein. The advertisement, notice and public hearing will identify amendments to be considered under this expedited process. A single published advertisement and requisite personal notice for all expedited amendment actions shall be provided which shall include notice of both the PPC and CPA public hearings. Submission Reauirements. All expedited plan amendments shall be processed after receipt from the local government of the local ordinance approving on first reading the expedited plan amendment All local government submittals of an expedited amendment shall include: 1) copy. of the recommendation of the local government for expedited review; 2) copy of the certificate of eligibility from the Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development (OTIED); and 3) copy of the finalized 90 day time schedule negotiated between the local government and the State, incorporating all deadlines, including public meetings and notices. A request by the local government for FLUP amendment and submission of the local ordinance with appropriate legal description, map, staff report, and the above listed docmnentation shall constitute the full and complete application for an expedited plan amendment Countywide Plan Rules <\ 5-11 September 30, 2001 -I 5.4.2.3 Action bv PPC and CPA. The PPC and CPA shall act upon an expedited plan amendment within the fina1i7ed 90 day time schedule established between the local government and the State for the subject property. IDIV. 5.5 SEe. 5.5.1 FLUP AMENDMENTS I REGULAR REVIEW. PURPOSE. It is the purpose of this regular amendment review process to recognize and provide for amendments of the FLUP that do not otherwise qualify as subthreshold amendments, but that do impact Relevant Countywide Considerations. SEC. 5.5.2 PROCEDURE. The procedure for regular FLUP amendments shall be conducted in accordance with the process outlined herein. 5.5.2.1 Notice and Public Hearin2. All regular plan amendments shall be advertised, noticed and considered at a public hearing as required under Chapter 88464, Laws of Florida and as more particularly set forth herein. A single published advertisement and requisite personal notice for all amendments shall be provided which shall include notice of both the PPC and CPA public hearings. 5.5.2.2 Submission Reauirements. A request by the local government for FLUP amendment shall include the local ordinance with appropriate legal description, map, and staff report, and shall be transmitted to the PPC after first ordinance reading by the local government 5.5.2.3 Action bv PPC and CPA. Regular amendments to the FLUP shall be reviewea by. and require the approval of the CPA upon recommendation of the PPC, in accordance with the requirements o(~ection 5.1.3. SEC. 5.5.3 REVIEW CRITERIA. 5.5.3.1 Relevant Countvwide Considerations. In the consideration of a regular plan amendment, it is the objective of these Rules to evaluate the impact of the amendment on those Relevant Countywide Considerations affected by the amendment, as they pertain to the overall purpose and integrity of the Countywide Plan. Countywide Plan Rules 5-12 September 30, 2001 IV. PROCEDURE FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT The Council has adopted a set of operating procedures applicable to the council relative to processing recommendations to be transmitted to the Board concerning a proposed amendment to the Countywide Comprehensive Plan. These procedures are in accordance with the special Act and shall be complied with. A Council recommendation for an alternative compromise z:ecommendation shall be processed as set forth in the Rules Concerning the Administration of the countywide Future Land Use Plan. V. PROCEDURE FOR BOARD REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS A. Hearing Dates - Public heaz:ing dates at which the Boaz:d will consider amendments to the countywide Compz:ehensive Plan pursuant to its countywide planning author i ty shall be establ ished in advance on an annua 1 ca lendar year basis to coincide with regular Board meeting dates as agreed to by the Executive Director of the Council and the County Administz:ator: which schedule may be revised from time to time as authorized by' the County Administrator or the Board. -: .:;;. B. Notice of Public Hearing The Executive Director shall prepare and transmit to the County Administratoz: or his designee the requisite notice of pUblic hearing. The County Administrator shall provide advertising and notice as required by law. C. Board Agenda Package - The agenda package for Board consideration shall be prepared by the Executive Director and be comprised of the Council recommendation and background report and any submission by local government in support of or opposition to the requested action. The agenda package shall be in the format and- number of copies as established by the County Administrator. D. 'l'ransmittal of Council Action to Board - The Executive Director will transmit the , recommenda t ions of the Counc i I to the Doard through the County Administrator not less than five (5) days in advance of the scheduled Board hearing at which the recommendations are to be considered. ~ k r E. Conduct of Public Hear ing The Board will formally designate on its ~egula~ ag~nda. that. portion of the meeting .dur1ng Wh1~h 1t 1S. to consider matters under lts countYWlde plannlng authority. Conduct of the hearing shall be pursuant to the rules of the Board unless otherwise specified and according to the following process. if appropriate: 1. Presentation of Council Re~ommendation by Executive Director. 2. Applicant Local Government. 3. Property Owner/Agent. 4. Local Government in Support. s. Public in Support. 6. Local Government in Opposition. 7. Public in Opposition. 8. Close - council Executive Director _ Applicant Local Government F. Voting Requirements Action by the Board consistent with the Council recommendation shall require a simple majority vote. Any action by the Board contrary to the Council's recommendation shall be by a majority plus one of the entire Board. G. Notice of Action Taken - Notice of action to the applicant local government and property owner/agent shall be prepared by the County Administrator. H. Recording of Action - Minutes and action taken by the Board shall Clerk of the Board. filing of be by the 1. Withdrawal/Reconsideration - Except in efforts to settle cases which are before a DOAH hearing officer. no plan amendment recommended to be denied by the council and subsequently wi thdrawn by the appl icant. and no plan amendment denied by the Board. shall be accepted for reconsideration or action by the Councilor the Board within six (6) months of the withdrawal or denial. J. Administrative Hearings petitions for Administrative Hearing based on a denial by the Board shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days with the State Division of Administrative Hearings. Failure to timely file a petition shall not result in any approval but shall serve to ripen an appropriate action to compel the filing of a petition. '1\ K. Review subsequent to Adminstrative Hearing: 1. Action on Recommended Order Upon' receipt of a recommended order from a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. the Executive Director shall forward a copy of that recommended order to the County Administrator. The County Administrator. or designee. shall notice parties to the administrative proceeding with an anticipated hearing date and of the time 1 imi ta t ions for f i ling of except ions to the findings of fact in the recommended order. 2. Exceptions to Recommended Order - parties may file exceptions to findings of fact with the Council within thirty (30) days of the entry date of the recommended order. 3 . Conduct of Public Hearing: a. The. recommended order and any exceptions filed thereto shall be cons idered at a publ ic hea ring. This proceeding shall not be a de novo review but shall be confined to the recommended order filed by the hearing officer and any filed exceptions thereto. b. Final action by the Board subsequent to any administrative hearing may consider the recommended order in its entirety. but shall be based upon the findings of fact of ~he administrative hearing officer and any exceptions thereto determined by the Board to be valid. 4. Conflict with Model Rules: To the extent that the provlslons of Chapter 28-5. F.A.C.. are deemed to apply to proceedings under the Special Act. the provisions of this Resolution are deemed to replace the provisions of Chapter 28-5.404-5.405. F.A.C. VI. The decision of the Board to approve. approve with conditions. or deny shall be final. This final decision need not be rendered in writing nor is it necessary for the Board to include. in its discussion. an explicit ruling on each finding of fact or exception. ,\ . ' Commissioner Greer Resolut ion and movTeodddi ts Commissioner was: offered the foregoing adopt ion, which was seconded by , and upon roll call the vote AYES; Rainey, Greer, Chesnut, Tyndall and Todd. NAYS; None. ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: None. Id. 26 (1-6) ." STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CITY OF CLEARWATER, for the use and benefit of LA WRENCE H. DIMMITT, III, and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 03-1500 PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, as COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, Respondent. / PROPOSED RECOMMENDED ORDER The hearing in this case was held on July 10,2003, in Clearwater, Florida, before Donald R. Alexander, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. APPEARANCE For Petitioners: Stephen O. Cole, Esq. Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen P. O. Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 For Respondent: David Sadowsky, Esq. Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, FL 33756 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE (I) Whether Respondent's decision to deny Petitioners' request to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan to change the future land use classification, on a twenty-two acre parcel, in Clearwater, Florida, from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) to Residential Low (RL) and Preservation (P) is reasonable and consistent with the Countywide Comprehensive Plan for Pinellas County (Countywide Plan). FINDINGS OF FACT I. Petitioners, Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III and Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., Trustee (collectively Dimmitt) own a twenty-two acre parcel of property located in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, which is the subject of the proposed land use change at issue in this case. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 3) 2. The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) is the Countywide land planning agency charged with the development and implementation of the Countywide Plan. As it relates to this case, it is responsible for review of the proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan concerning Petitioners' parcel, and for recommending action on that amendment to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, acting in their capacity as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA). The CPA is charged with making the final decision of the proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan. 3. Petitioner, City of Clearwater (City), received Dimmitt's application for a redesignation of the subject property from Residential Suburban (RS), Preservation (P), and Water/Drainage Feature (W/DF) to Residential Urban (RU), Preservation (P), and Water/Drainage Feature (W /DF), and after review, it recommended approval of an amendment to the City's land use planning on July 18,2002, to Residential Low (RL), Preservation (P), and Water/Drainage Feature (W/DF). Thereafter, the City requested an amendment to the Countywide Plan. After review, on September 18, 2002, the PPC, recommended denial ofthe City's proposed amendment. On October 15, 2002, the CPA reviewed the proposed amendment, and remanded it to the PPC for ( reconsideration. On March 19, 2003, the PPC reconsidered the proposed amendment, with the condition of a commitment from the City and Dimmitt, to extend Chautauqua Avenue to the north to 2 Enterprise Road, and the PPC recommended approval. On April I , 2003, the CPA reconsidered the proposed amendment and unanimously voted to deny Petitioners' request in PineIlas County Resolution No. 03-55. (Petitioners' Exhibit 15; Respondent's Exhibit 18) Location and Characteristics of the Property 4. The subject property is generally located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, on the western shores of Lake Chautaugua, in a rural, secluded, residential area 700 feet east ofU. S. Highway 19 North. The local roads adjacent to and near the subject property are substandard and do not meet County or City standards. (Petitioners' Exhibit 2; Respondent's Exhibit 19) 5. Primary access to the subject property is obtained from First Avenue North, a roadway which leads directly to U. S. Highway 19 North, and secondary access is from the south utilizing the substandard and meandering roads of Lake Shore Drive and Third and Fourth Avenue South. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 3). 6. The subject property is 22.18 acres in size and vacant, with 4.61 acres designated as Preservation (P) and 1.35 acres classified as Water/Drainage Feature (W/DF). The P and W/DF areas are not proposed to be changed as a function of this amendment, and are not in dispute. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 3). 7. The subject property has approximately 16.22 (acres designated as Residential Suburban (RS), which allows 2.5 units per acre. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 3) The property to the north and south of the subject property is designated RS, with the property to the north consisting of large lot, single-family dwellings, and the property to the south predominantly vacant with some single-family dwellings. The property to the southeast of the subject property and Lake Chautauqua is designated RS and consists ofa series of upscale, large lot single-family residential subdivisions. (Respondent's Exhibits 12 & 13) All residential development with a RS designation has been 3 constructed in compliance with the 2.5 units per acre limitation ofRS. The property to the west of the subject property and Chautauqua A venue is the rear of a car dealership and is designated Commercial Limited (CL). (Respondent's Exhibits 12 & 13) Land Use Designation History For Subiect Property And Area 8. In the first Countywide Comprehensive Plan for Pinellas County in 1974, three residential designations were established: low density which permitted a maximum density of 7.5 units per acre; medium density which permitted a maximum density of 15 units per acre; and high density which permitted a maximum density of 30 units per acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 2; c ' Transcript, p. 150) The subject property and almost all of the surrounding residential properties were designated the least intensive residential land use category of low density residential in 1974 and remained unchanged until 1982. (Respondent's Exhibit 6) 9. In response to the 1975 Growth Management Act, the PPC in 1980 developed more specific and definitive residential categories in order to manage population within the parameters of available and potential capital infrastructure and natural resources. The former low density residential category was further defined and now encompassed five residential categories, with densities with upper ranges of 0.5, 1.0,,2.5, 5.0 and 7.5 units per acres. (Transcript, p. 153; Respondent's Exhibit 3) 10. In order to implement these new residential categories, Pinellas County was divided into 12 sectors, with the subject property being within Section 6 - Clearwater. (Transcript, p. 154) In 1982, pursuant to PPC Case #82-38, the PPC reclassified the subject property and residential properties to the north and south of the subject property, and to the west of Lake Chautaugua, to suburban low density residential, permitting 2.5 dwelling units per acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 8) This land use category was later renamed to RS. Other area residential properties to the southeast 4 and northwest of the subject property were reclassified to low density residential at 5.0 dwelling units per acre. This land use category was later renamed to RL. (Transcript, p. 157) I I. In 1983-1984, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners ("County") denied two zoning requests to build multi-family development at 5 units per acre on some of these properties with a land use classification oflow density residential, because it was incompatible with "very low density single family housing, with houses sitting on large lots (mostly about 2 acres in size)" in the surrounding area. (Respondent's Exhibit 9) The County directed its staff to review the zoning and land use plan designations in the area "in order to insure protection of the existing character of the area." The County subsequently amended the land use classification on these properties from the low density residential (RL) which permitted 5.0 units per acre to RS at 2.5 units per acre in Case #11-11-84. (Respondent's Exhibit 9) 12. The City, in 1986-87, followed the County's direction when it annexed a 17.4 acre parcel of vacant property directly south of Lake Chautauqua owned by the Boy Scouts of America and filed on application with the PPC to amend the land use classification from recreation/open space to low density residential (RS) at 2.5 units per acre. The PPC, on February 18, 1987, approved the City of Clearwater's request in Case #ANX-87-4. The PPC staff had stated that the subject area is surrounded by land uses characteristic of a low intensive residential setting and that the RS category is compatible with the existing land use pattern in this vicinity. (Respondent's Exhibit 10) 13. From the late 1980s to the present, the RS land use classification remained on the subject property and the parcels surrounding the subject property. (Respondent's Exhibit 12) From the late 1980s to the present, most of these parcels have been developed with large lot, single-family dwellings in residential subdivisions, in compliance with the standards of the RS land use classification. From the 1990s to the present, the residential properties to the north of the subject 5 property and behind the commercial property on the east side of U.S. Highway 19 North have been developed on an individual basis with large lot, single-family dwellings, in compliance with the standards of the RS land use classification. (Respondent's Exhibit 14; Transcript, p. 173) 14. The trend of single-family development at 2.5 units per acre continues to this year with the 2003 proposal by Roy E. Schaffer, Jr. to develop six lots 130 feet wide by 600 average feet in depth with single-family dwellings on property on the western shores of Lake Chautauqau just north of the subject property. (Respondent's Exhibits IS & 16) Petitioners' Land Use Amendment Proposal 15. Dimmitt purchased the southern section of the subject parcel in January 8, 1986, and the northern section on December 14, 2001. (Pre-hearing Stipulated Facts e.3 & 6) 16. In 2002, Dimmitt originally proposed to amend the future land use classification in the Countywide Plan on the subject property from RS, which allows 2.5 units per acre, to Residential Urban (RU), which allows 7.5 units per acre. The potential developer of the subject property stated that it desires to develop the subject property with multi-family housing at the increased density. The City rejected that proposal, but did approve an amendment to Residential Low (RL), which allows 5.0 units per acre. (Petitioners' Exhibit 2) 17. The City then forwarded the proposal to amend the future land use classification in the Countywide Plan on the subject property to RL to the PPC. The PPC staff reviewed Petitioners' land use amendment application and determined that the subject property with a RS classification may be developed with 46 dwelling units, and 86 units with a RL classification. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 3) The PPC staff reviewed the traffic impact of the proposed project and found that the existing RS category could be expected to generate approximately 454 vehicle trips per day (vtpd), while the uses normally associated with RL would be expected to generate approximately 827 vtpd, a net 6 increase of373 vtpd or 82 percent. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 4) The PPC staff concluded that U.S. Highway 19 North, a six lane divided principal arterial, has a level of service "F" from Enterprise Road to Sunset Road and that a majority of the increase of373 vtpd will access U.S. Highway 19 North at First Avenue North. The PPC Staff stated that secondary access south of the site on Chatauqua Avenue, Third Avenue, Fourth Avenue and Lake Shore is narrow and inadequate to handle any great volume of traffic. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 4) The PPC Staff recommended that the City mitigate this traffic impact through the appropriate traffic mitigation provisions in the City's Concurrency Management Ordinance. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, pp. 1,5) 18. The PPC Staff also concluded that the proposed amendment to RL on the subject property is compatible to the surrounding residential property with the single family homes designated RS, and is consistent with the Countywide Plan and Rules for the application of the RL plan designation because the site is well-suited for low density, non-intensive residential use consistent with the natural resource characteristics of the site. (Petitioners' Exhibit, pp. 4, 5) The PPC Staff did not cite to the land use history of the subject property or the surrounding property in its review of the proposed amendment. The PPC Staff recommended approval of the proposed application. 19. At its September 18, 2002 meeting, the PPC reviewed the proposed amendment and recommended denial of the City's land use amendment proposal due to traffic concerns. On October IS, 2002, the CPA, by a vote of four to three, temporarily deferred the City's application and remanded it to the PPC for further consideration, based on the City's assertion that the PPC's traffic concerns could be addressed through further negotiation with the developer. The City and Dimmitt then proposed to construct an access road from the northern point of Chautauqua A venue through a City park to Enterprise Road to mitigate the impact of the increased traffic on the surrounding 7 single-family neighborhood roads from the RL land use classification on the subject property. (Petitioners' Exhibit 15, p. I) 20. The PPC, at its March 19, 2003 meeting, recommended approval of the proposed amendment with the new condition of the extension of Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road. Petitioners argued that the impact on U.S. Highway 19 North would be minimal based on the increased future capacity of U.S. Highway 19 North between Enterprise Road and Sunset Road and the fewer vehicle trips per day from the development of townhomes verse single-family development. (Petitioners' Exhibit 17, pp. 35-40) 21. The CPA, at it April 1,2003 meeting in Resolution No. 03-55, voted 7 to 0 to deny the proposed amendment based upon the factors of the character of the neighborhood and transportation impacts. The Chairman of the CPA stated that the higher density and multi-family development fro~ a RL land use classification was incompatible with the neighborhood and would set a negative precedent. (Petitioners' Exhibit 20, pp. 32, 33) Consistency with the CountyWide Plan 22. The history of the land use designation on the subject property and the surrounding residential properties was the lowest density residential category in the 1970' s, and RS at 2.5 units per acre from the mid 1980's to the present. (Respondent's Exhibits 6-12) 23. The history of the land use designation on the subject property and the surrounding residential properties from the 1970s to the present is absent from the minutes and staff reports of the City, the Planners Advisory Committee of the PPC, and the PPC staff. (Petitioners' Exhibits 2, 6, 8-10, 14-17) 8 24. The established character of the area around the subject property is quiet, secluded, and low density residential, with large lot, single-family houses built within the RS density parameters of2.5 units per acre. (Respondent's Exhibit 13; Transcript, pp. 131, 173) 25. According to Stephen E. McConihay, who was accepted as a twenty-seven year resident of a single-family house located just north of the subject property, the expectation of the area residents of the type and density of the housing for the area residential property is "a detached single family residential community within the 2.5 units per acre limitation." (Transcript, pp. 13 I, 144) 26. According to Paul Cassel, a County witness who was accepted as an expert in land use and municipal planning, the doubling of density from 2.5 units per acre for RS to 5.0 units per acre for RL would change the character of the area, would be inconsistent with the historic land use and development pattern ofthe area, and therefore would be inconsistent with the Countywide Plan Policies. (Transcript, pp. 181,184) 27. According to Robert Pergolizzi, who was accepted as an expert in land use and municipal plmming, single-family homes could be developed successfully on the subject property and the vacant surrounding residential property. (Transcript, p. 123) 28. According to Michael Wallenbacher, who was accepted as a land developer, a viable single-family development at 2.5 units per acre similar to nearby area single-family residential developments could be built on the subject property, as shown by the site plan for 46 homes drafted by the Rottlund Company, Inc. (Transcript, pp. 39,41; Petitioners' Exhibit 35) Impact on the Adopted Level of Service 29. According to Robert Pergolizzi, the level of service (LOS) of U.S. 19 Highway North is "C" from Sunset Point Road to Enterprise Road, the proposed project would generate 9 527 vtpd, and the impact on this stretch of road would be 3/1 0 of a percent of the capacity. Mr. Pergolizzi concluded that the proposed amendment would have a minimal impact on the LOS "C" on that portion of u.s. Highway 19 North. (Petitioners' Exhibits 22-24; Transcript, pp. 109- Ill) 30. According to Cynthia Tarapani, who was accepted as an expert in land use and municipal planning, the traffic mitigation provision of extending Chautauqua A venue north to Enterprise Road was done to mitigate the increased traffic from the increased density of the proposed RL land use designation on the subject property. (Petitioners' Exhibit 17, p. 52) 31. According to Robert Pergolizzi, the road extension of Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road is an excellent transportation management plan to provide another outlet for the residents in the area. (Transcript, pp. 111-12) 32. According to David Healey, Executive Director of the PPC, the road extension of Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road would address the access issue to the subject property, but does not mitigate the quantitative impact on U.S. Highway 19 North. (Petitioners' Exhibit 17, p.58) Impact on Adioining Jurisdiction 33. Dimmitt initiated and received approval for annexation of the subject property into the City in June of2002. (Petitioners' Exhibit 4; Transcript, p. 52) The residential property to the immediate north and south of the subject property has not been annexed and remains under the jurisdiction of Pin ell as County. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 4) 34. According to Stephen E. McConihay, the rural roads in the area to the north of the subject property are quiet and have only a small amount of local traffic. (Transcript, p. 13l; Respondent's Exhibit 19) 10 35. According to Stephen E. McConihay and Paul Cassel, the road extension of Chautauqua A venue to Enterprise Road will result in a substantial increase in cut through, non-local traffic consisting of vehicles that are traveling north on U.S. Highway 19 North and turning right to go east on Enterprise Road. (Transcript, pp. 133, 179-80) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties, and the subject matter in this cause. Section I 0(4), Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, as amended (Special Act). In pertinent part, Section 10(4)ofthe Special Act provides: (a) Amendments to the adopted countywide future land use plan relating to a land use designation for a particular parcel of property may be initiated only by a local government that has jurisdiction over the subject property. . . .All amendments initiated by a local government shall be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation by the council. . . .A recommendation shall be received by the board of county commissioners prior to its taking action on an amendment. (d) If the council recommends approval of a proposed amendment to the countywide future land use plan relating to a change in a land use designation for a particular parcel or a change in the rules, standards, policies, or objectives of the countywide future land use plan, the recommendation shall be directly forwarded to the board of county commissioners. After a hearing is held, if the board of county commissioners votes by a majority plus one to deny the amendment, any substantially affected person, the council, or the board of county commissioners may seek a hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any substantially affected person may participate in the hearing. At the conclusion ofthe hearing, the hearing officer's recommended order shall be forwarded to and considered by the board of county commissioners in a final hearing. The basis for the board of county commissioners' final decision approving or denying the proposed amendment is limited to the findings of fact of the hearing officer. (e) The council may contract with the Department of Administration to provide the hearing officers required by this act. . . . In this case, the PPC recommended approval of the proposed amendment on March 19, 2003. On April I, 2003, the CPA voted unanimously to deny the proposed amendment. The City and Dimmitt, substantially affected parties, timely requested this Chapter 120 hearing. 11 In Pinellas County, pursuant to the Special Act, all local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations must be consistent with the Countywide Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Section 10(3)(b), Chapter 88-464, as amended. In determining consistency, conflicting goals and policies must be balanced in a flexible approach which may involve selecting between competing goals and policies. However, such determinations must be made in a manner which carries out the legislatively expressed purpose and intent for the creation of the PPC as a means of recognizing the interdependence of persons residing in Pinellas County, and for arriving at orderly, coordinated and consistent future growth in Pinellas County. Section 2, Chapter 88-464, as amended. The CPA, in Exhibit III of Pinellas County Ordinance No. 89-4, adopted the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future land Use Plan (Countywide Plan Rules), pursuant to its authority in Section 5(7) of the Special Act, in order to establish the parameters and procedures that will be used to determine whether local government future land use plans and land develop regulations are consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) of the Countywide Plan. (Respondent's Exhibit 17, Division 1.1 ofthe Countywide Plan Rules) The CPA, in Exhibit IV of Pinellas County Ordinance No. 89-4, adopted the Goals, Policies and Economic Assumptions for the Countywide Comprehensive Plan for Pinellas County for 2000(Countywide Plan Policies). The introduction of this document states that it ". . . will also be used to review plans submitted by the local governments and includes model poli~y statements designed to achieve consistency between local government and countywide plans." (Respondent's Exhibit 17) Therefore, the Countywide Plan Rules and the Countywide Plan Policies form the basis for the review of Petitioners' proposed amendment to the Countywide Plan. ]2 The Countywide Plan Rules Section 5.5.3.1 states that regular plan amendments to the Countywide Plan are evaluated according to the six (6) Relevant Countywide Considerations. Countywide Plan Rules Section 5.3.5 lists those Relevant Countywide Considerations as: I. Consistency with the Countywide Plans and Rules. 2. Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard. 3. ScenicINon-Commercial Corridors. 4. Coastal High Hazard Areas. 5. Designated Development/Redevelopment Areas. 6. Adjacent to or Impacting an Adjoining Jurisdiction or Public Educational Facility. The PPC reviewed the land use application for the subject property and determined that it is not on or within a designated ScenicINon-Commercial Corridor, Coastal High Hazard Area, or Designated Development/Redevelopment Area. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 2) The applicable Relevant Countywide Considerations for reviewing the proposed amendment are consistency with the Countywide Plan and Rules, the transportation impact on the adopted roadway level of service standards for nearby roads, and the impact on the adjoining unincorporated areas to the north and south of the subject property, and on a public educational facility. The first applicable Relevant Countywide Consideration m revIewmg the proposed amendment is consistency with the Countywide Plan and Rules. In the land use section of the Countywide Plan Policies, the goals and policies that are inconsistent with Petitioners' proposal to develop multi-family housing at 5.0 units per acre, are: -Goal - The land uses associated with development should be compatible and reasonable in terms of both the land, surrounding uses, and the public interest. The overall pattern and intensity ofland uses should be the most efficient configuration possible. The land uses that are not to be associated with development should be protected. 13 -Policies -Land development patterns should recognize and support coherent neighborhoods. Neighborhoods should be insulated whenever possible from disruptive land uses and nmsances. * * * -Land planning should weigh heavily the established character of predominantly developed areas when changes of use or intensity of development is contemplated. (Respondent's Exhibit 17) '\ The history of the land use designation on the subject property and the surrounding residential property was the lowest density residential category in the 1970's, and RS at 2.5 units per acre from the mid 1980's to the present. The land use designation for the subject property and the adjacent residential property to the north and south of the subject property and adjacent to and west of Lake Chautauqua was amended by the PPC in Case #82- 38 to RS. The Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners in 1983 - 1984 specifically rejected multi-family development of 5.0 units per acre for nearby residential property because it was incompatible with the existing character of the area. These residential properties were subsequently amended in 1985 from RL to RS. The City of Clearwater, in 1986 - 1987, recognized the low intensity, residential character of the area when it annexed a 17.4 acre parcel of vacant property directly south of Lake Chautauqua and petitioned and received approval from the PPC to amend the land use designation from recreation/open space to RS. Absent from the reports and minutes of the City, the Planners Advisory Committee of the PPC and the PPC staff is any reference to the above described land use history of the subject property and the surrounding residential areas. The proposed amendment of multi-family housing at 5.0 units per acre is inconsistent with the land use decisions of the City of Clearwater, the PPC, and the CPA over the last three decades, but this historical information failed to be introduced into ]4 the record at the meetings of any of these entities. The proposed amendment of multi-family housing at 5.0 units per acre is inconsistent with the policy in the land use section of the Countywide Plan Policies that states that "land planning should weigh heavily the established character of predominantly developed areas when changes of use or intensity of development is contemplated." The intensity and land use pattern of the predominantly developed areas surrounding the subject property has been and still is single-family housing at 2.5 units per acre. The Planners Advisory Committee of the PPC, the City, the PPC staff, and the ppC apparently were unaware of the land use history of the surrounding area and thus could not have considered it in regards to the above Countywide Plan Policy. In contrast, this evidence was proffered at the administrative hearing, and it proves that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Countywide Plan, Policies and Rules. The residential property described above has been developed since the 1980's through the present with large lot, single-family houses. The latest proposal by Roy E. Shaffer, Jr. for the vacant residential property north of the subject property is for large lot, single-family houses. The established character of the surrounding developed neighborhoods is large lot, single-family houses built within the RS density parameters of 2.5 units per acre. Robert Pergolizzi, a city planner and expert witness for the Petitioners, even stated that he believed that single-family homes could be developed successfully on the subject property and the vacant surrounding residential property. Michael Wallenbacher, president of operations in the Tampa Bay area for Rottlund Homes, potential developer of the subject property, and witness for the Petitioners, testified that a viable single-family development at 2.5 units per acre could be built on the subject property. Petitioners even placed into evidence a site plan developed by Rottlund Homes, Inc., illustrating the ability of a developer to construct an attractive, residential neighborhood consisting of 46 single-family homes on the subject property. Stephen E. McConihay, a twenty-seven year resident of a single-family 15 house located just north of the subject property, testified that his and his neighbor's expectation of the type of and density of the housing for the area residential property is "a detached single family residential community" within the 2.5 units per acre limitation. County expert Paul Cassel concluded that the doubling of density would change the character of the area, would be inconsistent with the historic land use and development pattern of the area, and therefore would be inconsistent with the Countywide Plan Policies. Multi-family housing at a 100% increase in density of 5.0 units per acre does not recognize or support the established character of the surrounding neighborhoods, would set a precedent for this area inconsistent and be incompatible with the pattern of land use designation and development established in the 1980's and carried through to the present, and is contrary to the expectations of surrounding property owners. Development of the subject property at 2.5 units per acre with single- family dwellings is viable, and would be compatible and consistent with the surrounding residential development pattern. For these reasons, the proposed amendment does not meet or satisfy the Relevant Countywide Consideration of consistency with the Countywide Plan. The second applicable Relevant Countywide Consideration is the impact the proposed amendment will have on the adopted level of service (LOS) standard. The PPC staff stated that the proposed amendment would generate 827 vehicle trips per day (vtpd), a net increase of373 vtpd and that would impact U.S. Highway 19 North which has a LOS "F" on the segment from Enterprise Road to Sunset Point Road. Dimmitt's expert Robert Pergolizzi stated that the proposed project would generate 527 vtpd, that the LOS of U.S. 19 Highway North is "C" from Sunset Point Road to Enterprise Road, and thus would have a minimal impact on the LOS "C" on that portion of U.S. Highway 19 North. The Petitioners proposed to build an extension of Chautauqua Avenue to 16 Enterprise Road through a City Park in order to address the access problem to the subject property necessitated by the increased traffic from the proposed amendment to RL. The CPA would concede that the proposed amendment has a minimal impact on the LOS of the segment of U.S. Highway 19 North from Sunset Road to Enterprise Road, and that the Chautauqua Avenue extension addresses the access problem to the subject property. The CPA would concede that the Petitioners have met this Relevant Countywide Consideration. However, the solution to one Countywide Rule standard is detrimental and incompatible to the third applicable Relevant Countywide Consideration of impact on an adjoining jurisdiction. The subject property was located in unincorporated Pinellas County until June of2002 when Dimmitt applied for and was annexed into the City. The residential properties with an RS land use designation to the north and south of the subject property has not been annexed into the City and remains in unincorporated Pinellas County. The proposed amendment would have a substantial adverse impact on these residential properties within the adjoining unincorporated Pinellas County jurisdiction, the third applicable Relevant Countywide Consideration. The proposed amendment includes the condition of extending Chautauqua Avenue north to Enterprise Road. Twenty-seven year resident Stephen E. McConihay and County expert Paul Cassel testified that they believed that the road extension would result in substantial cut through traffic of vehicles that are traveling north on U.S. Highway 19 North and wish to turn right to go east on Enterprise Road. McConihay and Cassel also testified that they believed the road extension would open the area to substantially more traffic and change the rural character of the area. At present, the character of the residential property to the north and south of the subject property is rural in nature due to its seclusion from the lack of through streets. Petitioners' road extension substantially and 17 detrimentally alters the existing character of the unincorporated residential areas located to the north and south of the subject property. This negative impact is based solely on the impact of the one hundred percent (100%) increase of density on the subject property from RS to RL. The PPC staff calculated that the proposed amendment would generate an eighty-two percent (82%) increase in the vehicle trips per day for the subject property. Petitioners' dispute that figure, but have proposed a road that will traverse through a proposed City park to remedy the proposed amendments' impact on the adjoining, unincorporated, residential property. A second, substantial, adverse impact to the adjoining, unincorporated area is the introduction of multi- family housing of 5.0 units per acre into an area of RS land use designation with large lots and single-family houses. Petitioners argue that the RL land use designation will buffer the adjoining, unincorporated, residential property with a RS land use designation from the commercial development to the west. However, the subject property would only buffer Lake Chautauqua from the commercial development. The subject property with a RL designation would not buffer the residential property to the north and south because this property would still be located adj acent to the commercial development on U. S. Highway 19 North. The residential property to the north of the subject property has been steadily and successfully developed with large lot, single- family houses and therefore does not need the RL land use designation with the potential of5.0 units per acre of intrusive, multi-family development to buffer it from the commercial property to the west. A RL land use designation does not buffer adjoining unincorporated RS property, but does increase the density by one hundred percent (100%), introduce multi-family housing, and necessitate the construction of a road extension that substantially alters the existing character of the area. As County witness Stephen McConihay testified, these negative impacts are contrary to the expectations 18 of the residents in the adjoining unincorporated area oflarge lot, single-family development within the parameters of the RS land use designation that has been in place for over twenty (20) years. (Transcript, p. 131) Petitioners argue that a RL designation will permit clustering of housing units with environmental benefits such as the preservation of tree canopy and communal ownership of the shoreline on the subject property. These alleged internal benefits to the subject property are offset by the adverse, external impacts such as the destruction of tree canopy in the proposed City park for a road extension to Enterprise Road and the introduction of cut through traffic to a secluded, residential area. In addition, Petitioners admitted that no provisions in the Countywide Plan prohibited that clustering within a RS land use designation. Much evidence was proffered at the administrative hearing to show that Petitioners' proposed amendment has a substantial, adverse impact on the adjoining, unincorporated, residential area to the north and south of the subject property. The CPA has proven that the proposed amendment does not meet and satisfy two out of the three Relevant Countywide Considerations. Pursuant to the definition of "consistency" in Division 3.2 of the Countywide Rules, a proposed land use amendment shall be deemed inconsistent if it does not meet each and every criterion. The CPA's decision to deny Petitioner's proposed amendment from RS to RL is reasonable and consistent with the Countywide Plan and its Policies and Rules, because the proposed land use amendment does not meet each Relevant Countywide Consideration. The Florida Supreme Court has held that all amendments to comprehensive plans are legislative decisions subject to the fairly debatable standard of review. Martin County v. Yussem, 690 So.2d 1288, 1293 (Fla.1997). The fairly debatable standard is a highly deferential standard of 19 review requiring approval of a planning action if reasonable persons would differ as to its propriety. Id. at 1295. The Florida Supreme Court further explained the fairly debatable standard as: "[a]n ordinance may be said to be fairly debatable when for any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction that in no way involves its constitutional validity." Id. (quoting City of Miami Beach v. Lochman, 71 So.2d 148, 152 [Fla. 1953]). This case involves a legislative planning decision by the CPA to deny Petitioners' proposed amendment to RL and maintain the status quo ofRS in the Countywide Plan. The County proffered much evidence at the administrative hearing to show that the proposed amendment did not meet or satisfy two of the Relevant Countywide Considerations. This evidence supporting the CPA's decision to deny was based upon the legitimate interest in preserving the low density, single-family development pattern of the Lake Chautauqua area consistent with the land use decisions of the PPC, the City of Clearwater and the Board of County Commissioners over the last three decades. Petitioners put forth evidence to show that the RL land use designation for the subject property was consistent with. the Countywide Plan. If the record contains evidence in support of both sides of the comprehensive plan amendment, it would be difficult to determine that the CPA's decision is anything but "fairly debatable." Martin County v. Section 28 Partnership, 772 So.2d 616, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In Section 28 Partnership, the 4th DCA found that evidence was on the record to support both sides of proposed comprehensive land use amendment. Id. The 4th DCA concluded that "the evidence established that there is at least a fair debate, and that reasonable minds could differ, as to the propriety of the County's action," and found for Martin County. Id. The CPA has proven that its decision to maintain the status quo of the RS land use designation on the subject property is reasonable, is consistent with the Countywide Plan, and meets the fairly debatable standard, and therefore merits a recommendation of approval. 20 RECOMMENDATION Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, acting in their capacity as the countywide planning authority, enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' request to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan to change the future land use classification on a twenty-two acre parcel in Clearwater, Florida, from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) to Residential Low (RL) and Preservation (P). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was furnished by U.S. Mail to Stephen O. Cole, Esq., at Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen, 625 Court Street, Suite 200, ("/f't. Clearwater, Florida 33756-5505, Attorney for Petitioners, this () -day of August, 2003. LIM~ DAVID S. SADOWSK __ _."____ "ounty-A1torney 315 Court Street Clearwater, FL 33756 (727) 464-3354 FBN 725714 Attorney for Respondent F'\USERS\A TTY\Atykb09\ WPDOCS\LltlgatlOn\DSS\Proposed Recommended Order - Dimmitt doc 21 v, " STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CITY OF CLEARWATER, for the use and benefit of LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, III, and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee, Petitioners, vs. Case No. 03-1500 PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS as COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, Respondent. RECOMMENDED ORDER Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on July 10, 2003, in Clearwater, Florida. APPEARANCES For Petitioners: Stephen O. Cole, Esquire MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, Florida 33757-1669 For Respondent: David S. Sadowsky, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756-5165 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE !1M M7v/1- The issue is whether a proposed amendment to the Pinellas ~ County Countywide Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) changing the land use designation on a 22.18-acre parcel located at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue in the City of Clearwater (City) from Residential Suburban/Preservation to Residential Low/Preservation should be approved. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter began on, February 21, 2002, when Petitioner, Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, and Lawrence H. Dimmitt, Jr., as Trustee (the Trustee) for an Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated December 1, 1998, which owns certain real property in the City, filed an application (which was later amended) with the City seeking to change the land use on a 22.18-acre parcel of property from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) to Residential Low (RL) and P. The effect of the change will be to increase the density of development allowed on the property from no more than 2.5 residential units per acre to 5.0 units per acre. Under the process established by Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, that change requires an amendment to the FLUP, which is administered by Respondent, Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA). The special act also sets out the process for review and approval of the amendment, beginning with review and approval by the City, then an intermediate review and approval 2 .. by the Pinellas Planning Council (PPC), a countywide land planning agency, and ending with a review and final decision by the CPA. By virtue of the City's approving the amendment on ,Tnne 20, 2002, the City became the nominal party in this appeal, acting on behalf of the Trustee. The matter was then considered by the PPC on September 18, 2002. After the PPC recommended denial of the application by a 6-5 vote, mainly because of traffic concerns, the case was forwarded to the CPA. At the request of the Trustee and the City, the proposal was remanded back to the PPC to reconsider the matter after new traffic mitigative measures were proposed. Thereafter, by a 9-3 vote, the amendment was approved by the PPC on March 19, 2003. Finally, on April 1, 2003, by a 7-0 vote, the CPA ~ denied the proposed change because of adverse impacts on transportation and the character of the neighborhood. Under Section 5.1.3.9 of the Countywide Plan Rules (Countywide Rules), the Trustee filed its Petition for Administrative Hearing with the PPC on April 18, 2003, requesting a hearing to contest the CPA's decision. Pursuant to a contract with the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), the matter was forwarded to DOAH on April 28, 2003, with a request that an Administrative Law Judge be assigned to 3 ~ conduct a hearing. By Notice of Hearing dated May 8, 2003, a final hearing -- was scheduled on July 10 and 11, 2003, in Clearwater, Florida. ~ At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of David P. Healy, Executive Director of the PPC; Michael Willenbacher, president of Rottlund Homes of Florida; Cynthia Tarapani, City Planning Director and accepted as an expert; and Robert C. Pergolizzi, a certified planner and accepted as an expert. Also, they offered Petitioners' Exhibits 1-36, which were received in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Steven B. McConihay, who resides near the subject property; Brian K. Smith, Director of the Pinellas County (County) Planning Department and accepted as an expert; and Paul T. Cassel, Director of the County Development Review Services Department and accepted as an expert. Also, it offered Respondent's Exhibits 1-19, which were received in evidence. The Transcript of the hearing (two volumes) was filed on August 11, 2003. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed by Respondent and Petitioners on August 12 and 14, 2003, respectively, and they have been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order. FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of 4 fact are determined: a. Backqround 1. In 1988, the Legislature provided the County with countywide planning authority (see Chapter 88-458, Laws of Florida). That same year, the Legislature enacted Chapter 88- 464, Laws of Florida, which amended Chapter 73-594, Laws of Florida, and required the County to develop "a countywide future land use plan" and "other [necessary] elements," also known as the Countywide Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Pinellas County. Among other things, Chapter 88-464 prescribes the process by which changes to land use designations are made within the County. Under that process, all local government comprehensive plans, including the City's, are required to be consistent with the FLUP. Presumably, the laws were enacted because of the County's dense development (it is one of, if not the most, densely developed counties in the State), the large number of incorporated cities and towns (24) within the County, and the desire to have some degree of countywide uniformity in land use planning decisions. The law goes on to provide that amendments to the FLUP "relating to land use designation for a particular parcel of property may be initiated only by a local government that has jurisdiction over the subject property." In this case, the subject property lies within the City; 5 therefore, the proposed change was initiated by the City. 2. Under the review process in place for adopting an amendment to the FLUP, the proposed amendment is first presented to the City, then to the PPC, which consists of 13 representatives from various towns and cities in the County, the School Board, and the County, and finally to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CPA. 3. The subject property is located at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Chautauqua Avenue (also identified as Main Street on some maps) runs for a short distance in a north-south direction parallel to, and just east of, U.S. Highway 19 in the northeastern part of the City. Except for two houses, some tennis courts, and assessory buildings, the 22.18-acre tract of land is largely undeveloped. The land also includes a small pond located in the northwest quadrant and wetlands along its eastern side, which fronts on Lake Chautauqua (the Lake). Mr. Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, one of the two co-trustees, acquired ownership of the southern half of the property in January 1986, while the remainder of the parcel was not acquired by the Trustee until December 2001. In June 2002, the property was annexed by the City pursuant to a request by the Trustee (to enable City water and wastewater services to be extended to the property). The property is now under contract to be sold to a 6 developer (The Rottlund Company, Inc.), who desires to construct 90 town homes in 34 buildings, assuming the amendment is approved. 4. Since July 21, 1982, the upland portion of the property (16.22 acres) has been classified as RS, which allows 2.5 residential units per acre. The wetlands and some adjacent land totaling a,round 4.6 acres on the eastern portion of the property next to the Lake are classified as, and must remain, Preservation. In addition, a small pond (1.35 acres) on the property is classified as Water/Drainage Feature. The proposed amendment does not affect the classifications of the wetlands and pond. 5. All of the surrounding property (except the property immediately to the west between Chautauqua Avenue and U.S. Highway 19, which is classified as Commercial Limited) also carries an RS land use designation. The other nearby property along U.S. Highway 19 is classified as some form of commercial or mixed office/residential use. Countrywide Mall, the County's only regional shopping mall, is situated on U.S. Highway 19, less than a mile away. 6. The property is located approximately 700 feet east of U.S. Highway 19 between Second Avenue South and Second Avenue North. U.S. Highway 19 is six lanes wide, was 7 described by witnesses as being the most heavily traveled roadway in the County, and has intense commercial or mixed use development on both sides of the highway. Immediately to the west of the property (between U.S. Highway 19 and Chautauqua Avenue) is a Chevrolet automobile dealership and repair facility owned by the Dimmitts. A Cadillac dealership (also owned by the Dimmitts) is just south of the Chevrolet dealership. The entire eastern boundary of the property fronts on the Lake, while perhaps a dozen or so single-family homes, mainly constructed in the 1990s, sit on large lots scattered throughout the area immediately north of the property. From that area to Enterprise Road, a major arterial east-west roadway approximately 2,000 feet north of the Trustee's property, the land is largely undeveloped. The property immediately to the south is also classified as RS and is also largely vacant at the present time, except for a few single-family dwellings. The land which lies southeast of the property and the Lake is also designated RS and consists of a series of upscale, large, single-family residential subdivisions. 7. The local roads adjacent to and near the property are substandard and do not meet the City or County standards. The main access to the property (from the west) is from U.S. Highway 19 using First Avenue North, which intersects with 8 U.S. Highway 19 next to the car dealership. Because of a median in the middle of U.S. Highway 19, however, cars entering U.S. Highway 19 from First Avenue North can only turn right (northbound).l The only access from the property to an intersection allowing vehicles to turn north or south on U.S. Highway 19 is provided by traveling south on a series of narrow, meandering, residential County roads (~, Third ---~- Avenue South, Second Street East, Fourth Avenue South, Union Street, and Soule Road) and eventually reaching Sunset Point Road (State Road 588), an east-west roadway intersecting with U.S. Highway 19 to the west. There is no access to the property from the north. The evidence shows that partly because of the poor road access, the nearby car dealerships and other commercial development, and the commercial lighting at the car dealerships which remains on throughout the night, the property has never been developed. Another contributing factor is that the former long-time owners of the northern half of the property (until it was sold to the Dimmitts in December 2001) had no wish to develop the property while they retained ownership. b. The Land Use Cateqories and History of the Area 8. When the County's first comprehensive plan was ~ adopted in 1974, three residential categories were - established: low density (up to 7.5 units per acre); medium 9 density (up to 15 units per acre); and high density (up to 30 units per acre). At that time, the Trustee's property and most of the surrounding residential prop.erties were designated ~~u/~ the least intensive residential use category and remained unchanged until 1982. In response to the state Growth Management Act, in 1980 the PPC developed more specific residential categories to manage population growth. The low density category was further defined to include five residential categories: Preservation (0.5 units per acre); Residential Conservation (1.0 units per acre); Residential Suburban (2.5 units per acre); Residential Low (5.0 units per acre); and Residential Urban (7.5 units per acre). 9. As noted above, in 1982 the County reclassified the upland portion of the property, as well as the properties to its'north and south, and west of the Lake, as RS. Some other areas to the southeast and northwest of the Trustee's land were reclassified at 5.0 dwelling units per acre, which category is now known as RL. 10. In September 1984, two zoning requests "in the neighborhood [of the Trustee's property]" to allow "multifamily development at 5.0 units/acre" were denied by the County, mainly because the area contained "very low density single-family housing, with houses sitting on large lots (mostly about 2 acres in size), used in a 10 residential/agricultural manner." At the same time, the County instructed its staff to "review zoning and Land Use Plan designation in the area to insure protection of the existing character of the land." That same year, the County amended the land use classification on these properties from lV11~ RL, which permitted 5.0 units per acre, to RS, which permitted ---- only 2.5 units per acre. 11. In 1987, the City annexed a 17.4-acre vacant tract of land directly south of the Lake (and southeast of the Trustee's property). Before annexation, the property was classified as Residential/Open Space. According to a PPC recommendation presented to the County, the City filed an application with the County seeking to amend the CLUP (now known as the FLUP) by changing the land use to RS so that the vacant land would "be compatible with the existing land use pattern in this vicinity." The change was approved by the County. 12. In all, at least thirteen parcels in the Lake Chautauqua area have been reclassified since 1980. Many of these are downzoning changes which merely reflect what had actually been planned, developed, and built pursuant to the dictates of the marketplace. In other words, the change ~ reflected existing development of not more than 2.5 units per - ~.----~- acre. There are also two instances when the Commission - 11 upzoned parcels in the area, that is, increased the all~wable density from Recreation/Open Space to a higher category (7.5 units per acre), but these properties are outlying parcels and ~ not in the immediate area. 1 13. Most recently (early 2003), a developer proposed (and has pending a request) to develop six lots 130 feet by 600 feet in depth with single-family dwellings on property lying on the western shore of the Lake just north of the Trustee's property. These large lots would be consistent with the development now existing immediately to the west (and just north of the Trustee's property). :$ 14. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the County's intent over the last 25 years or so has been to restrict development in the area around the Trustee's property - to single-family residences with a density of no more than 2.5 units p~e. c. The Application 15. On February 21, 2002, the Trustee filed an application with the City for a change in land use designation on its property from RS and P to RL and P (so as to increase density from 2.5 to 7.0 units per acre). Although not a part of this proceeding, the Trustee also filed an application seeking to rezone the property from Rural Residential to Low Medium Residential and Preservation. 12 (j{X'1 (}t/ ~ 16. The City's Zoning Department reviewed the application, found that all applicable criteria had been met, and recommended approval. The application then proceeded to a public hearing before the City's Community Development Board (CDB) on May 21, 2002. Following the public hearing, the CDB recommended approval of both applications. 17. On June 20, 2002, the matters were taken up by the City Commission. The staff's detailed report recommending approval is found in Petitioners' Exhibit 2. Because of neighborhood opposition, however, the Trustee agreed to amend the application by reducing the density from 7.5 units per acre (RL) to 5.0 units per acre (RS). Thereafter, the City approved the application. This approval was formalized through the adoption of Ordinance No. 6978-02. At that point, the City became the nominal applicant for the amendment. 18. A copy of the amendment was then forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA's review was completed on October 3, 2002, when it advised the City by letter that it had "no objections to the proposed amendment" and that its letter would serve as the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments. 19. The application was submitted to the PPC on August 13, 2002. Following its review, the PPC staff, together with 13 ~ ~ the staff of the Professional Advisory Committee (PAC), which is composed of professional planning staff members from the various municipalities throughout the County, recommended that the application be approved. 20. On September 18, 2002, the PPC, by a 6-5 vote, recommended denial of the application, mainly because of traffic issues. Under the review process, the matter then came before the CPA. However, the City and the Trustee requested that the matter be remanded to the PPC to enable the Trustee to address the traffic issues. A remand was approved by the CPA on October 15, 2002. 21. After reconsideration of the matter, which included proposed changes by the City to mitigate the traffic impact, the PPC staff and PAC unanimously recommended approval of the application. The application then proceeded to the PPC, and by a 9-3 vote on March 19, 2003, the PPC recommended approval. 22. Although land use amendments recommended for approval by the PPC are "rarely" overturned or changed by the CPA, on April 1, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CPA, unanimously rejected the proposed amendment. The same date, Resolution No. 03-55 was adopted which memorialized this action and indicated that the decision was based "upon the facts presented at the hearing, which included the character of the neighborhood and transportation 14 cf~ '? tyIP impacts." According to the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the rejection was "due to [the amendment's] incompatibility with and negative impact on the established character of the neighborhood and the precedence [sic] of allowing multi-family - development into an overwhelming single-family residential area." This appeal followed. d. The issues in the case 23. Under the Countywide Rules, which were adopted in 1989 and govern changes to the FLUP, depending on their size and nature, plan amendments are classified into two categories: subthreshold amendments and general amendments. The former type of amendment is minor in nature and entails a less rigid review process while general amendments (those that do not qualify as subthreshold amendments) must be evaluated according to six "Relevant Countywide Considerations" (Considerations) found in Sections 5.3.5.1 through 5.3.5.6. Because the proposed amendment falls within the general amendment category, the six Considerations must be reviewed to determine if any come into play. If an amendment adversely impacts a Consideration, it is not consistent with the FLUP. In denying the amendment, the CPA determined that only two Considerations were relevant and would be impacted - Section 5.3.5.2 (Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard) and Section 5.3.5.6 (Adjacent to or Impacting an Adjoining 15 ~ ~/t:1 ~ - hI1-( Jurisdiction). All other Considerations were determined to be inapplicable. 24. Although the County's Resolution indicated that the traffic Consideration played a part in its decision to deny the amendment, the parties' Prehearing Stipulation reflects that the CPA no longer considers that Consideration to be in ~ issue. However, because evidence concerning traffic was - presented at hearing, albeit more in the context of impacts on the character of the neighborhood than on LOS standards on U.S. Highway 19, a discussion of that Consideration is appropriate. 25. Section 5.3.5.2 provides in part that "the amendment must not be located on or impact a roadway segment where the existing Level of Service (LOS) is below LOS 'D', or where projected traffic resulting from the amendment would cause the existing LOS to fall below LOS 'D'." Here, however, the evidence shows that the portion of U.S. Highway 19 (directly west of the property) between Enterprise Road and Sunset Point Road is already operating at LOS "F". 26. Under the existing land use classification (RS), the Trustee (or developer) can construct as many as 46 single- family homes. At hearing, the developer acknowledged that the property can be successfully developed in that mode. Assuming that the maximum number of homes would be built, regardless of 16 which type of development occurs, the traffic impacts would be essentially the same since a town home generates only 60 percent of the traffic of a single-family home. The evidence also shows that any additional traffic generated by development will have a negligible overall impact (less than - ~e-tenths of one percent of the existing capacity) on U.S. - Highway 19, which is already at LOS "F". The Florida Department of Transportation concurs in this finding, and has concluded that the development will not adversely impact that road. 27. As noted above, the plan amendment was initially rejected by the PPC by a 6-5 vote, mainly because of traffic issues, and a concern that the additional traffic onto U.S. Highway 19 at First Avenue South might have a negative impact on that roadway. The City and Trustee then requested that the CPA remand the application to the PPC so that traffic issues could be further addressed. At that time, the City considered two alternatives to alleviate traffic concerns and provide a different access route to the area. 28. First, it considered the possibility of extending Second Avenue South to the east and southeast to connect with, and widen, Lake Shore Drive (a County road), which runs around parts of the northwestern and southwestern sections of the Lake, and eventually provides access to Sunset Point Road, 17 r:?1 which then runs west to U.S. Highway 19. However, the County declined to participate in that effort and thus this proposal was not considered to be feasible. 29. The City also considered extending Chautauqua Avenue north (over City right-of-way) to Enterprise Road, a main arterial east-west roadway that also intersects with U.S. Highway 19 (and enables 'the driver to turn, either left or right at that intersection). If the road is extended in that fashion, it would provide residents in and near the subject property with access to Enterprise Road, and also provide other area residents with access to a City park that may be built just south of Enterprise Road. As to this alternative, even though the developer's share of costs (using the City's calculations) is only 17 percent, the developer has agreed to pay one-half of the cost of the road improvements. With this , improvement, both parties now agree that the traffic - Consideration has been resolved. ~ 30. Based on the foregoing, it is found that t~n amendment is consistent with the transportation Consideration and will not adversely impact LOS standards on U.S. Highw~y 19. Two of the County witnesses conceded as much at the final hearing. 31. Section 5.3.5.6 generally provides that if the property adjoins another jurisdiction, the plan amendment must 18 vJ:,rP~ ~f ~1-{l "/I ~ not adversely impact that jurisdiction. In determining whether the plan amendment is consistent with this Consideration (and does not impact the adjoining County land), reference to the goals and policies within the Countywide Comprehensive Plan is necessary. The Land Use Element Goal provides in part that "[t]he land uses associated with development should be compatible and reasonable in terms of both the land, surrounding uses, and the public interest." Two unnumbered Policies within the same Element further provide that "land development patterns should recognize and support coherent neighborhoods," and that "land planning -- should weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas when changes of use or intensity of development is contemplated." . ..-- 32. In this case, there are enclaves of County land lying on the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries of the Trustee's land. The County contends that the proposed change is inconsistent with the Consideration because it adversely affects the "character" of the adjoining County land in two ways: (a) by the creation of a new access road to the north through a quiet, residential neighborhood, and (b) by the construction of town homes in an area historically classified as RS, which only allows the construction of single-family homes. 19 .' 33. If the plan amendment is approved, the City has decided to extend Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road, giving the new (and existing) residents an outlet to the north. This alternative was chosen since the County has declined to participate in the southern alternative. The extension will provide access to a new City park, and the developer will pay more than his fair share to aid in the construction of the road. According to the City, the extension is necessary to mitigate the increased traffic from the new project. 34. Currently, the roads in the area around where the extension will be built can be characterized as secluded and /} e with only a small amount of traffic. Besides the automobiles of the existing residents, the only other vehicles using the roads are those being tested by the nearby Chevrolet dealership after being repaired. If the plan amendment is approved, and the town homes constructed, the project will generate hundreds of new trips per day. Understandably so, ~ existing residents of the area (as well as the County) fear ~ '" / that if the road is extended, it will become a "cut-through" I~~street for non-residents traveling north on U.S. Highway 19 to ~yv Enterprise Road and who wish to avoid that intersection. Given the current level of traffic on U.S. Highway 19 (LOS "F"), it is fair to infer that this fear is well-founded. Accordingly, by extending Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise 20 Road, the character of the existing neighborhood will be adversely impacted by the increased tEaffic qenerated by new -- -------- ...-~':.. residents seeking an outlet and non-residents using the street as a c~.~,-through. 35. It is true that some form of traffic mitigation will still be required if the plan amendment is not approved, and single-family homes are built on the Trustee's property. However, when or if the property will be developed, and the extent of such development, is not known, and there is no indication in the record that the City will still seek to mitigate this traffic by extending Chautauqua Avenue. 36. The evidence shows that the established character of r the neighborhood is quiet, secluded, and low density residential, with many of the homes having large, oversized ~ lots. As noted earlier, a proposal is now pending before the - County to develop the area directly north of the Trustee's property along the Lake with six single-family dwellings on "large estate lots behind a gated wall." By doubling the density on the Trustee's property from 2.5 to 5.0 units per acre, the character of the area would be changed, and the new density would be inconsistent with the historic land use and development pattern of the area. 37. The evidence also shows that the residents who live immediately north of the Trustee's property purchased their 21 ~ land, and built their homes, with the expectation that the area would be "a detached single-family residential community within the 2.5 units per acre limitation." For more than 20 years, the County's land use decisions have been consistent with this expectation. 38. Petitioners' witnesses contend, however, that the town homes will (a) serve as a buffer between the commercial uses which lie on the western side of Chautauqua Road and the existing single-family homes which lie on the eastern side, and (b) provide a transition or gradual stepdown in intensity from the commercial uses along U.S. Highway 19 to town homes to single-family homes, which practice is consistent with good land use planning. However, the area maps and site plan introduced into evidence clearly show that the town homes would not buffer anything except the Lake, since the town homes would run from the Lake all the way westward to the rear of the Chevrolet dealership. In other words, to provide a buffer, logically it would be necessary that the town homes be placed between the commercial areas and the single-family homes. The residential property to the north and south (which purportedly would be buffered) is already located adjacent to, and directly east of, the commercial development along U.S. Highway 19, and the town homes would simply increase the density of the property between the two residential areas by 22 .. ~ 100 percent. For the same reasons, the construction of tQwn homes would not provide a transition or step down in the intensity of development from west to east since they would not be built between the existing homes and U.S. Highway 19. 39. Based on the foregoing facts, it is found that the proposed amendment will ad~ersely affect the character of the neighborhood (and impact the adjoining County land) and is therefore inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 of the Countywide Rules. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 40. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto pursuant to Chapter 88-464, Laws of Florida, and Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 41. Section 5.1.3.9 of the Countywide Rules provides that "[i]f the CPA denies an amendment which was recommended to be approved by the PPC, any substantially affected person may apply for an administrative hearing within twenty-one (21) days of denial." Utilizing that provision, Petitioners have filed their request for a hearing. 42. The Countywide Rules are silent as to the standard of proof to be used in this type of hearing. However, Section 5.1.3.4 provides that all applications for an administrative hearing "will be in a form for consideration under, and 23 ~ . subject to the procedures of, Chapter 120, F.S." Under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, a request for a hearing commences a de novo proceeding, which is intended to formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily. See, e.g., Fla. Dep't of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Therefore, Petitioners' suggestion that this case does not come to DOAH as an appeal or for the review of the CPA's decision of April 1, 2003, is correct.2 43. The more persuasive evidence shows that the plan amendment will be inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 by adversely impacting the character of the adjoining County land. This being so, the request to amend the FLUP should be ----- denied. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 and that the amendment should be denied. 24 .,t DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ~cu..t (L ar~ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 2003. ENDNOTES 1/ Maps and drawings received in evidence also reflect that residents of the area can apparently access U.S. Highway 19 by traveling south on Chautauqua Avenue, to Lake Shore Drive, to Soule Street, and then turning westbound on McCormick Drive until it dead ends on U.S. Highway 19. Even if this assumption is correct, however, vehicles can still only turn right (northbound) at that intersection. 2/ Respondent's contention that the fairly debatable standard applies to this proceeding has been rejected. Unlike Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, which specifically adopts that standard for plan amendment hearings arising under that Chapter, the Countywide Rules provide that this type of hearing is "subject to the procedures of Chapter 120, F.S." COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Healy, Executive Director 25 . ~ , ~ Pinellas Planning Council 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 650 Clearwater, Florida 33755-4160 Stephen O. Cole, Esquire MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, Florida 33757-1669 David S. Sadowsky, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756-5165 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the Pinellas County Planning Council. 26 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, for the use and benefit of LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, III, and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee Under Amended Revocable Living Trust Agreement dated 12/1/98, Petitioners, Vs. DOAH Case No.: 03-1500 PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, as COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY, Respondent. / PETITIONERS' PROPOSED RECOMMENDED ORDER Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its assigned Administrative Law Judge, Donald R. Alexander, on July 10, 2003, in Clearwater, Florida. APPEARANCES For Petitioners: Stephen O. Cole, Esquire Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 For Respondent: David S. Sadowsky, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, FL 33756 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The issue is whether the requested amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as it pertains to the subject parcel, should be granted to change the designation from residential suburban (RS) to residential low (RL). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This matter began in February 2002 with the filing of an application by the Petitioners with the City of Clearwater seeking the annexation of the subject property and a change in the Land Use Plan classification. The property was annexed in 2002. The application for the land use change proceeded through the usual review process at the City with favorable recommendations for approval by the Community Development Board and the Planning Department. At the City Commission level, the request was modified to seek a reduced density, and the amended request was approved. In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the application for a land use plan amendment was subject to the full review of the Pinellas Planning Council, and approval was required by the Board of County Commissioners acting as the Countywide Planning Authority. Due to the size of the plan amendment, review and approval by the Department of Community Affairs was also required. The PPC initially turned down the request based on concerns about the impact on traffic. The application then went forward to the Commissioners, acting as the CPA, which granted a continuance of the matter and returned it for reconsideration by the PPC so that the traffic issues could be addressed. Subsequently the property came under contract by a developer, a plan to 2 even though rezoning and approval of the amendment has been granted by the city in which the property is located, The PPC initially turned down the request based on concerns about the impact on traffic. The application then went forward to the Commissioners, acting as the CPA, which granted a continuance of the matter and returned it for reconsideration by the PPC so that the traffic issues could be addressed, Subsequently, the property came under contract with a developer and a plan to resolve the traffic issues was formed. Upon renewed consideration the PPC recommended approval of the petition, On April 1, 2003 the matter went to the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the CPA, for final review. In spite of having received the approval of all of the reviewing staffs or agencies, comprised of professional and trained land planners and zoning technicians, and despite the testimony at the hearing of expert witnesses to the effect that the request was consistent with good land use planning and the applicable rules, the CP A nevertheless turned down the application. The Petitioners herein timely filed their Petition for Administrative Hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 17, 2003. Through their Petition, it is requested that the assigned Administrative Law Judge make binding findings of fact, along with conclusions of law and a recommendation as to whether the requested change to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan should be approved. The matter does not come to the DOAH as an appeal or for the review of the CPA's decision of April 1, 2003. Rather, the purpose is to provide the CPA with binding factual determinations with a recommended, albeit non-binding, recommended order. 3 ,> , By notice of May 8, 2003 the matter was duly scheduled for hearing before the undersigned on July 10, 2003 in Clearwater, Florida, At the hearing Petitioners presented the testimony of David Healey, Executive Director of the Pinellas Planning Council; Michael Willenbacher, President of Rottlund Homes of Florida; Cynthia Tarapani, Planning Director for the City of Clearwater; and Robert Pergolizzi, a professional planner and President of Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Petitioners' Exhibits 1 through 36 were received in evidence. The Respondents presented the testimony of Steven McConihay, a neighborhood property owner; Brian Smith, Director, Pinellas County Planning Department; and Paul Cassel, Director of Development Review Service for Pinellas County. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 19 were received in evidence. The transcript of the hearing was filed on August 11, 2003. Proposed Recommended Orders were filed by Petitioners and Respondent on August 14 and 11, 2003 respectively, and they have been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order. FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: 1. LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, III and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, JR., as Trustee, (collectively Applicant) filed an application with the City for Clearwater for annexation and for a zoning atlas amendment in February, 2002. See Petitioners' Exhibit 1. (hereinafter references to Petitioners' Exhibits will be abbreviated as "P Ex _"). 2. The application for the annexation of the subject parcel by the City of Clearwater was for the purpose of obtaining water and sewage service for the property. Incident thereto, the subject property was annexed by the City of Clearwater in June, 2002. 4 3. The initial request by the Applicant was to amend the zoning and designated land use of the property, pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) to Residential Urban (RU) and Preservation (P). RU allows up to 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The sole matter at issue in this case has to do with the change to the residential designation, there being no issue or conflict with regard to the preservation portion of the property, The proposed use for the property is for the development of attached townhouses. 4. Under the existing designation, at 2,5 dwelling units per acre, 46 single-family residential units can be constructed on the site. P Ex 3. 5. In accordance with the Pinellas Countywide Rules, the requested amendment to the Future Land Use Plan is subject to review by the Pinellas Planning Council ("PPC") and requires the approval of the Board of County Commissioners acting as a Countywide Planning Authority ("CPA"). Further, due to the size of the plan amendment, review and approval by Florida's Department of Community Affairs was required. 6. The application was reviewed first by the planning staff of the City of Clearwater. The planning staff reviewed the amendment by considering the seven factors delineated in the comprehensive Staff Report dated May 21, 2002. P Ex 2. 7. Clearwater's Planning Department made the following findings which are accepted and adopted herein (see P Ex 2): a. The proposed plan amendment is not in conflict with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, or policies and is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. 5 b. The location of the subject site meets the purpose and locational requirements of the Residential Urban (RU) and Preservation (P) categories. Even though the immediate vicinity of the site is designated for very low density and is generally large lots to the north, RU is appropriate due to the site's location. c. Chautauqua Avenue separates the site from the intensive commercial development that fronts on US Highway 19, The RU category would serve as a transitional area between Lake Chautauqua and the rear property lines of the intensive commercial uses which front on US Highway 19 North. d. The subject site is surrounded by a mix of uses ranging from residential to intensive commercial uses along US Highway 19 North. The historic slow development as single-family in the area indicates that less than desirable access and nearby commercial uses have had a negative effect on development of the site. e. By approving the requested amendment, clustering of dwellings is permissible through the construction of attached townhouses. The external influences on the site can thus be more easily mitigated, In addition, the single-family attached style wiUlikely result in less effect on the natural environment, especially the wetlands and the tree canopy, than would single-family estate lots. f. Due to both external influences and site characteristics, it is more likely that single-family attached units can be successfully developed and maintained rather than estate lot single-family dwellings for which the plan currently calls. g. The proposed amendment is compatible with the lower density to the north and south of the subject property and is also compatible with the commercial uses abutting the subject property to the west. 6 h. The proposed designation will serve as a transition between the heavy commercial development along US Highway 19 and the lower density uses to the north, south and east. 1. Public facilities available to and affected by the proposed change are sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed change. j, Single-family dwellings, in contrast to town homes, generate the most vehicle trips daily. Based upon the current level of service of US Highway 19 (and without consideration of the significantly increased capacity which will be achieved by the pending improvements to US Highway 19 between Highways 60 and 580), the impact of the requested amendment (far less than 1%) is insignificant. The transportation impacts associated with the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning will be minimal and the level of service for US Highway 19 will not be degraded. k. The site includes environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands) as well as a significant number of protected trees. Development of the property with attached dwellings, appropriately clustered, will use less land than traditional single-family lot development, and will not have a negative impact on the natural environment. I. The location of the district boundary is both a logical and appropriate blend. m. The requested amendment is consistent with the Community Development Code and City Regulations of Clearwater. 8. In addition to the finding in the Staff Report (P Ex 2) regarding the beneficial effect on the natural environment at the site, testimony also showed that the proposed development of clustered town homes will better serve to protect both the environmentally 7 sensitive lands as well as the tree stands on the site. Moreover, it will foster more responsible stewardship of the natural resources, especially along the preservation area on the eastern boundary of the subject property, the lake shore for Lake Chautauqua. 9, The Planning Department of the City of Clearwater, without reservation, recommended approval of the request as initially submitted for the reclassification of the subject property to RU, allowing up to 7.5 units per acre. 10, The application, at 7.5 units per acre was reviewed and approved, following a public hearing, by the Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, whose appointed members include professionals qualified to render a valid opinion on the application. 11. The application next came on for another public hearing before the City " Commission of Clearwater. In response to neighborhood opposition, and at the request of the City Commission, the Petitioners amended the request to reduce the density to 5.0 units per acre by agreeing to amend the application from RU to RL (Residential Low). The City Commission approved the requested amendment for the RL designation. 12, The analysis by the Planning Department of Clearwater, strongly recommending approval of up to 7.5 units per acre, compels the conclusion that the findings and rationale for the amendment apply even more convincingly to the lower density RL designation now sought by Petitioners. 13. The City of Clearwater also obtained the report of the Florida Department of Transportation regarding the proposed amendment. By letter of August 23, 2002 the Florida Department of Transportation confirmed that the proposed amendment did not have an adverse impact, and it expressed no objection at all to the proposed amendment. P Ex 5. 8 14. The City of Clearwater requested and obtained the review of the application from the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. By letter of October 3, 2002 the Department of Community Affairs affirmed that it had no objection to the proposed amendment. P Ex 11. 15. The proposed amendment, pursuant to Countywide Rules, was forwarded by the City of Clearwater for review by the Pinellas Planning Council. The PPC conducted a review, including a presentation of the proposal to its Planners Advisory Committee ("PAC"). 16. The PAC, at its meeting of September 9, 2002, approved the proposed amendment by a vote of 12 - O. Representatives of the professional planning staffs of the municipalities of Seminole, Clearwater, Dunedin, Gulfport, Largo, Madeira Beach, Oldsmar, Redington Shores, Safety Harbor, and St. Petersburg all favored the amendment. Pinellas County's own representative on the council, Gordon Beardslee, voted for the amendment, as did the representative of the Pinellas County School District. P Ex 6. 17. In addition to the recommended approval by the PAC, the Executive Director and staff of the PPC also recommended that the amendment be approved, subject to the City of Clearwater limiting the traffic impacts on the site pursuant to the city's concurrency management system. P Ex 8. 18. The PPC's staff found that the proposed amendment was consistent with the Countywide Plan and rules for the application for RL designation because the site is well suited for low density, non-intensive residential use consistent with the natural resource characteristics of the site. P Ex 8. 9 19. The staff of the PPC also found that the subject property is adjacent to another jurisdiction (Pinellas County) but does not adversely impact the adjacent jurisdiction or a public educational facility. P Ex 8, 20. The analysis and findings of facts of the staff of the PPC, as reported in its Agenda Memorandum of September 18, 2002, are adopted herein. Based upon its findings, the PPC appropriately recommended that the proposed amendment be approved, P Ex 8, 21. Although the RL designation allows for 5.0 units per acre, therefore more than the existing designation, the proposed RL designation is nevertheless still considered low density and appropriate for the natural characteristics of the site and the surrounding area. Indeed, its very name is residential "low," and it means exactly that. Historically in Pinellas County any residential density of 7.5 units per acre or less has been considered to be low. 22. Notwithstanding the recommendation of its staff, the PPC in its initial review of the request turned it down 6 - 5, expressing concern that the impact of the amendment on traffic be dealt with by the City of Clearwater, P Ex 9. 23. At its meeting of October 15, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners, sitting in its capacity as the CPA, granted Clearwater's request for a continuance in order for the traffic issues raised by the PPC to be considered and resolved. The CPA granted a continuance, and remanded the matter to the PPC for reconsideration. P Ex 12. 24. Subsequent to the continuance, the subject property came under contract for purchase by Rottlund Homes of Florida, a large and well established builder in the Tampa Bay area, A site plan was developed for improvement of the subject property with 90 attached town houses, to b~ built in 34 buildings. See P Ex 34, 10 25. The issues raised by the PPC relating to traffic were resolved by an agreement between the City of Clearwater and Rottlund to fully fund the extension of Chautauqua A venue to the north to Enterprise Road. Doing so resolved all access or traffic impact issues related to the development of the site as a result of the proposed amendment. The County acknowledged that the issues relating to traffic have been resolved in a satisfactory manner, 26. After the resolution of the traffic issues, the application was returned for further consideration by the PAC. At its meeting on March 10, 2003, under the chairmanship of Gordon Beardslee of Pinellas County's own Planning Department, the PAC approved the requested amendment for the second time by a vote of 13-0, The amendment was again supported by Chairman Beardslee, together with representatives of the municipalities of Clearwater, Dunedin, Gulfport, Largo, Oldsmar, Pinellas Park, Redington Shores, Safety Harbor, St. Petersburg, Seminole and Treasure Island, along with the representative of the Pinellas County School system. P Ex 14. 27. The application then went to the PPC for consideration at its meeting of March 19,2003. The PPC reconsidered the matter, with the benefit of the knowledge that the property was under contract with Rottlund, that the proposed development was for attached town homes in an appropriately clustered arrangement, and that the previous concerns about traffic haCi been totally resolved. The PPC, including member Calvin D. Harris, a Pinellas County Commissioner, approved the requested amendment by a vote of9 - 3. P Ex 16. 28, The application with the favorable PPC recommendation then returned to the Board of County Commissioners. The application was reviewed by the county's own Planning Department, by the Director of the Planning Department, Brian K. Smith. Mr. Smith, on behalf 11 of the Planning Department, expressed that the county staff concurred with the PPC's recommendation for approval. P Ex 18, 29, On April 1, 2003, in spite of the favorable recommendations of the PPC, of the PPC staff, of its own staff and County Planning Department, of the PAC, of the Clearwater City Commission, of the Community Development Board of Clearwater, and of the planning staff of Clearwater, the CPA nevertheless failed to approve the application. P Ex 19, 30. While the County argues that the subject property and the surrounding areas are secluded, pastoral and even rural in character, the fact is that the subject property abuts an intensively developed commercial site which is part of the US Highway 19 corridor in Pinellas County, the most intensely developed county in the state. The subject property is thus inescapably impacted by the heavy commercial use to the immediate west, and the requested change to allow up to 5.0 units per acre (acknowledged by the County to be well within the long established parameters for "low" density) provides a sensible transition to the neighboring RS designations. 31. Evidence was offered by the County to show that an intentional design or plan for downzoning the subject property, as well as neighboring properties, began in the early 1980's. Although that may have been the case as to some properties in the area, the Petitioners countered the argument by showing that over the years there have been instances of upzoning (i.e. increasing the allowable density) of properties in the area, Moreover, there have been multiple instances when a change to the land use designation merely reflected what had actually been planned, developed and built pursuant to the dictates of the marketplace. Accordingly, there is not, nor should there be, any immutable plan for land use. Changes with the passage of time can and do make it appropriate for amendments to occur. 12 32. The following professional planners, who each affirmed or approved the requested amendment, are all fully qualified experts. Their expert opinions are accepted and adopted by the undersigned. They include Cynthia Tarapani (Planning Director for Clearwater), Robert Pergolizzi (President of Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc,), Brian K. Smith (Director, Pinellas County Planning Department), Gordon Beardslee, (head of the General Planning Division) and David Healey (Executive Director, PPC). 33. Ms. Tarapani and Mr. Pergolizzi each testified without qualification that the requested amendment should be approved. Mr. Smith affirmed his written staff recommendation for approval. The County's representative on the PAC, Gordon Beardslee, twice reviewed and voted in favor of approving the requested amendment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 34. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto pursuant to the provisions of Ch. 88-484, 9 10(4), Laws of Florida, CPA Res, No. 90-205 (V and VI) and Art. 5, Pinellas Countywide Plan Rules and the undersigned is authorized to make findings of fact binding upon the CP A. 35. The requested amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for the subject property from RS to RL is consistent with both the Countywide as well as Clearwater plans. 36. The requested amendment is compatible with all surrounding uses. 37. No adverse traffic impact will result from the requested amendment based upon the agreement and plan of the City of Clearwater for the extension of Chautauqua Avenue north to Enterprise Road. 13 38. The requested amendment should be approved by the Board of County Commissioners acting as the CPA. Doing so is consistent with the favorable recommendations of all of the professional planning staffs which have reviewed the application, including the county's own staff and the PPC, the staff of the City of Clearwater, and the planners representing the staffs of all of the municipalities which supported it at the PAC. RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Countywide Planning Authority, approve the requested amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as it pertains to the subject property, from the present designation of Residential Suburban (RS) to Residential Low (RL). DONE AND ENTERED this day of , 2003, In Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this _ day of , 2003. 14 COPIES FURNISHED TO: Stephen O. Cole, Esq. Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 Attorneys for Petitioners David S. Sadowsky, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, FL 33756 Attorneys for Respondent NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 30 days from the date of the Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case. h :\data \aty\soc\d Immltl\findmgsoffact#2.doc 15 '1!~g!L~~~~!?1fIiQ.Q[QQ~:'~:=~-":' -=~"'::'-:--=::==,==~g'~j CDB Meeting Date: May 21. 2002 Case #: LUZ 02-02-03 Agenda Item No, C-3 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION OWNERS/APPLICANT: Lawrence H. Dimmitt, ill & Larry H. Dimmitt, Jr. REPRESENTATIVE: Harry S. Cline, Esq. LOCATION: 2301 Chautauqua Avenue (proposed) Generally located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue, west of Lake Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of D.S, Highway 19 North. REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map from Residential Suburban (RS) & Preservation (P) to Residential Urban (RU) & Preservation (P), and To rezone from the Rural Residential (R-R)/County District to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) & Preservation (P) Districts. SITE INFORMATION PROPERTY SIZE: Dimensions of property: 994,493 square feet or 23.0 acres 260 feet by 3,825 feet m.o.I. PROPERTY USE: CUlTent Use: Proposed Use: Vacant Multi-family residential (attached townhouses) PLAN CATEGORY: Current Category: Proposed Category: Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) Residential Urban (RU) and Preservation (P) Page 1 of 10 LUZ 02-02-02 S:\Planning DepartmentlCDBILand Use AmelldmentsILUZ 2002\StaffReportsILUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue ,~ElY..:.h~fQg:fg:9~:Q!mnllit-=.~~.I l~t'i!1!g.~!&~~!~1f@p=q:~~-===="'- -=-=--=== _.__.~. :'=2~lil ZONING DISTRICT: Current District: Proposed District: Rural Residential (R-R)/County Low Mediwn Density Residential (LMDR) & Preservation (P) . EXISTING SURROUNDING USES: North: Single-family residential South: Vacant lots East: Lake Chautauqua West: Vehicle sales, Vehicle service ANALYSIS Introduction This Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning application is requested by the applicants in order to allow residential development (attached townhouses) at 7.5 units per acre on this vacant 23 acre site. The subject site is located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue and west of Lake Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of U.S. Highway 19 North. Two single-family dwellings, tennis courts and other accessory structures occupy the site, Wetlands, approximately 2,56 acres in area, are located adjacent to Lake Chautauqua and a pond is located in the northeasterly portion of the site. This site is now in the County and is zoned Rural Residential (R-R). The majority of the site has a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) classification of Residential Suburban (RS), which permits 2.5 dwelling units per acre and the most easterly portion of the site has a designation of Preservation (P). A companion application to annex the subject property into the City of Clearwater is being processed concurrently witll this land use plan amendment and rezoning ANX 02-02-04 (see Agenda Item C-2). 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 Countywide Planning Authority. Due to the size of the plan amendment, review and approval by the Department of Community Affairs is required. 1. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-602,F.1] The applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support of the proposed rezoning are found in the Land Use and Housing Elements of the City Comprehensive Plan as indicated below: 1.1.3 Policy - Environmentally sensitive wetlands subject to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) jurisdiction shall be designated by "Preservation" zoning and prevented from being built upon except as Page 2 of 10 LUZ 02-02-02 S. \Planning DepartmentlCDBILand Use AmendmelltsILUZ 2002\StaffReportsILUZ 02-02-03' - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue . - _~}li~::~~ZO?~-9}Df!ijmitt:2361'c-'-- '~!Tgu_~ye:Staffrep~r}&oc ". ) '- ) P~g~. ZONING DISTRICT: Current District: Proposed District: Rural Residential (R-R)/County Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) & Preservation (P) EXISTING SURROUNDING USES: North: Single-family residential South: Vacant lots East: Lake Chautauqua West: Vehicle sales, Vehicle service ANALYSIS Introduction This Future Land Use Plan amendment and rezoning application is requested by the applicants in order to allow residential development (attached townhouses) at 7.5 units per acre on this vacant 23 acre site. The subject site is located on the east side of Chautauqua Avenue and west of Lake Chautauqua, approximately 700 feet east of U.S. Highway 19 North. Two single-family dwellings, tennis courts and other accessory structures occupy the site, Wetlands, approximately 2.56 acres in area, are located adjacent to Lake Chautauqua and a pond is located in the northeasterly portion of the site. This site is now in the County and is zoned Rural Residential (R-R), The majority of the site has a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) classification of Residential Suburban (RS), which penn its 2.5 dwelling units per acre and the most easterly portion of the site has a designation of Preservation (P), A companion application to annex the subject property into the City of Clearwllter is being processed concurrently with this land use plan amendment and rezoning ANX 02-02-04 (see Agenda Item C-2). 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 Countywide Planning Authority. Due to the size of the plan amendment, review and approval by the Department of Community Affairs is required. 1. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [Section 4-602,F.1] The applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in support of the proposed rezoning are found in the Land Use and Housing Elements of the City Comprehensive Plan as indicated below: 1.1.3 Policy - Environmentally sensitive wetlands subject to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) jurisdiction shall be designated by "Preservation" zoning and prevented from being built upon except as Page 2 ofl0 LUZ 02-02-02 L S:\Planning DepanmentlCDBlLand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2002 \Staff ReportslLUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue ~\ _'.'~Iy ~. ~P~Q?_-Q2~03-Q'i~m1tt-23b1 C"--~~qu,~Ve-Stafj~~port.dOC "-- -- }- ~9~3 ( , permitted by the Preservation Zoning District. 1.1 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment. 2.4 Objective - Compact mban development within the mban service area shall be recommended through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code. 3. Goal - A sufficient variety and amount of future land use categories shall be provided to accommodate public demand and promote infill development. 1.1.1. Policy - Maintain sufficient residentially zoned acreage, of varying densities and locations, to accommodate the existing and future housing needs of the City of Clearwater. The proposed plan amendment is not in conflict with Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies, and is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. n, CONSISTENCY WITH COUNTYWIDE PLAN Applicable regulations from the Countywide Plan are as follows: 2.3.3.1.5 Residential Urban (RU) Pwpose - It is the purpose of this category to depict those areas of the County that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in an mban low density residential manner, and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for residential uses that are consistent with the urban qualities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. Locational Characteristics - This category is generally appropriate to locations removed from, but in close proximity to urban activity centers, in areas where use and development characteristics are urban residential in nature, and in areas serving as a transition between more submban and more urban residential areas. These areas are generally served by and accessed from minor and collector roadways which connect to the arterial and thoroughfare highway network. Residential uses are the primary uses in this plan category. Other uses in this plan category include residential equivalent, institutional, transportation/utility, public educational facility, and ancillary non-residential and recreation/open space, Page 3 oflO LUZ 02..()2-O2 s: \Planning DepartmentlCDBlLand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2002 \Staff &ponslLUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue . ...:~~iY ~IOZO~:-~2~Q3:Qiriili5~=?3Q1C"--1~,~u~ve~taffr~~or:t.dOC .., .J '- ,. ) . Pa9~~ 1.1.1.1.1 Preservation (P) Pwpose: It is the purpose of this category to depict those areas of the County that are now characterized or appropriate to be characterized as a natural resource worthy of .- preservation, and to recognize the significance of preserving such major environmental features and their ecological functions. Locational Characteristics: - lbis category is generally appropriate to those natural resource features it is designed to recognize wherever they may appear and at a size significant to the feature being depicted in relationship to its surroundings. In recognition of the natural conditions which they are intended to preserve, these features will frequently occur in a random and irregular pattern interposed among the other plan categories. The location of the subject site meets the purpose and locational characteristics of the Residential Urban (RU) and Preservation (P) categories, Even though the immediate vicinity of this site is designated for very low density and is generally large lots to the north, Residential Urban (RU) is appropriate due to the site's location. Chautauqua Avenue separates the site from intensive commercial development that fronts on U.S. Highway 19. The Residential Urban (RU) category will serve as a transitional area between Lake Chautauqua and the rear property lines of intensive commercial uses fronting on V.S, Highway 19 North. The Preservation category already exists and this application does not propose to change that. The exact location of the Preservation boundary will be determined by ajurisdictional wetland survey. III. COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY! CHARACTER OF THE CITY & NEIGHBORHOOD [Section 4-602.F.2 & 4-603.F.3] Immediate Surrounding Area lbis site is surrounded by a mix of uses ranging from residential to intensive commercial uses along U.S. Highway 19 North, The Countywide Future Land Vse Plan designates land to the north and south of the site as Residential Suburban (RS) 'and Preservation (P). Land to the west fronts on V.S, Highway 19 North and is designated Commercial General (CG), Commercial Limited (CL) and Residential/OfficelRetail (R/OIR). East of the site is Lake Chautauqua and its shoreline is designated Preservation (P). The existing surrounding uses include single-family development and a pond to the north. Mostly vacant land zoned for residential development is located to the south. Commercial uses, including vehicle sales, vehicle service and retail are located to the west and Lake Chautauqua is located to the east. Page 4 of 10 LUZ 02-02-02 S:\P/anning DepanmentlCDBlLand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2002\StaffRepomlLUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue ~.E!y':T4z0~-9?:O~3:birrimTtf-~~91 CI- :~:g~_v~S~~ffreport.dOC \ '-- -~. -"- -- - Pag'~::? } '- , i. The primary access to the site is from U,S. Highway 19 passing through sites developed for vehicle service and/or vehicle sales. The historic slow development as single-family in the area indicates that the .less than desirable access and nearby commercial uses have had a negative effect on development of the site as single-family. With a more intense plan category that allows clustering of dwellings, the external influences on the site can be more easily mitigated. In addition, the single-family attached style will likely result in less effect than single family estates lots would have on the natural environment especially the wetlands and tree canopy. Due to both external influences and site characteristics, it is more likely that single-family attached units can be successfully developed and maintained rather than estate lot single-family for which the plan currently calls. The proposed land use plan category is an urban low-density district. It is compatible with commercial uses, as well as lower density residential districts. This proposed designation will serye as a transition between the heavy commercial development along U.S. Highway 19 and the lower density uses to the north, south and east. IV, SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC FACIL;ITIES Roadways As stated earlier, the subject site is approximately 23.0 acres in area. It includes a pond that is 2.66 acres in area and a wetland area along Lake Chautauqua that is approximately 2,56 acres in area. The land occupied by the pond cannot be used in calculating density and 1 unit per acre can be transferred 'from the wetland area, Based on maximum development potential of 2.5 dwelling units per acre allowed by the current Residential Suburban (RS) designation, 46 dwelling units could be constructed on this site. Based on a maximum permitted density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre under the proposed Residential Urban (RU) plan category, a maximum of 135 dwelling units could be constructed on this site provided all code requirements are met. The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of proposed plan amendments is based on the Pinellas Planning Council's (pPC) traffic generation guidelines. The PPC's traffic generation rates have been calculated for the subject site based on the existing and proposed Future Land Use Plan categories and are included in the next table. Page 5 of 10 LUZ 02-02-02 s: \Planning DepartmentlCDBlLand Use Amendmen/sILUZ 2002 \Staff ReportslLUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue (j . ........, _. .".. - .~-_. ... "-"'." ~ ... - , ..-. -,----~'"_.. ,,~- ---- "-' l tl!arl5...I;.IY :: J~JJzo2-o~-::03~p[rrtml!!:-2~OJ..9"" .~':lgu~.Y~.:~t~~P?ttd<?c ,---' ~- ...... ~ -f:~ge j) .. J " MAXIMUM POTENTIAL TRAFFIC U.S. IDghway 19 North Current ExistiDg Proposed Net New Situation Plan PlaD Trips Maximum Daily Potential Trips N/A 499 1,245 796 Maximum PM Peak Hour Potential Trips N/A 56. 155. 99. Volume of U.S. 19 from Sunset Pt. Rd to Enterprise Rei. 86,069 86,518 87,314 796 LOS of U.S. 19 from Sunset Pt. Rd. to Enterprise Rd. F F F F N/A = Not Applicable LOS = Level-of-Scrvicc · = City Calculation of 12.5% Source: "The lbl/es" of the Countywide FIIlIln LtuuI Use PIDn A total of 499 trips per day will result from the existing Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) plan categories based on 28 trips per acre per day for the upland area and OJ trips per acre per day for the wetlands. A total of 56 PM Peak Hour trips is anticipated. The proposed Residential Urban (RU) and Preservation (P) plan categories could generate a total of 1,245 trips for residential uses based on 70 trips per acre per day for the upland area and 0.3 trips per acre for the Preservation area and 155 PM Peak Hour trips. A net increase of 99 PM Peak Hour trips is projected for this land use plan amendment The increased trips will be distributed to U.s, Highway 19 North and the roadways to the south of the site. Planned improvements to U,S. Highway 19 North will limit turning movements at the intersection of First A venue to right turns in and right turns out only. The 2001 Transportation Level of Service (LOS) manual from the PinelIas County Metropolitan Planning Organization assigned the U.S. Highway 19 North segments in the vicinity of this site a level of service (LOS) F. The increase in PM Peak trips to the surrounding roadways will be insignificant (less than 1 %) in relationship to the existing capacity, It should be noted that due to the narrowness of roads to the south of the site (Second, Third and Fourth Avenues), roadway improvements may be necessary to accommodate this increase in traffic, Any required improvements will be determined at the time of site plan review, Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have also been analyzed for the amount of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Manual, Single-family dwellings would generate the most vehicle trips daily (440) and PM Peak Hour trips (47) under the current zoning district. Single-family dwellings would also generate the most vehicle trips daily (1,292) and PM Peak Hour vehicle trips (138) based on the proposed Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Distrifl(. the proposed rezoning would result in a net increase of 852 vehicle trips per day and only 91 vehicle trips per PM Peak Hour, The applicants have indicated townhomes will be constructed on the site, which would generate 791 vehicles trips per day and 73 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips per day. This would result in a net increase of 351 trips per day and 26 PM Peak trips per day, which is significantly less than for single- Page 6 of 10 LUZ 02-02-02 s: \Planning DepartmentlCDBlLand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2002\StaffJreportslLUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue " " , [M~irE~'~~QZ02:02~O~-Dimfril~~f2o'fc~--' .,tiu=q~i~_~~.:~taffreiQ.f!:doc \... ~ .. ~~-- ) -----Pa9~~? (~ 1 f1 '1 d h d d amuy etac e eve ooment. TRAFFIC IMPACTS BASED ON ITE MANUAL STANDARDS Uses Units Daily Daily Net PM Peak Net Permitted Trips - Trips - Increase Trips Increase IExistin Proposed of of PM g Zoning Average Peak Zoning Daily Trips Trios Singe- 46 440 N/A N/A 47 N/A Family Single- 135 N/A 1292 852 138 91 Family Townhouses 135 N/A 791 351 73 26 Apartments 135 N/A 895 455 90 44 Nt A - Not Apphcable , Source, lTE TTlD GeneratIon Manual. 6th Ed. /997 and Pmellas County Imoact Fee Ordmancc: Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, specific uses allowed in the proposed Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Preservation (P) zoning districts will generate an increase in the PM Peak traffic that will be less than 1 % of the existing capacity, which is considered insignificant The transportation impacts associated with the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning will be minimal and the LOS for U.S, Highway 19 North will not be degraded. Mass Transit The Citywide ~OS for mass transit will not be affected by the proposed plan amendment. The total miles of fixed route service will not change; the subject site is located within Y4 mile of an existing transit route; and headways are less than or equal to one hour. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) bus service is available along U.S. 19 Highway, Water Under the current land use designations and zoning districts, water consumption rates could approach 11,250 gallons per day. Under the proposed Residential Urban and Preservation land use plan designations and zoning districts, water demand could approach approximately 33,750 gallons per day. Water demand will experience a net increase of 22,250 gallons per day. However, the land use plan amendment and rezoning will not negatively affect the City's current LOS for water since there is excess capacity. Page 7 of 10 LUZ 02-02-02 s: \Planning DepartmentlCDBlLand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2002 \Staff ReportslLUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue , ,,"' [M~a5Jly'::~U~q2.~2;R~-RfiKrnl!E2~oIc;'.'!~~qu~~~~taffePort.doc . '-' ~ ) P.!Ige _8 Wastewater Under the cWTent land use plan designations and zoning districts, sanitary sewage flow rates could approach 9,200 gallons per day. Under the proposed Residential Urban and Preservation land use plan designations and zoning districts, wastewater demand could approach 27,000 gallons per day. The proposed amendment will result in a net increase of 17,800 gallons per day. However, the land use plan amendment and rezoning will not negatively affect the City's cWTent LOS for wastewater since there is excess capacity. Solid Waste The cWTent land use plan designations and zoning districts could result in 124 tons of solid waste per year. Under the proposed Residential Urban and Preservation land use plan designations and zoning districts; 350 tons of solid waste could be generated per year. The proposed amendment will result in a net increase of 226 tons of solid waste. However, the land use plan amendment and rezoning will not negatively affect the City's cWTent LOS for solid waste since there is excess capacity. Recreation and Open Space The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning will not impact the LOS of recreational acreage or facilities due to available capacity. It however, will require payment of recreation and open space impact fees due to residential development on vacant land. V. IMPACT ON NATURAL ENVIRONMENT [Section 4-603.F.5.] There are environmentally sensitive lands (wetlands) on this site. The Clearwater Comprehensive Plan requires wetlands to be protected through the Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan category and zoning district. This application proposes to place the Preservation (p) designation on the Clearwater Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as zone the area Preservation (p)' In addition to this protection, the Community Development Code will require a 25 foot vegetative buffer between any portion of the development and the Preservation (P) zoning district boundary. According to a preliminary survey provided by the applicant, there are a significant number of protected trees on this site, At the time of site plan approval, it will be determined the trees to be preserved. The proposed Low Medium Density Residential, (LMDR) District permits attached dwellings (townhouse) through a Flexible Development approv~ll process. This type of development can be clustered and actually use less land than traditional single-family lot development. Prior to development of the subject property, site plan approval will be required. At that time, the storm water management system will be required to meet all City and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) stormwater management criteria. Water quantity and quality will be controlled in compliance with the Clearwater Page 8 of 10 LUZ 02-02-02 S:\Planning DepartmentlCDBlLand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2002\Staff &portslLUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue e ' " ~ ~:E!i~lui9~:9.?'~9.3~Qlri)mT~~~9i9'-~iiugu~~~tStti~p.9rt.doC . ',--' ) ~--Pa-ge) 6: , Comprehensive Plan. Also, at the time of site plan approval, the exact location of the wetlands will be determined and protected. The proposed land use amendment will not have a negative impact on the natural environment VI. LOCATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES [Section 4-602 .F.6.] The location of the proposed Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District boundaries are logical and an appropriate blend between the Low Density Residential (LOR) District to the north, Preservation (P) District proposed to the east and an appropriate buffer adjacent to the Commercial (C) District located to the west. The District boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership lines and existing improvements. VII, CONSISTENCY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND CITY REGULATIONS [Sections 2-1201.1. & 4-602.F.I. and .2.] The proposed Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district with the Residential Urban (RU) plan category allows a FAR of 0.40 which is a slightly more intensive than the existing Residential Suburban (RS) plan category and Rural Residential (RIR) zoning district with a FAR of 0.30. The ISR of the proposed Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District is also slightly more intensive at 0.65 than the existing Rural Residential (R/R) zoning district, which allows an ISR of 0.60. These parcels exceed lot size and width requirements for the proposed district. Approval of this land use plan amendment and zoning district designation does not guarantee the right to develop on the subject property. Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested. The proposed use of these properties is consistent with the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district regulations. Existing vs. Proposed Regulations - Maximum Development Potential - Existing R-R Zoning Proposed LMDR Zoning Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .30 .40 Impervious Surface Ratio aSR) .60 .65 Page 9 of 10 LUZ 02-02-02 s: \Planning DepartmentlCDBlLand Use AmendmenlsILUZ 2002\Staff ReportslLUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue [~~tj~I!Y~,:J)~~92.~Q?:Q3~R!mifu~~~^391 ct' ~~~uaA~~Staffre.p~!t.dOC -. ,-,' ~",~,......-, ~... ---. -p~g~19 ) - SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS An amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) to Residential Urban (RU) and Preservation (P). and a rezoning from the County Rural Residential (R-R) zoning district to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR):City zoning district for the subject site is requested to enable the applicants to develop this site with attached townhouses. The subject site exceeds the minimum dimensional requirements of the LMDR zoning district. and therefore is consistent with the Community Development Code and City regulations. The neighborhood is surrounded by commercial uses to the west. single-family residential uses to the north and vacant lots to the south. which are zoned for residential uses. The proposed residential use will blend into the existing neighborhood and serve as a transition between more intensive commercial uses to the west and residential areas to the north and south. The proposed Residential Urban and Preservation Future Land Use classifications and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Preservation (P) zoning districts 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 of the following actions on this application: 1. Amend the Future Land Use Plan designations of 2301 Chautauqua A venue from Residential Suburban and Preservation to Residential Urban and Preservation; and 2. Amend the Zoning District designations of2301 Chautauqua Avenue from Rural Residential (R-R)/County to Low Medium Density Residential (MHDR) and Preservation (P), Submitted by: Planning Department Attachments Application Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Location Map Zoning Map Land Use Plan Map Existing Surrounding Uses Site Photographs Page 10 of 10 LUZ 02-02-02 S:\Planning DepartmentlCDBlLand Use AmendmentsILUZ 2002\Staff ReportslLUZ 02-02-03 - 2301 Chautauqua Avenue 101 103 1 , STATE Of FLORIDA 1 !!!!!!!!! DIVISION OF !>.DMIlIISTRATI"/E HEJ.P1NGS 2 2 CASE NO,: 03-1500 3 3 ~. MARKED ~ 4 DIVISION: K 4 Respondent" Exhlblt 19 146 5 5 R~spondentt.s E.<hlblt 149 6 City of Cl~arwater, for the use 6 Pespondent's Exhlblt 151 and bene f~ t of t.AWREUCE H. DIHMITT, 7 III, and LAWRENCE H. DI~{ITT. JR, 7 Re~pondo:nt':l Exhl.bl.t 154 as Trustee, 8 8 Respondent's Exhlblt 163 Petltloners, 9 9 Pespondent's Exhlblt 167 v. 10 10 Re=pondent'.s Exhlblt 167 PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 11 COMMISSIONERS AS ,COUNTlWIDE 11 Respondent's Exhlblt 170 PLAlmING AUTHORITY. 12 12 Respondent" Exhlblt 10 171 Responden t. 13 I 13 Respond9nt's Exhlblt 11 171 14 14 Respondent" Exhlblt 12 172 15 HEARING BEfORE THE HOUORABLE DONALD R, ALEXANDER 15 Respondent's Exhlblt 14 173 16 VO LUME II 16 Respondent's Exhlblt 15 176 17 July 10, 2003 17 Respondent" Exhlblt 16 176 3:15 p,m. - 5:40 p.m. 18 18 Re.spondent', Exhlblt 17 181 City Hall, City of Clearwater 19 112 osceola Avenue 19 Respondent" Exhlblt 18 181 Tanpa, Flonda 20 20 21 21 22 REPORTED BY: 22 RECEIVED SCOTT 51 NCLAIR 23 Notary Public " 23 State of Flonda at Large 24 Debra Kurt: & !>ssoclates 24 727-441-2404 25 25 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: S'1'EPIIEN O. COLE, ESQUIlIE MacFarlane, ii Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court Street, SUlte 200 Clearwater" Florida 33756 727-441-8966 on behalf of the Petltloner DAVID S. SAD01IS1cr, ESQUIlIE SenIor !>sslstant County Attorney PlneUa' County 315 Court Street Clearwater" Flonda 33756 727-464-3354 on behalf of the Respondent PROCEEDIIJGS Rebuttal....... .. . , , , .. .. ... , . , , , . .. . .. . , . . , . , , .. .193 TESTIMOllY (In order of apP1earance.) ~ ~ Red~rect Robert Pergollzzl 104 121 124 CynthH Tarapan~ 125 1::6 Stephen lIcConlhay 130 137 146 Br1an Smlth 147 158 Faul Cass~l 161 182 190 Cynthla Tarapanl 193 195 PlANNING D~PARTMENT CITY OF ClC:AitV\lATER 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ROBERT PERGOLIZZI. SWORN DIRECT EXAMINATION sr ZoIl. CXlU!:: Q. Good afl:emca1. 'l'ell US your 1131e. A. ~ IIaIB U Rd:lert PielrgQU.zzi. Q. I baw a teIldeacy to want to s;q "lesa1." I will try to ClI:Ir%eCt ~, ar padIaps Rd:lert wa1lc1 c:b so tbat JrQ1 IaDr I'm speald.nq to JrQ1. A. Rd:lert wa1lc1 be f.i.-. Q. ~ JrQ1. tb:ler Tab 25 is a ocpy of - acd ;I.t wa1lc1 be the last, I t1Wlk, big ar tIlI:ee pages of rislzles - is a ccpy of your xesme. w:ulc1 JrQ1 taka a peaIc acd CXIIfiJ:m that is the case? A. Yes, tbat is IIV rismB. Q. YCIIIr pmfes.sia1 is? A. I'm a city planner. Q. And JrQ1 lll:9 new self~? A. I'm new president of alU Coast O:lnsIlltinq. I was fomerly v1ce president of b:anspartatia1 acd pl.aM1nq far Flan.da Design O:lnsIlltants. And I sb:W.d add that MIen III:lSt of this wa:lt was dcIlIe, I was w.l.th Flan.da Design O:lnsIlltants, so anyth1nq that s;qs !'lCll::ida Design O:lnsIlltants is essentially IIV wa:lt. Q. ~ JrQ1. Yc:u baw the l:lEIleb.t of a 105 1 llBS1:er's dagtee as wall? 2 A. I have a naster's dagtee in city and 3 zeg1a1al pLann.i.nq frail RI1t.gers thivers1ty. 4 Q. Not, in a::rmecti.a1 with the subject 5 prc:perty, you were EItpl.clyed to J:EIIdar salB 6 professialal assistance. 7 A. 'Dlat is o::a:zect. 8 Q. And ycur .1JM:ll.vmEI1t with the project 9 dates back to last year. 10 A. Yes. I want to taJ a:amd ~ of 2003. 11 Q. AD1 what was the ~ far ycur 12 ~t? 13 A. I was crig1nally ~ by the prc:perty 14 ClIIDBt', Mr. D.tmnl.tt, to ~ a transpartat1a1 15 aIlal.ym.s of the jnpacts of a ~ land use plan 16 alEIllilEnt to teSiclential uman, 7 1/2 1lIIits per 17 acre. 18 Q. And you did CCIlduct suCI1 a st:ud!r? 19 A. Yes, I ccntacted the C1.ty of CleaJ:water, 20 the b:affi.c eng:!neeI:iJlq d1zectar, Mr. PaI1l Serte1.1a, 21 and wadcBc1 cut a UEI1:hodclogy far CXIIduct:.i.nq SIlCh an 22 eIIaluat1a1. 23 Q. And I teased you a tittle hit ldlm Cind/{ 24 was en the stand because I laICIN' frail QIr Clj .........oi...,. 25 tllat this is sarath:lng tllat is en l/l:lIlr mind as wall, 106 1 bit I w1ll give you the dhance to affiml II!{ 2 understand1nq. In ycur profesaial, what is the 3 accept:ecl relatia1sb:Ip be1:wean the jnpact: of s.i.nt;le 4 fanily hales in a:atzast to taIm1larBs? 5 A. 'l'c:INnbcIIes genemte ~y 60 paroent of 6 the b:affi.c of a s.i.ng:le faId.ly bale en a per 1lIIit 7 basis. 8 Q. So you and Cind/{ aR in tune em tllat? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. By the ~, in ycur profess1alal life you 11 crass paths w.l.th Cindy oo::as1c:rIaUy. 12 A. All the tirre, ~. 13 Q. And pet'baps Mr. Healey as wall. 14 A. Mr. Healey, Mr. cassel, Mr. SlIl.th. It's 15 lilcB an ald bareoc:mIng here. 16 Q. SaretiIrBs you falks agree with each other, 17 samt1Jres you cla1' t. It's the nature of ptQbably 18 any~, l::iut tJIat's the case with you 19 plamlers. cmxect? 20 A. '!bat is t1:ua. 21 Q. As it baJ;pens in this case, you have Mam 22 Cynt:1l1a. speak at sare length. Do you talce issue 23 with any of the c:pin1als ~ Mam bar express? 24 A. N:l, I beJ.1eIIe she's right en tm:get. I 25 CXIIICIl1' w.l.th her c:pin1als, 107 1 Q. So the zecmd can reflect here as CIlIl of 2 those hawY instances WeIe the planner in private 3 pract1ca and the planner en;aged by the 1I',"1.-ft"" i ty 4 aR in sync. 0:ll:2:ect? 5 A. Yes, tllat's c:cn:ect. 6 Q. T1rIdar Tab 21, I just want to identif'y for 7 QIr pw:poses right 1lCIiI, w1ll you a:rlfiJ:m tllat 8 t:bare's a cx:py of the ttaffic assessrent that you 9 did back in 2oo2? .10 A. Yes, this is the ori.ginal CIlIl tllat I did 11 in Jilrll of 2002, wbich I 1leI.1eIIe aIlal.yzed up to 172 12 tamhalIls. 13 Q. 'Dlat was t:ak:inq just the full ~t of 14 J:'CUIIdUlq up to 23 ac1:eS tu1es the then pead.i.ng 15 z:etplSt at 7 1/2 1lIIits per acre? 16 A. Yes. It was 23 ac1:eS tu1es 7 1/2. 17 Q. I!:wI1 with that lazge a II\ZIber of 18 taIm1larBs, did you CXIIB to a CXIICl.us1a1 as to 19 Wether thez:e wcul.d be a s1gn1f.ic:ant jnpact: en 20 H1.gbIay 19 in particular? 21 A. ~ ccnclus1a1 as l:efenmced in Table 2 of 22 that ~ is tllat this project ~ dBvelc:pec1 w.l.th 23 172 taIm1larBs, the b:affi.c inpact to O. S. 19 wa1l.cl 24 ~t less than 1 per:aent of the c::apac1ty, wbich 25 is CICIISicIell:ed 1ns1.gn1ficant by the C1.ty of 108 1 Clearwater. 2 Q. S1Jt-tEIlths of 1 paroent to be particular? 3 A. S1Jt-tEIlths. 4 Q. And you'J:e aNlI%e the Flar1da OepartDEnt of 5 Tr.mspc:IIrtat1a1 was ;Wo adlI1aec1 of the :request, and 6 you're aware that .1.t respc:a1ded in wr.1.t.i.nq that 7 Cynt:1l1a. ident1f1ed ind:lcatinq that it c:l1d not 8 paJ:Qeive fer thez:e to be a DBgative jnpact:? 9 A. cmxect. 10 Q. If you bJm to the next here - I'm 11 lcclId.Ilq at the each1h1ts 1lCIiI, the next CIlIl is Tab 22. 12 Is this, in effect, an updatec1 aIlal.ysis of b::affic 13 issues given at that point, the ~ of the 14 deIIel.cper, RctUund!lales, en the SCl!Il8, and the 15 ellpeCtat1a1 that the xeqaest had been ~ to 5 16 1lIIits per acre, and the prqx:lSeCl deIIe1.q:aEnt wa1l.cl 17 be for 90 1lIIits? 18 A. Yes. Exhibit 22 is II!{ Octci:ler 1st, 2002 19 letter, and it is a first em and transpartat1a1 20 ~t plan, which was the result of the PPC's 21 ~ to wczX cut the transportat1a1 issIIes; and 22 the J:eSUlt of the fact that the C1.ty of c:l.ea%water, 23 had, in a sense, cmlared that 5 1lIIits per acre wcW.c1 24 be what they CXIlSidere:l. ~te, so I re-cli.d the 25 analysis, 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. 1lrld pethaps, predi.ctably, ycu dIateI:mIJIed that the mpact cO HigbI<Ia'j 19 - I'm locIc:1zq at Page 3 UIldar 'l'able 2 -;- far alDcst half the lDIIler of units was aI:x:A1t ~ the mpact, less 3/10 of a peteent? A. 00I::%ect. 'l'able 2, the jnpact en tJ. S. 19 , is 3/10 of a ~t of the capac:l.ty. Q. N:lW, ycu also sat bate whlle tbel:e was llalB di,...........;..., abcut t:xaffi.c issues with C.I/I1thia. I I5 t:hez:e anyt:hillg, else that cares to mind that wculd , be heJilful to ~ Judge lI'~ aI:x:A1t en the traffic issue? A. Yeah, tbel:e am sevez:al t:h1.ng:s. lis 1nd1cated en the fizst page of the letter, Itan 9). 2, tbe PUIellas ~ty HPO had .t.ssued the 2002 l.euel. of sez:vice ~, which sbcws the l!IE9lB1t of U.S. 19 between Entez:prise Read aDd SUnlIet Pcdnt Read as qlElt<ltiJIg at l.euel. of sez:vice C. 'J!le pc.ar wrsi.a1 of that npart h2ld shain it at l.cMD: l.euel.s of sez:vice. In add!ticn, the !'lar1.da DEprtnEnt of ~ had began 0l:ZlSb:uct1cI1 en seumal intel:cllaDgas aI. U.S. 19 in the _, I:eginninq at the lIICl1thBm &rid. U.S. 19 aDd D2:er Sb:eet is UIldar CCDlItructia1 J:ig!it new far a grade SEpl%3.ticn issue. 110 1 'lmt is - 2 Q. 'lmt is off the 1lEIp, ~ bate <bm 3 at floar l.euel.? 4 A. ~y aI:x:A1t 2 to 3 mil.es llCIUth of this 5 _. ~ as ~ m:Mll north, the next s1gnallzed 6 intersec::t1cn is U.S. 19 aDd nart:beast Ooaclmm Road, 7 CCDlItructia1 has ,begun aI. a ~ 8 intm:cbange at that lccaticn. 1lrld then as ycu m:Ml 9 f'urt:1lec north, sImset E'Cint Read, which ~ in 10 SCIIB of the aerl.aJ.s, CCIlStruct:icn of a 11 grade -T''"<lted ~t:erchange bas begun en that 12 intarsec:t1al as well. 13 1lrld IlCSt recently, clIle to the c:hang:lng of 14 the funding pticll:it1es, tbel:e is new a 15 grade-separated int:erchange fundad in the fifth year 16 of the 1a:lc prog:tllIIl at U.S. 19 aad !nt:mpr1se React 17 So.. . 18 Q. ~ bate? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. I 1aue the ellprElS81an "gxade-lIEpiIl:ated." 21 'lmt' II a SO-oent expressi.a1 far CIII'ElI:piISS? 22 A. Yeah, grade-separated intel:1::hanga is fancy 23 language far ~. 24 Q. Hqlefully, never the twain to llElet U it 25 wcI:laI as dasi.gnElc1. 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Right. 1lrld essentially as I had tesWied at Pi'C aad the c:cunty 0almi.ss1a1, that with the add1 ticn of these int:el:r::hanges, aueqasses, U. s. 19 - Q. ita lawyers think of t:baII as gxade-SEpI%3.ted inte:l:changes. A. - U.S. 19 wculd be essentially f'unc:ti.cniJlq as an ~ fran llCIUth of C3I1lf to Bay Bc:W.evam to IICrth of state Road 5BO, becaIlse tbel:e aJ:e alread/{ ~ at tbcse J.cx:at1aIs. Q. So JII'Ur pmfessi.a1al c:pini.a1 as to the jnpact of the dasimd c:IaIIelc:pIB1t aI. U. s. 19 is that, if anythiZlq, its jnpact is ouerstated I:lecawIe as U.S. 19 inp=ves its capac:l.ty, the :e1at1ve jnpact gets tinier aDd tinier aDd t:1n1E? A. 00I::%ect. ~ oumpaases w.W. s1gnificantly.u.:r- the capac:l.ty of U.S. 19. Q. Does anyt:hillg else CXIlB to mind JItlU want to talk aI:x:lut en the traffic issues? A. 9), air. Q. lis a planIler, am JItlU caDfortable that the plan to exteIld. 0IautauqIla .l'l1I8me at the SQ1.e ellpElIUI8 of the dsue1.cpBr aDd the C:l.ty is a gcod WZIJ to addz:ess the CXIICem that was wiced by HI:. lIealey's 0CIJlIC:U ? 112 1 A. Yes, it is an elfl:lEllJ.mt 1:rcaIspartat1a 2 IIBIlagBIIlI1t plan to pa:wide ancthllr cmlet far 3 J:eSidElnts that c::uc:s1tly live in that area. aDd 4 future %eSidEnts that nay wish to reside in that 5 area. 6 Q. 'J!le dz:awinq that _ have up heI:e is the 7 ellS which was xecb:led aDd has becaaEl the exh1b1t 8 that's new UIldar Tab 32. So U JItlU tw:n to Tab 32 9 and ~ that, while _ have the qparbm1ty to 10 looIc at the larger cme as well, explain, please, to 11 Judge A1axandElr what JItlU _ seelcl1lg to a:mnmi.cate 12 t:hraJgh this. 13 A. 1IIat I was see1dnq to CCIIl'IIm1cate is that 14 tbel:e' s an incredible llIICUlIt of mIJrsd uses in the 15 _, with fairly intense o:mlIII:'C:l.al clauel.q:mmt en 16 U.S. H:igbway 19. M:mnq fran the llCIUth to 1ICrth, 17 the FJ:eedan Fcml. dealersbip, then an aff1ce oarpleat 18 far which I have M:lI:lcBd at that aff1ce a:aplex far 19 the last 14 years. ~ north of M:O:ll:ml.ck Drive 20 tbel:e' II ancther office buildinq, prc:i:lably, I think, 21 five staries. 22 North of that is a CadW.ac deal.ers1up, 23 DJmrd.tt Cadillac dealersbip; IICrth of that, a 24 ~t dealersbip; aad then IICrth of that, the 25 ~ Pcdnt ~ Centel:. 1lrld ilmediately 113 1, be1lind.lS 0lautaIlqua AwIlUe, and then j'CU go to the 2 site. 3 And what we were CXlIMlI!{iJlq here is that 4 the affice dauel.c:pnant extesIds 1,200 feet east of 5 U. S. 19 alalq M:Ccz:mLck Dtive, and that if j'CU 6 fQ]lQt the ye1l.cIor lJne, the clotted yel.lo>t line, and 7 extend that llOrth, it wculd taka up xalghly 8 bo-thirds of this p1:c:posed site. ReasaI being 9 is - the raasa1 for this gr.aph1c was to .sbi:w that 10 it is primu::Uy a ml.xec1-use area, and that aIIEIldiDq U the land use plan to 5 units par acm frail 2 1/2 12 units par acm Wl:W.d p%CIUide an ~te h1ffer 13 and b:ans1t1a1al use in go.in1 frail intense 14 cxzmm:cial alalg U.S. 19 to the laIcB. 15 Q. MlllD j'CU use the express1a1, "intense 16 o:::rmerd.al," j'CU'J:e refen:1ng to, in part:Lcular, the 17 dealership Be Wem I'm 1ndicat1llg? 18 A. O:zzect. 19 Q. If CZI8 were to go a cI1stanI::B IIClrth and 20 lIalth en 19, Wl:W.d j'CU find other exaIIpl.- ~ 21 DElIar this 81te wbere there is a land use des1gnat1cI1 22 callJng for such a lar density msi.dential 23 diMll.qrn:!nt as clcse to HigbNay 19 as j'CU do %ight 24 there? 25 A. In the ClClUrSe of ny analysis, I l.oc:lbd at U4 1 the P.iJIeUaa Ccunty fu.tm:e land use plan IlElp fer the 2 ~t, the ~tely 5-mUe ~t, fran azlf 3 to Bay Bc:luleIIard, wb1db is state Road 60, to State 4 Road 580. And in that o::a:r:l.dor, this is the cnly 5 lccat1a1 where msi.dential !lIlkmmn, 2 1/2 units par 6 acm, is l.ocated cne b1.odIc frail U. S. 19. 7 Q. I/:xlIc at the pict:me, Tab 29, please. Ycu 8 haw the real colorf'ul thing that lca1cs SCIIIlthing 9 lilal this. 10 A. Yes, I do. U Q. lIlat is this? 12 A. 'DIat is the pjneJ.las Cl::m1ty =tywide 13 fu.tm:e land use plan, an exceu:pt of it sbadng fran 14 azlf to Bay Ba1leIra%d to state Road 580. 15 Q. I lost ny painter. I.o:Ildnq at this 16 exhibit, this is lake 0Iautauqua.? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And the - I'm not EMm sure Mat to c:all 19 the oo.l.clr, gald. ~ -- geld oolaI:ed. If j'CU have 20 a good suggesticn far it - 21 A. It's a geld oo.l.clr. 22 Q. '1h1a is the subje::t prcperty there? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. ~ sort of pink tlesicIes it wculd be the 25 o:::rmerd.al? 115 1 A. Yeah, the pink I:lasidB it is the 2 o::IU'llm:ial, o::IU'llm:ial limI.ted. 3 Q. So yo::ur paint is, as a plaMer, it's 4 significant to j'CU that if j'CU run up and cbm this 5 lerlqt:hy strip of Higbway 19, there' s SCIIIlthing 6 unique abcut the proldmity of this? 7 A. I Wl:W.d ClCIISi.c:lBr it to be an anamly. As 8 j'CU run up and c:tlNn U.S. 19 alalg that 5-mU.e 9 atzel:ch, j'CU _ the ClClJ:2:idClr is c:tmlna.ted I:ly 10 o::IU'llm:ial uses, fcl.l.cMld I:ly affice uses and other U msi.dential uses at bigber densities than 2 1/2 ar 12 3. 13 Q. As a p%Qfessialal plannIlr, is it geIISX3lly 14 accepted a good plaIln1nq practice to haw lar 15 density residential adjacent to intense CXIlIlmdal? 16 A. No, it is not. Ycu typically want to have 17 lIaIEl sort of a stEp c:tlNn in the intellsity of the 18 land uses rather than an ab%upt CJ01nlJ frail ~ o::IU'llm:ial to 2 1/2 unita par acm as we have Be. 20 Q. Nc:lIf, there' IS lID CNIlIlr that has ClCllB 21 faz:wa:d, ar a;plicant that' IS ClCllB fcrwazd, w.ith any 22 mr:pest relat1D; to the msi.dential plU:l:lBl just 23 IIClrth of the subje::t site, ar just lIalth, 1dI1le 24 w'm at it. As a prafessialal plaMer, have j'CU an 25 qUnia1 as to what Wl:W.d be the aam:priate U6 1 des1gna.tiCI1 far t:hI:xse parcels? 2 A. I wculd think that it Wl:W.d be ~ 3 for all these areas that am the westam sidIl of the 4 lake bebIeen Clautauqua AvemIe and lake 0Im.1taIJqla 5 to be ,.,,,....~~~"'Cl as at least msi.dentiallar, 6 poss1hl.y msi.dential mmn. 7 Q. As a plaMer, t:=fessic:lllal plannIlr, do j'CU 8 zecognize and b1y into the icIBa that resident.1.al 9 lIIlbuzban use is catpatiJ:lle adjacent to a residE!Ilt.1.al 10 lar use? U A. Yes, I do. 12 Q. So if the mqoe.st that' IS scught I:ly the 13 peIIding' ~tiCI1 is gnnted, it Wl:W.d be yalr 14 qUnia1 that that wa1ld not zesul.t in inca1patiJ:lle 15 uses I:le1nq adjacent to eadb? 16 A. I cIcr1't believe it wa1ld zesul.t in 17 inoaIpatible uses at all. 18 Q. Qu:l.te the qposite. 111I I 1lIIdars~ 19 cmrectly that what j'CU pmceive to be incarpatiJ:lle 20 is CXIIIl'BX'Cial adjacent to such lar density 21 msi.dential? 22 A. 0::mlE!%c1al adjacent to the estate lots, I 23 W01ld CXIIs1dar that incarpatiJ:lle. 24 Q. Based en yalr expaC.eIloe, is the cp1Jlicn 25 that j'CU just expressed salI3thinq j'CU think that' IS 1 llIl1que to~, or 15 that samthi:lg that 1Q11d be 2 OCIlSistent with gccc1 p1.anning pract:i.ce that's 3 reoognized in your prcfessia1? 4 A. I thiI1Ic the gesleral pl.annjng CXIIIlI.lIlity S 1Q11d agree with that statarEnt. 6 Q. In fact, in this case, ~'re acqua1nted 7 with the history by Wi.ch the subject ~t1a1 8 bas been %eIIieNed, and reca1ved. the blesa1nq of the 9 Clearwater City 02tmI.ssicn, the COB, the Clearwater 10 pl.annjng staff, the PJlC, the PPC staff, the PPC, the 11 P1na1la.s Camty staff? 12 A. Cctmct. 13 Q. ADd SO this 15 cne of these that 1le teased 14 a little bit abcut, ~ and C1JIdy havinq al.1gned 15 qWliaIs in this case. Indeed, 1n this case, the 16 qWliaIs of v1ztually aU the planners ltbo l.ocl1cD:l. at 17 this are in al.1gD:nmt? 18 A. All the prafessiaIal. planners that l.ocl1cD:l. 19 at this - BI::ian, Mr. Healey, and C1JIdy, and JlWlIEllf 20 have readied the sam a:o::luaial. 21 Q. Y01 are acqua1ntec1 with the ptqlOSed plan 22 far the subject ptqllIrty dBn:::Ils1:zate by the site 23 plan under Tab 24 - elrI::WIe 1lEl, 34. Y01 have seen 24 that pl:eIIicusJ.y, have ~ DOt? 2S A. Yes, it's a CCIlCE!pt plan prepared by 118 1 RDttlIllld. 2 Q. ADd there was F.l.crida. Design O:Mul.tants. 3 I.f ~ leek under Tab 36, there 15 another 4 dlm:lnstzat1.a1 of a W<q the prc:perty ca1lc:l be S deI/elq:Ied s1llg1e famI.1y. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. If~, aga1n, ~ JICUr pzafessialal 8 ~'II hat, wme asIaec1 to a::apare the attached 9 clustez:ed tombares CCIlCE!pt Wi.th a II&IIIS of 10 clEl\Ie1.ql1Jlg a prc:perty as 46 s1ngle faaUy hates, 11 what ~poj ""CUI 1n the nat:uze of adlIaDtages or 12 disadvantages a:IlB to mind.? 13 A. S1ngie fanUy attached or tcwnhare 14 deue1.qm!uts ~y prc:IIIida ~ the flexibW.ty 15 to cluster year llIl1ts 110 that ~ can IIBIca JICUr 16 ptOject IlI:lI:a Ell1II1rcDrmtally fl::1end1y by allowing 17 c:pen areas for c:pen space and xec:matial, ~ 18 for CIIEllity sites, :rather than the typical 19 subdiv1aicn of single fanUy detacbed hates Wh1ch 20 just pa%Oals the ptqllIrty cut en equivalent size 21 pzxpert1es, and ckles not give ~ the 4'1,"",,~~llty - 22 ckles not give ~ the fJ.eldl:l1.l1ty to wcz:Ic: around 23 enviJ:t::mEntal COIllltra1nts. 24 In addition to 1coldnq at Itsn 36 in the 2S lxr:lk, ~ have ten or 11 ~ that are d:lzect1y em 117 119 1 the 1alcB, wh1ch presImIbly waW1 be under ind1vi.dual 2 omersh1p. I th1nk it waW1 be %eaBaIable to assIZTB 3 that each of those ho::m1oo.mer.s waW1 want to llEl1ntain 4 tJleir pr:I.vacy and ml.ght ult:lnate1y I:luild fences O1t S to the water line or the wetlan:l line, which tQ11d 6 1nh1bit neighI:lars' use of part1aIII of the lalo:l; 7 wbmeas U ~ 1ccIc at the s1llg1e fauUy attacIIed 8 ClCIICEpt plan pz:epaxed by Rcttlund under ItBl! 34, ~ 9 _ there'll a great deal. of cpen space wbeI:e each of 10 the harecwner:s, U ~ will, in these 1lIU.ts tQ11d 11 have llIll::bstructed v:I.ews of the lalo:l. 12 Q. All ::lght, a1z. Is it year cp1nia1 that 13 the requested lII'E!IIdmnt shcu14 be c;p:'CNed? 14 A. Yes, I theught it Ilhculd have been 15 a;proued. 16 Q. Is there arzyt:h1zIq elae ~ waW1lJJce to 17 add to JICUr CXIlIIB1ts 110 far to SI;:part that 18 CCIIlCl.usi.cn? 19 A. _ felt very stzaIl;ly that the coly itEm 20 that was in cplSticm was the ttanspartatiCll 21 IIIIZIlIgl!IIElt plan. Anl1 that frail the fil:st t1m:l it 22 want to the PPC to the seccn:1 t1n& it want to the 23 PPC in MIrch of this ~, that 1le wa:lcBc1 24 extensively with the City of Clea%water staff. I 2S IM!I1 cx:otacted Camty staff to cIstezmlne what 1le 120 1 1Q11d need to cb to Wi.dm the roads to the S01th, 2 and c:&IB up with a very gccx1 ttanspartatiCll 3 Il'BlIagBIE!lIt plan Wi.ch 15 the Elld:ellsia1 of OIautauqua 4 AwIlue to the 1IClrth. S Based en the "",...,l"t-~""lS, the c:level.q>er 6 and the City agz:eed that the dlMllqler sbculd coly 7 be ~ far 17 pmDlt of the cost of 8 a:ost:zuctinq that road; bcMlvw, the c:level.q>er did 9 agtea to pay far SO pmDlt of that road. 10 In additiCll, the dsIIe1c:lpEIr did agree to 11 prcIU1d1nr:J tzaffic c:almlllg _, U 1leClE!lIIIIaJ:, en 12 that road as it want t1m:ugh the City paCt. All 13 that testim::rly caae Q1t at the PPC 1IEIBt1nq, I 14 bel.ieve it was MIrch 19th, and the PPC l...c..........dI.d 15 ~ to the Camtyw:l.de PlamWlq Authar:l.ty. 16 DIe Camtywide Planning Authority IlElt en, 17 iralic:ally, em Jpril 1st. ADd I was quite shoc:1lecl. 18 at the 7-0 denia1 that WIll nceived. based em the 19 test1m:lty. ADd 1le J:UIEU:lcBr1 c:utsida that 1le thcu;ht 20 it was an Jpril Fools jc:b and 1le waW1 be called 21 bacIc 1n to recaW..c:Iar. 22 Q. In fact, 0aIml.ss1alar calvin IIar%1s 1s a 23 IIEI1I:le:r of the PPC and f<M:lred the arendnmt and 24 vcted for it at the PPC. O::=ect? 2S A. Yes, that's true. 121 1 Kt. c::om: nat' s aU I have at this tinB. 2 ~ ycu. 3 CROSS-EXAJolIllATION 4 ~ Kt. SlltlCH!lICi: 5 Q. Gcxx1 aft.emoc:l1. Mr. Pmgol.1zz1, is the 6 prcprty to the north of the subject prcprty - 7 prcprty to the SCllth of the subject prcprty, is 8 it - wh1d1 parts are in un:iJIccII:por.ted Pinel.Las 9 O::uI1ty and wh1d1 parts are in CLearwater? 10 A. I'm not totally 1IIlre. I th1nIc IlEIDY of 11 tbese prcpert1es to the north are in UII1.ncoqlaI:ated 12 CQmty, and the ~ to the 8ClUth i:lclud1ng 13 the II&IJIderinq roads, are in the un:iJIccII:por.ted 14 O::uI1ty. 15 Q. Ycu stated earl1er that DO ClIIIlSr hal1 ClaIB 16 fcu:wam to devel.ql that~, Ycu made a 17 stat.EIIEnt that no ClIle hal1 cx:ae fczwa%d to devel.ql 18 that pzxperty? 19 A. I ckn' t tbi.Ilk I made that statEmmt at 20 all, sir. 21 Q. Ycu said that no CIIe hal1 cx:ae fcu:wam, and 22 that's why the pz:cperty _' t ~, ycu ckn' t 23 r&lB'Iber that? 24 A. No. Dic1 I srJ that today? 25 Q. Yes, earl1er. Ber::aIlse ycu __ saying 122 1 that's why baIBs are not l::leiJlg l:Iullt in the nart:bem 2 part. If ycu d1.dn' t srJ it then - 3 A. nat _'t lIB. 4 Q. ~ quest1a1 was, I ClClUl4 have swam that 5 ycu did. But are ycu aNare of the deu'al.qm!nt d.ght 6 hBI:e, the s1D;le famUy dBvelc:pleat? 7 A. Yes, t:bere am a fell s1D;le famUy bales 8 up tIlere. 9 Q. Are ycu aNlII:e that a uajCll:i.ty of tbose 10 were l::leiJlg b1llt in the '90' II and up, II1nce 199O? U A. Yes. 12 Q. Are ycu aNlII:e of the deal. that the 13 O::uI1ty - wben the CQmty exdIanged land with Ray 14 Shaffer in wh1d1 he new ClWIlS the wetland areas and 15 prcprty hBI:e for c8IelcptEnt of sin;le famUy 16 bales? 17 A. I 1llldarstanc1 t:bere are IICIlB hareII l::leiJlg 18 b1llt tIlere, yes. 19 Q. So ycu're ~ that this wb::Ile area is 20 l::leiJlg lIUlXleIIIIfulJy b1llt with s1D;le famUy bares, 21 that ycu cal.1ec1 estate b::uBs, CIl estate lots? 22 A. Yes, I'm ~ that t:bere is IICIlB 23 dENel.cpIEnt going CIl I:beJ:e new. 24 Q. I 1l1lal1, the City ClWIIII fxan hBI:e up, so 25 we're t:alldnq fxan here cbm, and that is 1dIere the 123 1 uajCll:i.ty of the deu'al.qm!nt is. N::Qld ycu s<rf that 2 s1D;le famUy b::uBs cculd, thmefare, be 3 successf'ull.y ~ in that area?i4 A. S1ngle famUy b::mls cculd be clevelqled in 5 that area - yes - lIIXD!!SIIfuUy. 6 Q. YCll1 talJaad abcut, and Ms. Taxapan1 talJaed 7 abCll1t, the positive effects of clustm:inq, and I was 8 WCIldel:inq J.% ycu' re aNare of anyt:!Wlg in the 9 ccunt:ywide plan, II1nce that'll what we're talJdnq 10 abCll1t is ClCIII.Si.stenc with the =t:ywide U ......J:o"o.ll!rIS1ve plan, why ycu cculdn't cluster 12 stz:ucb.lres at a 2.5 unit dansity? Is t:bere anyt:!Wlg 13 in that ccuntyw1de plan that p%Cbibits that? 14 A. I'm not ~ that tIlere is. It's just 15 typ1.call.y at that l.c:M of dansity ycu ct:l that. 16 Q. So ycu can get all the belIBfits of 17 clustez:inq that ycu t:alllBd abcut at 2.5 units per 18 acre dansity and uncilsb:ucted v1eNs and the 19 enviramlntal vieNs and a wb::Ile litany of pos1tive 20 belIBfits J.% ycu IlB1ntained 2.5 units par acre 21 categcty of residential sutw:ban? 22 A. If IICIlEIClD8 l:leli.ev9d that it was feasible 23 to ct:l that, I wculd _ that they cculd cb that. 24 Q. 1lIId therefare, at that dansity, it 1<<:lULd 25 be calpLtjble with wbat'lIl:le1nq dcne, l:le1nq b1llt up 124 1 hBI:e jn the 90' s, because it 1<<:lULd be the SIlB 2 dansity? 3 A. IlEIlIelcp1nq the II1te at 2 1/2 units per 4 acre wcW.d not be ina:IIpatjble with what'lI tIlere 5 new; I !:lel.1.eIIe c:IeIIIe1cp:lng it at 5 units par ace 6 wculd not be 1ncaIpa.til:lle with what's t:bere 1ICIf. 7 Kt.~: I have DO other quastiaIs. 8 !DIE CXlCR:r: 1lD!J recS1zect? 9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10 ~ Kt. c::om: U Q. Do ycu Jcnar whet:her the City ZCIl1.Ilq cede 12 wcW.d aJ.l.cIr the clust.ednq of units at 2.5 units par 13 acre? 14 A. I can't srJ for IIIlre whet:her it cbes. I 15 presmte that - 16 Q. N::Qld yell defer to C1IIdy? 17 A. I wcW.d dafar to CIndy or the City lltaff 18 CIl that. 19 Q. 1lIId I 0Cll1lc:In' t see clearly 1:hrcugh David, 20 but wben he was talJdng alxut IICIIe potential 21 develcprent of sin;le fardJ.y hales, he was refeI::ring 22 to this partial of the lakB? 23 A. He was Mfex:tinq to the narthMestez:n 24 quadrant of the l.aIce. Yes, right ClII'llr tIlere. 25 Q. . SalEMIat further Zf<r:/ fxan Hi.ghIIay 19? 125 1 A. Yes, it is. 2 Q. It's not ablttiJlq t:be car dE!alersh1p? 3 A. 00I:rect. 4 ~. CXlU!:: 'l1lank ytU. 'lbat wculd l:le all I 5 have, JUdge. 6 'DIE CDlRl': 'l1lank JICU, sir. 7 ~. CXlU!:: And, I:IUt for the zoning a- 8 we just t:alJcEd abcut, that was it far: 9 Petit1alers. But Ms. 'rarcIpan1 can addtess 10 qu1ddy - 1iCUld it make sense to c:aU her U back? 12 'DIE CDlRl'; Yeah. You' %e still. undar 13 oath. 14 CYNTHIA TARAPAliI. PREVIOUSLY SWORN 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 B'l~. CXlU!:: 17 Q. Cindlr, ytU hea%d the d1.......,...~oo abcut the 18 ability to cluster hams at a laIer c:IeIls:l.ty. 19 A. Rigbt. Yes, s1r. 20 Q. tb:ler the City's o:lde, is that t',,.,..~Jo.'e? 21 A. QIder the City zoning o:lde, attacbecl 22 c:Na1.1.1ngs in t:be zoning d:l.strict 1iCUld go with that 23 2.5 units per ac:re. You wcu.1d have to l:le in a 24 a:ner lot _. '1bat:'s the cz:itel:ia. '1h1s dcesn't 25 maet that cz:iteJ:ia. 'lbat site dcesn't ueet that 126 1 CXltIler-lot c:d.teI:ia, so JICU 1ICUlc1 not l:le able to de 2 the clustering accard1nq to t:be City zoning CXlda. 3 ~. CXlU!:: 'l1lank ytU. 'lbat wculd l:le all I 4 have, JUdge. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 B'l~. SllllaGcr: 7 Q. I will ask JICU the sara quest1cn that I 8 a5kBd. Mr.~. Is there anyth1nq in t:be 9 =tyw1de plan that pmb1hits cJ.u.ster1ng of 2.5 10 units per ac:re undar zes1dent:l.al ~? U A. No, not that I'm awam of. 12 Q. Are tbm:e jur1sd1ct:1als l1Jaa 13 unincatpctated P1nellas O:amty that bave set up 14 IlElCban1sns WEe ytU can cluster that c:IeIls:l.ty? 15 A. I bcrIestly daI't Icncw, I:IUt there IlBY l:le. 16 Q. And there's noth1Jlg that prchib1ta 17 Cl.Emwater f%an adapting a IIIlCban1sn that wcu.1d 18 allCIf cluster1nq at that cleIls1ty U they tllcu;ht it 19 1iCUld have all these positiw benefits that JICU 20 -ml:>ecl. earlier and 1ICUlc1 Wl:l1dc in a sit:uat1a1 lJJce 21 this? 22 A. It's tbearet1c:ally possible. ~ CXlda 23 that we have in effect t:cday is ally fcur~ old, 24 and we d1d a F9tty t:b=:lUgh analysis of that issue, 25 mcng others. And that was ale that was 127 1 'l!"""H"CiI"y "j 'V"'..,~ by the polJ.cy ltBkers and 2 %ejected in the l.c:wilst zaWlq d:l.strict - t:be 3 largest lot size - and they %ejected that 4 I'^...~Jo.~1ity. 5 Q. MIy did they %eject it? 6 A. I wasn't here far the entiJ:e dl.!I':"IS'Il""', 7 I:IUt they did. 'DIey wanted to baw at least ale 8 zoning distri.ct that had a large lot size wham l/O1 9 ocul.cIn' t cluster, and JICU could not have grarm:y 10 flata. It was part of a larger d1...........~..... U 0. MIy wcu.1d they want to IaeEp it out of t:be 12 laIer clens1ty U it is so carpat.illle? It _ llJaa 13 JICU'J:e infez:nng to lIB that they wanted to IaeEp it 14 out of the lar cleIls1t1es because it's not cmpatib1.e 15 with t:be 2.5 units per aae, it's not oarpat.illle 16 with s1ng:le faal.ly~. Is that - 17 A. N!lJ., the paJ.1cy IlBkers said they wanted 18 to have ale zoning d:I.strict, 1<dlic:h we call lar 19 cleIls1ty xes1dant:l.al - the laJ:gest lot size. ~ 20 mlJl1mm lot size is 20,000 squaz:e feet. Calb:ast 21 this to the DDSt typical lot size 1<dlic:h is a mIJI1mm 22 of 5,000 squaz:e feet. And in that 20,000 BqQaJ:e 23 foot lot size, they did not want to al.l.ar that. If 24 JICU had a lot size ~ six and 20 and JICU 25 womm' t in t:be largest lot, it wcu.1d l:le or:::as1clered. 128 1 other tban that, it ocul.cIn' t l:le ClCIIS1dBmc1. 2 0. But I'm just ~,.".;~ why this is such an 3 offensive th1Jlg at 2.5 units per acre Wen all t:be 4 test1llaly earlier baa l:leen that this is oarpat.illle 5 to the ~ azeas, carpat.illle to t:be areas 6 IICIrth WEe we have s1D;l.e faml.l.y hams, and IlCIW 7 JICU' J:e telJ.inq lIB that the paJ.1cy ltBkers didn' t 8 thinJc it was carpat.illle with t:be 2.5 unita per acre. 9 A. I daI't thinJc they said tbat it wasn't 10 ClaIpll:ible with 2.5. I said they wanted to U estab11sh ale zoning d:l.strict WEe the ~t 12 style was s1D;l.e famLly detacbecl. l'Ia baw three or 13 four other zoning d:l.stz:icts that al.l.ar s1ng:le faml.l.y 14 bcus:Inq attacbecl and datacbecl. 'DIey wanted to 15 reseI:W ale WEe JICU could net dD that. 16 And just log1c:aUy - 2.5 unita an acre - 17 it just didn't make ecccard.c seese to cluster these 18 units. 19 Q. But U there's such a benefit to prqlerty 20 ClWIIerS tbat the cluster - we have hea%d all of 21 these benefits to the prqlert:y ownetll wham we have 22 these UllCbst:ruc:t:ed~, emr.I.%ccm!ntal benafits, 23 there's just a wb:lle p1.ethcI:a of thsn, and IlI:lIf 24 JICU'J:e telJ.inq lIB this just wal't wadt with 2.5 25 unita per acre because the benefita are -- they are 129 1 there, but they are not there at 2.5 units per acre. 2 A. I think, again, the City of c:l.euwater 3 nada that cB:1s1a1 to haIIe CIle zal1ng d1.strict 4 alalq a - fow: single fatd.l.y zaWIq cI1str1cta that 5 ycu CXlUlc1 not do that. It dcesn' t J:rean 3/CU can' t c:b 6 it in lICIlB other district, there 15 just cne 14lere 7 ycu cannot. 8 'nIe 2. 5 units per acre, I c:lcI1' t l:lel.ieIIe I 9 have _ seen CIle ~ ycu had c:lusterecl units at 10 ally 2.5 units per acre. YCllI can't genm:ate EIIQI9h U units to be able to fit them ca the site and to be 12 able to IlliIIlB the entize pz:oject WCJ:k - 13 nathEmLtically, feas1hl.y, phylI1cally - all the 14 parts that ycu IlliIIlB a business daci.s1on and a la%ld 15 use cIec:I.s1aI. en. 16 Nt. SllDCWSIQ!': No ot:ber quest1als. 17 mI!: CXXlRr: 'J!lank ycu. 18 Nt. OJLI!:: Nothinq further, JUdge. 19 mI!:'CXXlRr: Pet1tia1er msts? 20 Nt. OJLI!:: Yes, sir. 21 mI!: CXXlRr: Iet' a go off the recard far a 22 IlalB1t. 23 24 25 (Break .1 mI!: CXXlRr: Do ycu want to call 3/OU' first witness. 130 1 Nt. SllDCWSIQ!': HI:. M::O::IailIay. 2 STEPHEN MCCONIHAY, SWORN 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION 4 F!i Nt. ~: 5 Q. HI:.~, can 3/CU state yaJr IlaIB and 6 yaJr~. 7 A. I'm SbpBl E. M:O:n1lIay. 1IIld. I live at 8 2350 Lake Sbl:e Drive .in C1.earwa1:er. 9 mI!: CXXlRr: O::lul.d. ycu spell ygur 1laIB, 10 please. U mI!: HI'.lN!SS: SIma. M-C-C-o-N-I-H-A-Y. 12 m' Nt. ~: 13 Q. And I'm painting to a paint en the 1IEIp. 14 Is this ~ ycu live? 15 A. '1!Iat 15 CClD:eCt. 16 Q. ~ ba.1se tbe%e? 17 A. '1!Iat' s lIJ{ ba.1se right there. 18 Nt. SllDCWSIQ!': You &air that no ptd:llsn. 19 I'll sUp back. 20 m' Nt. S1otlClI4SK:i: 21 Q. Hew lalq have ycu lived there? 22 A. I think I have :been thel:e abc:ut 27 yeazs 23 lICM. 26, 27 years. 24 Q. lIIat 15 ~ oc:x:upat1on? 25 A. I'm SSIIl.%etired. I'm a o::mrerd.a1 131 1 IlDrtgage I:=blr also. 2 Q. And oculc1 3/CU cIesc:Cbe the character of 3 the ama that ycu live in? 4 A. I think it's pretty IIIlCh JjJIe lIDSt of the 5 other axeas arcund the laIcie tbeI:e. I think it's a 6 lcw cIlms1ty zWdantial ama. It's a pretty 7 quiet - I maan, the streets den' t go a whole lot of 8 places. You have got to want to be back there to be 9 there in lIDSt of the ama arcund the LaIcB. 10 Q. Is thel:e IIIlCh traffic that goes back U there? 12 A. 'rrUthfully, 110. No. 'nIe ally traffic 13 that we get beycnd the c:bzen xesi.dants ar so bade 14 tbeI:e are Dmnltt peql1e testing' cars. 15 Q. And 1dIat are JICIlr expecta.tiaIa of the t:ype 16 of bcllaing that wa1lc1 be tuUt in that _, ~ 17 _ to the IlCIrth and to the saIth of the subject 18 pEqlE!rty? 19 A. Far nearly 30 yeazs, lIJ{ expecta.t1on baa 20 :been that 15 a deta::iIe:1 s1D;Jle fallUy xesi.dantial 21 CXIlII1mity. ~ else baa bcught into that 22 arcund lIB, and lIJ{ c:pin1c:a 15 I'lII.z:%ared l:Iy the pecple 23 Who have buUt cut arcund it. 24 As a natter of fact, folks have CXDEl to us 25 as they have :been buying pxcperty there and asked us 132 1 that cplSt1CI1. And lIJ{ __ baa :been the City of 2 Cl.ea%water and the Camty have said that that is a 3 detacbec1 sinl;le fallUy xesi.dantial _. 4 Q. So lILI1t1fatd.l.y bcllaing wa1lc1 be anathEmL 5 far that ;u:ea? 6 A. M3l.Ward.ly bcllaing wa1lc1 - wtlat was that 7 wo::d ycu used? 8 Q. lb1ldn' t be mpected? 9 A. Not ally that, it wculcl. not be expected. 10 '1!Iat' s CClD:eCt. 11 Q. 'Jhis _ l:igbt here ca, I think it's 3I:d 12 Street, l:igbt off ~ 1Iwrme, wben were these 13 1xuIes buUt? 14 A. In that g=up of 1xuIes, lIJ{ bcuse was the 15 first, and then the IlD8t %eOE!nt ba.1se was tuUt, I 16 l:lel.ieIIe, abc:ut tlu:ee ar fow: yeazs ago. But the 17 bulk of that bu1ld1nq baa ClCCllZ%8:1 ptttlably in the 18 past ten years. 19 Q. Ten years. So tbeae are all s1D;Jle fallUy 20 1xuIes? 21 A. '1bey are all single famUy hcuaea. lIIat 22 ~ was, ~ the read - wben I tuUt, ycu 23 CXlUlc1 get to lIJ{ address clizec:tl.y off u. S. 19, then 24 wben the slx:Hdnq center was tuUt, the reads sort 25 of bypassed arcund, so we bad that CXIlIlElrCia1, 133 1 distrl.c:t there. But t:heI1 right up against the 2 o:zllImd.al clist=:l:, s1ng:le fanUy ~ bad been 3 l:WJ.t and SIXXle:SlIf'ully scl.d. 4 Q. And am yt:Q awam of the CCIICIEpt of 5 l:lu1ld1nq a %Cad, a cut-t:hl:Qlgh road, fJ:all IaIcB 6 C1autauqua t:hl:Qlgh the Camty paJ:5c up to Entmprise? 7 A. I'm awam of that. I baue seen the %Cad 8 iJ1 two~. I have seen the CCIICIEpt iJ1 two 9~. 10 Q. I 1lel1eIIe the Petit.ic:Ders have shI::Mn the U %Cad as this, geneclll.y, as the red-dcttec1l1ne. 12 And iJ1 ycur qdni.a1, 8aIElCIIIEl who bas lived back 13 there for 27 yeam, cb JICl1 think that wculd change 14 the cba%acter of the area? 15 A. JlbsoJ.utel.y. 16 Q. In what ways? 17 A. I think it wculd :be a cut-t:hl:Qlgh %Cad. 18 It wculd ptoII1de - pecple that am back iJ1 cur area 19 becawIe t:bey am' c:Ir1ving to t:haiJ: bcuse, and that 20 road will ptoII1de llCIIEl l.-l of cut t:hl:Qlgh or 21 CCIICtJ1t for falJcs get:t1nq aImJ fJ:aIl Uaffic, pecple 22 wculd :be caId.ng to and frail wazlc to 19 to the 23 Dimd.t:t area. It'. a cut t:hrc:u;lh and it wculd 24 c:Iafin1tel.y .1n:::z:sM Uaffic there. 25 How are you g01ng to adm1n1.ter or manage that? 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You can't put speed bump! ln, ~t's stlll gOlng to b~ a cut through. As a commer1clal mortgage broker, I can tell you th.ls. I have tlnanced a lot ot' commerc.lal propertles, and what we look for l! how 13 that area servlced, by what degree of trattlc? And those are perfect areas for us to as trafflC flow areas for commerclal propert1e.. It would change of character of the area drast.lcally. Q. And was that withiJ1 ~ expect:atia1 iJ1 the las1: fiw yeam, ten yeam, that this area wculd IICW :beo::Ite c:pen to this type of access? A. ~ bas Deller been iJ1 ~ expect:atia1. I 1.llldaz:5to:x1 that was a paJ:5c, it was gc1ng to :be serv:Loed off the mW1 %Cad, and that ow: residential araa was not gc1ng to :be a cut t:hrc:u;lh. Q. lb1l.d JICl1 have any c:bjec:l:1als U t:bey IIBde a paJ:5c that was anly accessec1 off of I!'.ntmprise? A. I think it was EllIpEd:ed that it was gc1ng to :be a pa%lc that was """""'sll:\le anly by Entmprise - Q. And the%efore - A. - I wculd not c:bje::l: to that, no. Q. 'D1eI:efore ycur ne1gbbcI:bccxI wculd be secluded? 135 1 A. 'nlat was the ellpElCtatia1 of what the 2 ne1gbI:xlz:bccd was al:x:ut, :fEllI. 3 Q. As JICl1 can see &an the photo, the houses 4 that have been start:iJlg' to be clevelcpecl up bme, and 5 we refe:rnd ear.Uer to the deIIelqler is gc1ng to put 6 hcus1nq here. Did JICl1 lali::III' the perSCI1 who owned 7 the - was it the t:cp part of this prqlerty until 8 DecErlI:XIr of 2001? I th1JIk t:haiJ: %lalBS were the 9 Iezals? 10 A. I did,:fEllI. I 1IEIaI1, iJ1 a neighborly w;,q, U l:lut also I IaIEw a little abcQt t:haiJ: business. 12 Q. Can JICl1 explain - JICl1 aa1d - did !:bey 13 liw in the area? 14 A. 'Dley did. 'DIey lived a1 the prqlerty. If 15 JICl1 take that, what I call IaIcB Sbate, it went right 16 cDIn to their bcuse. That was the1r b:mlstead, 17 1lasicaUy. 18 Q. Did t:bey SlIer talk to JICl1 ab:lut plans for 19 that prcperty? 20 A. Btiefly. Nit talJaec1 al:x:ut it 8EMlI:al. 21 t1JIIlS, and t:bey IaBr that I fiJIaIIcIlc1 nrilUe baIB 22 pa1ics. And t:bey bad bad an CMlaI:Ship interest iJ1 23 that type of prcprty. And t:bey also - t:bey lccIcrld 24 at that prqlerty as a land bank. 25 ~ OCIlIIEftU to IIEl ware t:bey wantec1 to 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IClElEp the prqlerty as t:haiJ: b::IIes~ because !:bey IcneIt that'. what it was Jxught for. 'Dley bad no plans far deI/elc:p:lEInt there. And t:bey figured when !:bey started. to get: into the1r yeam of %el:irEmlnt, that at 8CZlB point cDIn the %Cad, t:bey wculd ei.t:ber w1U it ClUt to famUy IIEIItlez:s at' aelJ. it. But it was a land bank as far as !:bey were 0CIlCBD'ISd. 'nlat'. What !:bey talI1l1El. Q. Do JICl11lel1e11e that's the reasa1 why that prqlSrt:y basn' t been dIMW:ped until the pD:dhase by Mr. Dimd.t:t in DecBd:ler of 2001? A. Yes. V'el:y clearlY,:fEllI. 'Dley Deller ezpressed any interest iJ1 dsI/elc:plEnt ar 1ncreasinq or cban;inq clen.si.ty. I cIcn' t even think !:bey ~ it as a p""""ihi 1 i ty that the clen.si.ty o::W.d :be changed. Q. Ibf wculd ycu c::bar.Ict.ed.z the xoads iJ1 ~ area, the intemal xoads? A. M11unal. Q. MlJWral.. CJcay. So it's cha%acter1st1c of a rural. area? A. V'el:y characterist1c. It's a rural. area. 'Dle fact of the IIatter 18, the xoads am not e\IIlIl vmy wall mW1tained by the City. 'DIe:e am sate amas Where llalEl of the !:l1.acIctcp has brc1cen off. 137 1 It's just an inter.1or :oad<Iay. ~ CXll.y reasal that 2 they am there is fer pecple to get setV1Ce to their 3 hcuses. 4 ~. SllDClRSIC{: No furtber quest:ials. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY~. CDI.l!:: 7 Q. AJ:e they City J:oads er O::unty J:oads that 8 are not l::le1nq 1lB1nta1ned? 9 A. ~ undentandinq 15 that they are City 10 J:cads that am not beiJIq 1lB1nta1ned bec::ause the City 11 of Cl.Elal:Water CXIII!S d1J:ect1y to uy pz:cpert:y line, so 12 I'm UDder the irrpJ:essi.a1 they am City. Den' t Icncw 13 that to be sure. 14 Q. Not sure,~. AJ:e yell in the City? 15 A. I'm in the O::unty. 16 Q. lIlen did yell pm:base ygur pI:qlerty? 17 A. I tbiJ1k _ ~ the pz:cpert:y 27 years 18 ago. 26 er 27 years ago. 19 Q. Put uy IIBth mind in gear - 20 ~. SllDClRSIC{: '76. 21 ~. CDI.l!:: ~ ycl1, David. 22 BY Kl.. CDI.l!:: 23 Q. Give er taIce '76? 24 A. Scunds a1xQt nght. 25 Q. '77 ~? 138 1 A. Yeah, ~ '77. lleally, I 1ICU1.d have to 2 go back. I ba%e1y %8IBIber uy biJ:t:hdays. 3 Q. nmt l:lecales an issue as they inc1:eaae, 4 I'm cIisa7.ra:d.nq. But as it hlgleM, just at lunch 5 tocBy I was ta1Jdng abcat it. I caI8 to tcMn in 6 '77 - 15 wban Z ja1ned the f1zm Z'm w.l.th rJaIf, an4 Z 7 sp::llrt.ed off that was 26 years ago. So we 'U c:all 8 it - so '77 is a fair tiIle? 9 A. nmt' s a good m:a:e-cr-less elate. 10 Q. ~ ycl1. D1c1 yell 1:luU4 abcat that t.1mil? 11 A. As SClCIl as _ l:laJght the pz:cpert:y an4 Z 12 cculd get the f1nanc:Inq, _ b111t. So we b111t - 13 we b:u;jht the prcperty an4 .1mIBdiate1y started the 14 b111d1ng precess. 15 Q. M1at was the pemd.tted dens1ty at the 16 prc:prty wbm ycu brcu,)ht it? 17 A. I dcrl' t %8IBIber. I was to1cl that we ~ 18 a ru:aJ. area. NaIf, I 'm not sum if this th1:Ig 19 that's c:alled the c=prebensive land use plan was in 20 existence at that point, so we 1ICU1.d have !:leeIl under 21 sam O::unty rule. 22 But I %8IBIber _ IIIlet1nq the IszaIs, 23 l:lecause at that tine I was still cb1nq sate 24 o:mrerc1a1 financ1ng. And I undentccxl. that part of 25 it was fer m:I:l1le bale p;u:Xs, an4 it was just a 139 1 Wale ocnfusinq area. 2 Q. ~ the IszaIs b:u1yold-t1mmI there, 3 back, J.iJlB, in the '20's vintage? 4 A. Z dcrl' t think so. Z dcrl' t tIwlk they had 5 !:leeIl there that lanq. 6 Q. Y~ pz:cpert:y is platted, yell lcrlcw. 7 A. Right, far b:a11er pazks. 8 Q. zt's platted far 1cts that are abcat - 9 -U, 1ICU1.d be genexcus fer a traUer pazlt - 45-50 10 foot wide 1cts. 11 A. I own a ClCIIlple of b:a11er pazks, that's 12 not ~ fer mine. 13 Q.~, yell IIBY be a m::e ~lUdatinq 14 tra11er pazlt .landlaI:d than sam are. But when yell 15 bought ygur pz:cpert:y, yell bought it then as - 16 A. Halestead. 17 Q. -- as -U, b1t as a gEalp of seMilr.ll 18 sra1l platted1cts? 19 A. I was to1cl that by the pecp1e We ClIIIIeC1 20 the pz:cpert:y at the t.1mil. Geca:ge Grear was uy 21 attomBy at that tille, an4 Geca:ge to1cl lIB that the 22 CXll.y tp of deI/elc:pIB1t I was able to get in that 23 area was s1ng:1a faal.ly detadIed. 24 NaIf, GeaI:ge IIBY have all the ~1fC:l:l:k en 2S it, b1t his IlIIIII:lXY 15 p:tlbab1y J.iJlB mine, _ mi.ght 140 1 have to tzy to find. the cl.awle. 2 Q. ~, JUdr;Je Grear 15 a friend of mine an4 3 I have had age diF"'..~'""lS with him. He's ahead of 4 lIB by a ClCIIlple of years that be J:BIl1nds lIB abcat 5 frail tiIle to t.1mil when I _ him. 6 But with respect to What was the pemd.ttec1 7 dens1ty wban yell lx:ught, yeIl'w just not awaw. 8 A. Z'm wally not. M1at I was told was I had 9 to b1y that mizWnm aa:amt of 1cts that I b:u;jht in 10 arder to 1:luU4, bec::ause I d1dn' t wally _ want to 11 at that tiIle b1y the IUd:ler of 1cts I d1c1. In 12 ~ with the fanUy that ClIIIIeC1 the pz:cpert:y at 13 that tille, I was to1cl that I had to have at least 14 the siJt 1cts in arder to be able to p1t uy b:use 15 there. So alCa I fcund that cut, I was interested 16 in l:luying nme, b1t siJt was all _ ccu1d get. 17 ta, I bought the bIO adjacent 1cts acz:oss 18 the street frail the O::unty at an auct1al, an4 then I 19 bought the other bIO lots frail Pat Ivy (phaIet1c), 20 who was a 0::Ilmiss1aIer at the tiIle. I didn't need 21 those to 1:luU4 the hcuse, I got those so I cculd 22 just IlBintain a little rural c:hal:acter. 23 Q. InIIestrrent? 24 A. nmt's ccz::teCt. But George to1clllB at the 25 tiIle that in arder to get uy b111d1ng pamtLt, I 1 1<<lUlc1 need to buy siJt lots, so I was gc1JIq to need 2 this- 3 Q. Yal ci:o' t thJnk George was mlated to the 4 seller, de ytlU? 5 A. I ci:o' t thJnk George, as an attcmlsy, 6 1<<lUlc1 adnI.t to ItBIdnq a ml.staJce. 7 Q. Jaen to that. And ytlU knew, since he's 9 lleo::Ila a judge, an entire ~t rule o:::IleS into 9 play. 10 And judge in 1:lebIeen, he was em CIIlr Ccunty 11 Cl:mrllss1a1 and cbairEd the County 0:mrd.sai.a1, so 12 George just bas a DIZItler of vices to have to claal 13 with, I guess. He 15 a fine, fine gen1:.lazan, and a 14 geed friend. 15 Is ycur hale em septic? 16 A. ~ hale 15 CIll.y avaUable far septic 17 unless I annex into the City. I bave t:ned to get 19 the City to aerv1Ce zre, but they mfImett to serv10e 19 JrB unless I annex: in. I de purcbase ny water &an 20 the City of c:leiu:wat:sr. 'Dley ~'-"JSly agteed that 21 they c1icln' t bave to annex 11II in CI:dar to Bell _ 22 water, but they haIIlln' t agJ:eed to let lIB p:IIp ny 23 waste _ter into t:ha1.r clean systEm. So right 24 1ICIf- 25 Q. thl.ess ytlU ja1ned the tea!t? 142 1 A. thl.ess I ja1ned the telm. ~t'. right. 2 So I'm em an ~ systan. 3 Q. Lock with lIB, please - de ytlU haw the 4 notd:lcck at ycur fingert:1ps there. Lock with lIB, 5 please, at Tab 34. 6 A. Lock at the site plan? 7 Q. Yes, sir. Have]/tlU seen that before 9 t:cday? 9 A. I have, yes. 10 Q. So ytlU wculd want to express today that 11 yea find that site plan cbjecticllable? 12 A. Mall, I'm told beauty 15 in the eyes of 13 the 1lehclder. Yal Icncw, I'm not Sll%e that this 15 a 14 beaI1t:1ficaticn proje::t. It'. a IIEltter of the 15 oatpJ:ebens1ve land use plan em the deI1a1ty that we 16 haw far the _. So ~ it's a beauty OCI1test, I 17 can't l:elIlly tell because this 15 foo-fco. '1his 19 15 - de ytlU think SCIIaCIIe is gc1JIq to de a site 19 plan and DBIIe it look u;ly? I ci:o' t. 20 Q. Yal1lElde the CXlmElI1t that having - I 21 th1nlt used the word "lIUltifard.ly 1Icusjng," that ytlU 22 regar4 attached tamhares as IIUlWamily hoos1ng? 23 A. Yes, I ci:l. 24 Q. JUst as1d.ng - 25 A. Right. In ny mind, any cluster of housing 141 143 1 15 IIUlWamily. 2 Q. I just want to speak the SlIlEI language 3 with ytlU here far a m:IlEDt. So that'. as a 4 na1gbbar, or to have such bQm1nq as a neighI:xlr to 5 ytlU 15 anthma, as David said? ~t ev:lJ., yca ci:o't 6 llIca that. Right? 7 A. No. 1!lat'. not the case. I'm not sw:e 9 that I have an cbject:i.cc either way to ldlet:her it's 9 IIUlWamilyar clustered housing, I cbje::t to the 10 deI1a1ty. I cbject to clustering it up greater tban 11 the CXIIprehensi.ve laI1l1 use plan. 12 Q. Yal 1lEIde the <XIIIII!I1t in respc:IISe to c:ne of 13 his quest.ia1s that - as I heal:d it -- that havinq 14 DUltifardJ.y 1Icusjng 1<<lUlc1 change the cbaracter of 15 the_. 16 A. I thJnk it does. Certainly, it does. 17 Q. Lock at the draNiJIq en Tab 35, please. 19 A. acay. 19 Q. Sba1ld. the prc:perty 1le dava1.cpel1 into 46 20 single family ms1.deI1ces, 1IllUld that change the 21 cbancter of ycur _? 22 A. I believe that 1<<lUlc11le catpatihle with 23 the cba%actez:ist1cs of the _. I th1nlt that 1IllUld 24 1le an affimat1ve. 25 Q. So what ytlU 1<<lUlc1 have .J\ldga Al""""'-' 144 1 undarstand 15 that this 1<<lUlc1 not change the 2 character of the _ (indic:atinq); that 1<<lUlc1 3 change the cbaracter of the _ (indic:at1:lg). !'air 4 ErICA39h? Is that what ytlU'm saying? 5 A. Let'.1le SIlEe what I'm agme1ng to:bec::ause 6 I want to 1le clear in that it 1IllUld not c:bange the 7 character of the _ to have 46 1DWnq units 8 there, it wa1ld change the character of the _ to 9 have 90 1Icusjng units there. 10 Q. So these 34 1:uilcl1nglI, CCIIIS1Jsting of 90 11 dlial.linq.s, wa1ld change the _ in an cbjecl:ia1abl.e 12 way, ~ these 461:uilcl1ngl1 wa1ld not? I'm just 13 txy1nq to understand what Mr. ~ - 14 A. Mr. ~ says that: - 15 Q, - wants .J\ldga Alexander to UIlderstand. 16 A. Mat: Mr. ~ wants ~ to 17 undarstand is that 90 1DWnq units, ldlet:her they 19 am clustm:ed b::us1nq ar siIlgle family - there's a 19 cliffereDCe. 20 In a single faIliJ.y b::us1nq unit, as a 21 CXIIIIercial IlI:lrtgage brclalr I can tell yca this, I 22 zaraly see tomhcuses of this natum in cluster 23 housing -.mme pec:p1e haw the pride of c:MDarSbip in 24 their lams, because they zaraly ci:o't -- cb they 25 eu'E!ll taJce care of thatO 145 1 You g:J to a sinI;le fanily detached 2 subd:l.vis1.cn and pec:ple taIcB care of t:ba1r lawns in 3 different ways. I reall.ze it ~ not be always a 4 J..abar of loue, I::lI1t wtlen yQ1' re cutting ycur ClWZI 5 grass, yQ1 teIld to prt; out flower ga%dens and yQ1 6 also do other things, And that J..abar of loue 7 ext:erxls to hcweuer snall or large that patch of 8 ground is. You do not, by in large, see that in 9 t:amhouse ~ such as tbis. 10 And that t:zanslates to omershjp, and that U 0WllIElrShip b:anslates to a oartain~. And I 12 have &em that CllIer the JIl!Br.I. Even in m:bUe hare 13 pazlca ~ the teDents I::lIly t:ba1r own pa%lcs, I have 14 &em a trailer pu:Ic suddenly I:leoare a 0Cl1IIUIl1 ty 15 ~ pec:ple have pride of CMIlElI:SlUp wtlen they taIcB 16 poeo_,1"". 17 Q. MI:. M::Calillay, ~ lID, plsM, and 18 CXIlB back to the quest1.al. Is it cca:nct that it is 19 ycur testmcny that the c:lsIIelcpEnt of the subject 20 ~ into 46 lIingle fanl.ly llaIesites as an 21 mauple as dBn:IIstzated by the draII1ng undBr: Tab 35, 22 wculc1 not, in ycur cp1nicD, cbangta the cbaracter of 23 the area? Is that aa::mate so far? 24 A. ~t'SllCCllJ:ate. 25 Q. But it is ycur ta1:.1mlny that c:lsIIelcpEnt 146 1 in the natme of that ~ by the draw:Inq 1lIIdar 2 Tab 34 wculc1 c:bange the Cbaracter of the area? 3 A. ~t is cca:nct. 4 ~. CXILB: ~ yQ1, MI:. M:O:Il1llay. 5 ~t's all I have. 6 ~ CDlRI.': Redirect. 7 ~.~: .JUst forgot to plt tbis 8 into eu1derIce baI:e. PictmelI. 9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10 m~.~: U Q. MI:. M::Calillay, t:be:Ie p1c::blxes takEn en 12 JUly 2nd of the Lalla ClaI1tauqua area. 00 yQ1 13 reoogn1ze 1:llose sa-t pictu%es? 14 A. Yes, I do. I %eOOglIize - yeah. Yes, 15 si%. 16 ~.~: EXh1h1t 19. 17 ~ rom: 19 will be reca1wd. in 18 eu1derIce. 19 (EYh~b~t 19 rece~ved ~n eVldence.) 20 ~. CXILB: No cbjecl:ia1, of o:::w:-se. 21 ~.~: No furtl1er questials. 22 ~ rom: Anything el:le, si%? 23 ~. CXILB: No, sir. 24 ~.~: ~ CQmty WQ11d J.1JlB to 25 call the 8ElOCIld w.l.bless, Bl:ian anLth. 147 1 BPIAlI SIUTH, SWORN 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION 3 1llC~. S1IIX:HiliC{: 4 Q. W:luld yQ1 state ycur nare and cw:rent 5 EIlplclyer . 6 A. Bl:ian anLth, Pinallas O:unty. 7 Q. Hew laIq have yQ1 wca::Iaad with PiIlel.la.s 8 O:unty? 9 A. Since 1970. 10 Q. ~t's been 33 ~? U A. Yes. 12 Q. And can yQ1 state lICIIB of the positials 13 that yQ1 be1.d. since 1970? 14 A. In 1970, I started as the diviaial head. in 15 the planniJIq departmant for planniJIq. 1:bm I be1.d. 16 the assistant d1J:ector slot, d1J:ector slot, clD:ing 17 that tine period up ~ the late 1970' so 'l'ben 18 in 1981 I took CM!r as the planniJIq director for the 19 departmant. 20 Q, SO yQ1 haw been a planniJIq d1J:ector at 21 the Pinallas O:unty Planning Departn&nt s1Dce 1981? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. lIIat positials did yQ1 hold in regaxds to 24 the Pinallas Planninq 0:amcU? 25 A. I was the elXIIICU.tive director at that tuIB 148 1 up ~ 1989. '111m yQ1're the O:unty plamWlq 2 director, yQ1'ze also elXIIICU.tive director of the 3 Planninq 0:amcU. 4 Q. SO yQ1 _ the elXIIICU.tive d1J:ector fxan 5 1981 to 1989? 6 A. R1ght. And ~ to that I was in a 7 staff support: mle as assistant d1J:ector. 8 Q. SO yQ1 staffed the PK: 1970 t:brcogh 9 1981- 10 A. '89. U Q. - I:lasically. Are yQ1 faDW.ar w.l.th lalld 12 use planniJIq in P1nellas O:unty? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Far the subject prcperty? 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. And. wbat is ycur edIlcat1a1? 17 A. I haw a bacbeLor' s ~ in ~ f=n 18 I!'1orida state, and a DBSter' s of lIC1.eIlce - !'lod..da 19 state - in planniJIq. 20 Q. You have a BA in - 21 A. -in~. 22 Q. And. me yQ1 a IIBIiler of any of the 23 institutes in xegarc:Is to plamling? 24 A. I'm a charter IIBIiler of the JIrer1can 25 Institute of Cert:.1.fied Planners. 149 1 Kt. SllI)CH;!Cl: I ~ J.1lail to p1:Qffer Mr. 2 Std.th. II risImB. 3 Kt. llJIB: lb objecl:1al.. 4 'DlE <DJRr: Witb::ut cbjectia1 Respaldent' II 5 1 wUll:le ~ved. 6 (Respondent t s Exh~blt 1 recel.ved 10 eVldence.) 7 B:{ Kl.. SllIlClNSIOC: 8 Q. So Mr. Salth, you WEe l:as1c:aUy at the 9 :beg1mwlq of land: use pl.am11.nq m P.1nelJas O:lmty? 10 A. Yes. U Q. And can' you tell. us what was 1llglerWlq m 12 P1!leUas O:u1ty, so to spEk, with pl.am11.nq CIl a 13 =tyw.l.de basis starting b:an axamd 1973 ar 1972? 14 A. Nll ~ the =t:ywicle plan m 1974 15 under the spacial act. PJ:e\I1cus to that tine, the 16 zaWlg is what cBtemdned cll!I1nty and things lillB 17 that m the O:lmty. YCIIl ~ have a designat1CIl of 18 xesidEI1tial ar~, then the zaWlq todc cm:e 19 of the rest of the mtsW..ty of use. 20 RIm _ adcpted the =1:J/Wide plan m 21 1974, it then intJ:cclDaac1 cll!I1nty cat:egar:ies. And 22 the zesul.t of the CXIIlClEpt was to plan and exnt:rcl. 23 things, Were the plan was to erlforca an effect1.w 24 law ~t all jur:isd.1ct.1c:. And that was a 25 change f%an befcz:e. 150 1 And ~ _ bad the ~~ l.or, 2 1l1ld11Zl\, high. ~ to 7 1/2 un.1ts an acre, lQ.r; up to 3 15, 1l1ld11lln: and up to 30, bigh. 4 em of the things that _ a;!S) did that - 5 _ deuIW::ped the =tyw1de plan was those clens.1ty 6 categoz:i.es were lower tban what was previ.CIIls1y used 7 m zaWlg and other ~ of exnt:rcl.. And it ~ 8 J:eSUlt in a ~tial of the O:u1ty, I think, of 9 1.4 mi.JJ.1a1, 15 what was ,.,.,....,"t<<' CIIlt - what_ 10 thCIIlght was the capacity, the facU.1ties that WEe U the %Oilds, water, -..ar and %eSt. 12 ~ as _ went fca:ward in the later 80' II, 13 they bad a;!S) establ.1sbed the Stats:l.cle MwIged 14 Growth Act, and ~ all jur1sdi.c:t.1Cll to have 15 the sma feme and effect of lat. 'n1a.t was, like, 16 1975. So _ began WQZ\c CIl a l.oca1 plan fer P.iJlel.las 17 O:lmty with aU the el.eIEnts to it, as -U as lalld 18 use. 19 And ~t was Wen, then, _ c:am up with 20 the issue of ccrlCI!lI:n that _ CXIUldn't handle the 1.3 21 to 1.4 mi.l.liCIl pEqlle m the OJunty, and that's Wen 22 _ evclved. mto beed1nq to have llcre definit.1w 23 cal:egcries. 24 Q. I wUl stq> you there. I'm gaing to sbcw 25 you what's the legend far the I?1ne1.las O:lmty 151 1 <=prelSlSive plan, and CD1l.d you - you IlElltialed 2 earlier that there M!re three main zeaidant1al. 3 distr.1cts? 4 A. ll19ht. 5 Q. Can pI state what those M!re at that 6 t:1ma? 'D11s 15 the 1979 1l'Elp, but 15 it b:ue that 7 1lOth1.rlq changed b:an '74 thrCIIlgb '797 8 A. 0:Ic:ect. 9 Q. Can you state what those - 10 A. Mlat you have CIl the Il'Elp hez:e is lQ.r 11 cll!I1nty residential, wb.1ch 15 f%an zero to 7.5 units 12 an acre, then the IIIld1m1 wtw:h is f%an 7.6 to 15.5 13 un.1ts an a=e, and then high cll!I1nty zeaidant1al. 14 w!I:l.c:h 15.6 up to 30 units per a=e. bee 15 residential categcnes cu:e used. 16 Kt. SllI)CH;!Cl: Respaldent's EzlUbit 2. 17 'DlE 0XlRT: NIIIber 2 willl:le received. 18 (Respondent I s Exh.lb1. t 2 rece!. ved 1.n eVIdence.) 19 B:{ Kt. SllIlClNSIOC: 20 Q. So there cu:e tbree categl:ld.es of 21 residential lalld use categoz:i.es/,."....;~; =ti.aIs up 22 to '79? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And yea WEe sayi:Iq that batt there was a 25 1975 GrclNth ManagmEnt Act that c:hanged things. 152 1 A. Yeah. Nll bad to then lcc:k at var1.cus 2 ~, water and -..ar, and there bad been a 3 mmI:ler of .issues abCIIlt the water systEm ptOIIi.d1:lr;J - 4 hew IlIlCh watsr _ had and hew IIIlCh -..ar we bad, in 5 add.1tial to that, t:l:anspcrt:atiCll. And so _ fcund 6 the MEld to kiIld of c:lElfjJle ume the futIll:e 7 P'l,n"'~;"'" of the O:u1ty. 8 'DlBrefcn:e, _ ClIIB up with add.1t:1a1aI. 9 residential categor1.es to tie than cbm. Bec3l.se, 10 far instance, yea bad dawlcplents that WQ11d be U anywhme fJ:al\ 1 1/2 un.1ts an a=e up to 7 1/2 all m 12 the _ categl:lJ:y. And the sma was b:ue m the 13 higber~. So _ wanted to tie that cbm lime. 14 So _ invented a llcre det:a1.led set of 15 categcr:1.es such as half 1llI.1t an a::e, and blO 1llI.1ts 16 an acre, 2 1/2 un.1ts an ac::te, CIle unit an a::e, and 17 5. And then to c:lElfjJle that tlu:aJgb::lut the County. 18 And _ were able to %edIlce the p:p1latial of the 19 O:u1ty m the f'utuze by 300,000, and t:!lerEby 20 brln;inq the f'utuze pc:pUatiCll of the O:lmty within 21 CIIlr ab1llty to llIglClrt the setv.Lces, W.1ch was, 22 again, the water, -..ar, and solld waste, as well as 23 t:l:anspcrt:at.1Cll. 24 Q. 'D11s 15 the lXlmty CXllpIelSlS.1W land use 25 plan b:an 1980. Is this an exaIple of -- th1s is 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 the legend -- is this an exatpl.e of the different 2 categartes? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. Can you e:xplai.n w!Iat categol:ies were 5 c:rea.t:ec1 em 7.5 cbm.? 6 A. Yes.~, f.l.l:st of all, bad a pmserva.tia!. 7 categal:y that bad been actually cz:&.ted, and it did. 8 pez:ml.t a cIens1ty of a half unit an acz:e. And then 9 _ bad the :esident1al., =a1 ze.s:l.dent1al., which was 10 a half unit an acz:e. ':ftIen _ have got J:eSident1al. 11 CXIISeI:IIatia!., which 'is ale unit per acz:e; SIll::lIm:lan 12 ze.s:l.dent1al. which was 2. 5 units an acz:e; and lar 13 cIens1ty ze.s:l.dent1al., wtu.ch is 5 units an acz:e; then 14 the ud::Ian lar, which was 7.5 units an acz:e. 15 Q. SO these III11.tiple listi:lglI _ a result 16 of the 1975 land use - 17 A. 'DIey _ the result of that DIlW Mmaged 18 GI:cHth Act. And then w!Iat _ did. was, em this IIElp 19 _ put than em theI:e tbat we wculd then -- we put 20 than CI1 the =tyw.:I.cle 1IElp, and lIIIEIldec:t thBn Ui the 21 1980'., and then we could ~ O1t ua1ng t;hQse 22 cat'.egl::lnes as we updated our local cc:np plan. 23 K/.. SllIlCHS!C{: I wculd liIcB to enter this 24 as Respcn:lent'. BxlUJ:lit 3. 25 'IS CDm: NIzdler 3 willlle l:9CBiwd. 154 1 (Pe!pondent'! Exh~b~t 3 marked for ldent1.fl.cat1.on.) 2 sr K/.. SADCINSIO!': 3 Q. SO you said these DIlW categartes were 4 a:t:pted jn 1980, as ytlU can _ f%aII the 1IElp. 5 A. Right. 6 Q. IfcIr _ the DIlW categcdea iDpl.EIIBnted? 7 ~ bad DIlW categartes, 1lut heir __ they pIt jnto 8 effect jn the O:xmt:y? 9 A. itll!Il1 _ deIIe1cped our local ......t"-.abeIl.sive 10 plan - and I mLght point cut tbat up to this tme, 11 the plan tbat the O:xmty used was the =tyw.:I.cle 12 plan. ~ used tbat as a lcx:al. plan. ':ftIen there was 13 ' a requirEIlB1t tbat we bad our CIII%I local plan with 14 IIIlCh IIDre clafinitia!. jnto it. 15 SO we used these categcdea and we 16 ac:tual1y J.oc1ra1 at - divided the O:u1ty jnto 12 17 sectors. And then jn each ale of the -=t:crs, we 18 had a vmy det:ail.ed effort and J.oc1ra1 at all the 19 different land uses and zaWq and the ex:i.st:iJlq plan 20 c:les1gnatialS. And tbat' s when we ag:U.ied the half 21 unit an acz:e, the ale unit an acz:e, the different 22 catego%ies ~t the O:u1ty geographical.ly, 23 sector Dy sector. It was ~tely two years' 24 1<<:lrth of hea:dngs and wa:k5hcps. 25 Q. ~ were hew mmy sector plans? 155 A. 12. Q. So ytlU split the O:u1ty up jn 12 se::tors and each ale bad its CIII%I plan. A. J!'ach sector plan. Q. Right. Had it's CIII%I plan. And you said this tock two ~? A. 19D:aximI.tely two years to get it frail ""g:I,,"inq to end. Q. lIIat was the J:eSUlt? And let'. o:IICEIllb::ate IIcre CI1 the ze.s:l.dent1al. _. In the :esident1al. az:eas of the O;lunty, were they upzoned, dcwnzaIec1 or upland use? lI1at was, ~y, the 'effect of iDpl.EIIBntinq these DIlW catego%ies?'" A. Genmally, it was p:wid1ng IIDre clafinit1c:l1 Uito the c:m::tl!I1t plan. SO for JnstazlCB, _ vmy lIel.d::m ~_. OW: Clbjective was to have Il\:lz:e - was to lcind. of rec:llJce the dEr.Ielqmmt jntenaity cbm.. So within the categal:y of 7 1/2 units an acz:e - it,was also 7 1/2,- _ brckB it cbm. jnto fin&r clet:ai1.. ~ then - _ famd jn satB _ that could actually pez:ml.t, _ needed to have ale unit an acI:e, as an exazple, Cll' 2 1/2 units an acz:e. And _ stayed wit:!W1 t;hQse z:angas, _ just got IIDre daf1nit.1a1 to than. Q. So are you testU'yinq tbat the aJ;Pl1cat.1a1 156 1 of these DIlW categca:1es pI:C1oIidacl m::u:e b:uer 2 dBfin1t1c:11 Cll' atatarEnt of 1dlat the dEr.Ielqmmt 3 potent1al. for that site is? 4 A. Right. In other wards, _ MIIlt fJ:an a 5 r.mge of deMalqm!nt q:portunity to sanat:hing IIUCh 6 IIDre c:lafjned, 1d11d1 the MaIliIgec1 ~ Act was 7 requiId.Dq us to do, was to lle a J.ot c:1.oser jn tez:ms 8 of the p1ann1ng o:nt=l. of what actually was going' 9 to lJaHlen em the lanc1. lIIemas jn the past, it was 10 the zc:n1ng tbat cIateI:mt.zlec: a J.ot of this, and the 11 plan with the ~ categartes was sanath1nq 12 you ~ t;.c:..,al:d. Ui the futuz:e. ~ plan was IIcre 13 mleuant and c1.oser to 1dlat was gc.tnq to lJaHlen. 14 Q. JIlst to get en a little bit different 15 subject, Il\:lz:e CI1 the oalIIE!td.al. O.S. 19 was .till 16. a IIajor 00l:%idcr _ back jn 1988. Coc:ect? 17 A. tlh-lmh. 18 Q. lIIat was dcrle jn respect to the clspt:h of 19 commercial CI1 O.S. 19? 20 A. In the early 1970'., theI:e was - we 21 cIidn' t have the ze.s:l.dent1al. office catego%ies, which 22 is - we had prjn'arlJ.y commercial. And you oculd 23 pexml.t a lot of ci;!velq:amt wit:!W1 the cxmrm:cial jn 24 it'. aJncst unl1mI.ted flcM areas, as an exaIple. 25 And so clw:inq the ml.c11970's, _ ~ 157 I, 1 ~ al:x:ut U.S. 19, the iItpact CIl it, so_ 2 then created the residential aff1ce xetall c:at:egcty, 3 wbi.c:h was custanl.zed for 19. And not CIlly did JIQl 4 restr:l.ct a IUIber cver Wat cculd 0CCllr or wbat 5 cculd be d:rle within the ca.tegc%y, but then _ also 6 Idn:1 of ClCIlSt%ained. >lbere it was used. 7 And t:bexe are J.arga sect:1aIs of 8 prcpe.rty - prcpert:y nart:h of mid ~ty >lbere _ 9 bad great c:IiIlths of caDIBI:Cial deuelqment, 10 satetin'es a balf-miJ.e~. And so _ ~ that 11 cbm, b1t _ mcb:lad the mpact CIl the rcaQIay. 12 Q. And jmp1ng ahead to 1992, was t:bexe a 13 re-nard:lg of the ,ca.t:egcdes that IlEpt the - 14 ba.s1cally kEpt the _ standa%ds, but %e-IlllII8d the 15 ca.tsgcJ::ies? 16 A. 1b!n? 17 Q..lll:x:ut 1991, '92. 18 A. I thi:lk it was abcut - Wat ~ was 19 aJ:QJIId the late 1980' s, '87 and '88, the Plaming' 20 0XmcU was fClUDd to be UlICCIIStib1t1alal. And so 21 1:hemfare the plan was taken off the bxb. And 22 l:lecause the ~ itself cc:W.dn' t rraIae 23 CICIllIUtut1aIal deI:1.~ <:lIS - and so the CcIlncil was 24 then mccnst1~ with the Boaxd of ~ty 25 Caml1ssiaIers becawIe of their ccuntywida being' 158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 elecl:ed becam, t:lIEefare, an ~ CXIIlIt1tut1a1al altemaUw. And the Planning 0XmcU becam the advi.sa!:y board to the Beard itself . lIlat _ then did was not CIlly chd _ baw, then, a rsr act .in place, l:lut _ bad to pIt the plan bade .in place, so _ teak the pmv:i.cusly ~tec1 plan that was dec1axed UlICCIIStib1t1alal and then ze-adt:pted that back into the pxcgram. So _ toc:ic that IIEIp and xe-ad::ptec1 that. And then not l.alq after that, _ put .in - " _ bad a diffea:ent staff wbea !law Healey was hizecl CIl, and felt that the ca.tegcrl.es sb:IUl.c1 be %e-IlllII8d to tetter xef1ect hew they were used. So that ocx:w:red in the '8arJ.y 1990's. Q. So ~ ca.tegcrl.es that were z:eflected CI1 the 1980 legerld baw been, baa1cally, re-nated, but the mmIlers sl:aJied the _? A. Yeah, ,the ca.tegcrl.es stayed the _, just the IlllII8 c:haJlgad. Kt. SllDC:HlIcr: N:) f'urt:har quesl:1als. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY Kt. c:mB: Q, Good afbmloc:n, sir. A. Hi. 159 1 Q. Do JIQl IaDT Cindy Tarapan1? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Is sbe a ~ planner? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. She, lJJce JIQl, shares a degree ftan a 6 schccl. up nart:h of us? 7 A. CCaect. Good degree. 8 Q. Good. Do JIQlIalClf Rd:lert Pergcli%z1? 9 A. CCaect. 10 Q. Rd:lert is gcce llCIIf and I butchered his 11 naIB again. I cb1't IalCIf hcw that would possibly 12 cam cut in the transcdpt clifi'ea:ently, but iL be 13 sb:IUl.c1 euer ask, JIQl will all testify I'm t%y.inz to 14 do a better jcb. 15 Is Rd:lert a qualified planner? 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q. lIlat is the cunent pc:pulatioo of PineLlas 18 ~ty? 19 A. 934,000. 20 Q. lIlat is pmject:ed to be the pcpll ~tj ""l in 21 the a::Ildng ~? 22 A. It will be cver a 1lIi.llla1. .lll:x:ut a 23 ml.ll1a1 and tJlenty or 30 ,000. 24 Q. lIleD? 25 A. Ultiml.tal.y. 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And then stql. Na close the gaB? A. You would be ndEMl1c:ping, but that is pretty IlIlCh Wat _ anticipate the deuel.cptBIt would be. YClU baw get establlshed pattems of deuelqment, and JIQl haw established res1dmtial a%eas. 'J:bat's pmtty IIIlCh wbat the zaU.ng pmal.ts. Q. But JIQl use the 1llZd "redeual.c:pmnt," dces recieIIal.c:pIEt ccntEllplate change? A. It llBY or it nay net. ~t's QIl8 of the efforts they are lccId.nq at .in the last ~ ar bIo. YClU can DBke an argtIII!!l1t that deuel.cptBIt cculd .1ncz:ease derls1ty when they mdsuelcp, but _ also baw so IlIlCh est.,,.,,; .- c:IeuIalqm!nt that CCIISb:a1ns us fzan c:b1Ilq that. lIlaI: JIQl want to do is things in ca1.famance with wbat's aJ:QJIId it. Q. So a lot of factcrs ge into IIEIId.nq dec1.sials? A. Right. Q. YClU baw the th%ee-rinq binder befcml JIQl? A. tlh-bIlh. Q. Tum, please, to Tab 18. Haw JIQl fOll1'ld it? A. Yeah. Q. Is the dcclmmt under Tab 18 a cx:py of the report of ~ staff xelaUve to the subject 161 1 prqlerty? 2 A. Cc:rect, 3 Q. It J.deDb.fies the staff nmber mspcnsih1.e 4 as ale Brian K. ~th, l1:izector? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You lcncw him? 7 A. Yep. 8 Q. And j,t' s in the aftez:ncc:n, tzyi.rlq to kBEp 9 us with saIEl sense of !uIDr. 'Dlia was ytll1? Or JIal 10 were the ale respcIllI1ble far this ~? U A. Yes. Ri.ght. 12 Q, 1>110 is Goman Elea%dsJ.ey? 13 A. Gordan Beardsley Wl:lZb in Ill( clEpartm!nt. 14 He's the bead of the general p1amli.Ilq cliV1S1cn. 15 Q. Is be a qual.i%.ied plamler? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do JIal trust and respec:t the c::p1ni.a1 of 18 Mr. BeaJ:dsley? 19 A. Yes. 20 ~. cm.1!:: '1hank JIal, sir. nat's aU I 21 have. 22 'Dm a:al:r: kr:l %eCS1J:ecl:? 23 ~.~: !b. 24 1lIB a:al:r: '1hank JIal, sir. 25 PAUL CASSEL, SWORN 162 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 mKt.~: 3 Q. state JICllr IllIIB and a=ent~. 4 A. Paul cassel, PUlellas Cclmty Gcue:me:lt. 5 Q. Ik:w laIq have ytIU ~ for P1nellas 6 County? 7 A. Since 1972. 8 Q. So big years after Mr. ~th? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q, lIIat posit1als baYe JIal held s1nce 1972? 11 A. I ClIlIEl to WCJ:k for the Cclmty, bas1ca11y, 12 as a pemd.ttinq UdInici.an, ~ tMre far 13 ~te1y four ar fiw years, and cbtainec11l1( 14 degI:ee and got a pratDtial. I becare a site plan 15 nm- ccordinator. SeIIeral. years later I becare, 16 nme ar less, the assistant zc:ai1lq clirec:tor. And 17 wilen that zaWlq director l.eft, I tcclc bi.s posit:J.cm. 18 And I was zaWlq dJ.%ector far a IU1tler of years 19 UDder Mr. ~th, I might add, in the pLannjnq 20 dEpartmmt. 21 And in 1995, ~ Calnty c:eated a new 22 dEpartmmt lcrx:Mn as DeIIel.c::pn!nt ReIr.I.ew Servioe.s and 23 I becare the di%ector of that dEpartm!nt and I have 24 l:leEn the director since then, 25 Q. lIIat is ~ edlJcat.1.cn bac1cgxQmd? 163 1 A. I have a bacbel.or's deg%ee fran the 2 t!liversity of Scuth!'lar1da. It's wbat.'s called an 3 'interdisc:1plinaJ social scieDces degree with IIElJar 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WOI:lc in p:Ibl1c ad'IIinistI:at:1.a1. Q. Az:e JIal familiar with the land use - zaWlq ~ land use pLannjnq in P1nellas Cclmty, uni.ncc:p:lmted P1nellas Cclmty? A. Yes. ' J Q. PinelJ.as Camty in general? A. Yes. Q. Ate ytll1 familiar with the subject p:cperty? A. Yes. ~. SllDCHlI(l(: llespcrldent' s ExlUbit 4. 1lIB 0XJRr: HLthcut cbjectia1 l:eCaiwd. (Rtspondent t s Exhlbl t 4 rece],. ved In eV1.dence.) E{~. S1tDCHSIC:{: Q. I'm goinq to put up J!:xhJbit 5. '1!1e 1980 aed.a1 photogI:aph of, bas1caUy, the LallIe OIautauqua v1cin1ty. Bas1caUy, this is M::M11lsn Bcoth CII the east, U, S. 19 en the west, and I!:ntel:pl::1Jle CII the ncrth, and t7nicn CII the 8CUth. Can JIal, basically, talc8 us t:lu:cugh - JIal 1IlI!I:'e actually lmlImd wxIdng for the Cclmty at this tine - Wat this _ was lJlce. Actually, fizat, . 164 1 was this _ in the a:.mty at that tine? 2 A. M:lst of j,t was, Mr. Sadcwsky. 'Dlia is a 3 1980 IIEIJ? I can't _ that date. 4 Q. Yes. 5 , A. M:lst of that _ there was in the O:Q1ty 6 in the UIlina:nparated _. '1!1e CamUyls1de _ to 7 the ncrth had just: began c:Iauelqmmt p:d::lably six, 8 seven, eight ar nine yem:s earlier in the City of 9 Clea%water. 10 '1!1e general pattem, as JIal can _ fran U the aed.a1 pic:bll:e, i.s basically rUJ:al in the 12 southem part of it. And up to the north em of 13 that IIEIJ?, at the tcp em of it, JIal can _ sare of 14 the umanizat:1.a1 that C3lEl in with the clevelcptEnt 15 of Camb:ysic:le. 16 Q. ~ here i.s :take Olautauqua v1cin1ty fut:w:e 17 land use IIEIJ? fzan 1980. 18 1lIB CDm: Do JIal have a IU1tler CII that, 19 CXlllIlSEll? 20 ~.~: Yeah. It w.ill be tt). 6. ' 21 mKt.~: 22 Q. Paul, j,f JIal can talc8 us thrcIIgh Wat the 23 residential land use was axtlUIId the subject pttparty 24 axtlUIId the aJ;ea. 25 A. Bas1caUy, it's the br.ight ye1.1af cxllor - fj 165 ("' 1 18 the color for the 1aI clerW.ty designator at the 2 timl. 'I!le c:leIIa1ty resident1.al. designator at that 3 tme, which all.oIed a c:leIIa1ty range of zm:o up to 4 7.5 UlIits per~. 5 Q. 'lhat was before the Comty had iJtplarEnted 6 what Mr. Sll1I.th testified 18 the lime specific or 7 . defined c:ategcries? 8 A. 'lhat' s CClI:%eCt. 9 Q. So this whole _ was, basically, the 10 l.cwest c:leIIa1ty ~ except this spot bea:e - and 11 preservaticll? 12 A. 'lhat' IS CClI:%eCt. 'I!le bl:ight ~ color 13 was the 1aI density xesiderlcy designator. 14 Q. ~ ytlI1 up bIC ~ forwam, and this is 15 when Mr. Sll1I.th .said the Comty started iJtplarEnting 16 their sector plan. Ilespc:Ildent Ib:b1b1t 7, 1982, Lake 17 Clant:aD;pla fI1tu%e land use DIiIp 1982. 18 PaI1l, if ytlI1 can explain, basically, what 19 ~ ~ the subject _. 20 A. M!ll, as Mr. Sll1I.th testified, the land use 21 designatars ware mf.inec1 into a rud:ler. Far 22 instance, the bl:ight ~ color that. saw em the 23 pMlI1cus DIiIp was a ....... rtor for zm:o to 7 1/2 24 UlIits per aae. "WLth1n that range thme weJ:e 25 deIralc:pe:l a rud:ler of desigllatars, such as half a 166 1 UlIit per aae, cae UlIit per acre and so forth, 1dl:I.c:h 2 Mr. Sll1I.th testified to. 3 Yc:u can _ em this DIiIp that thme' IS - 4 the des1gnators m:e f1DA d1ffcmt; DBalWIg, that llSIt 5 designatars ~' assigned to IIaIB of those 6 prcperties. 'V""'F......"y, with ~ to the 7 subject b:act that .'re talJc:LDq to - or aIxut 8 nther - and seIIeral of the other ~ tbem 9 alaIg the west side of the Lake, those weJ:e 10 redesi.gDated as part of that la%ger CIIIeraJ.l plamWlq 11 effort to the 2 1/2 UlIits per acre, o::ns1stent with 12 what was CIl the ~ or what was eacpec::ted to be - 13 posslllly be p1t CIl the ~ thme :based al the 14 zaIi.ng' sarE!Wbat. 15 'I!le zaWlg in this ne1ghbal:hood was rm:al 16 res1dent1.al., which is a sing:1e fanUy ZCIle with 17 16,000 squate fClClt lots, bIC and quarter UlIits to 18 the acre. Saleth.:inq l1JIB that in geoetaJ.. So that 19 _, as Mr. Sll1I.th testified, was placed in a 2 1/2 20 UlIit per acm c:ategca:y. 21 Q. Are ytlI1 fanillar with the IaDd Use Plan 22 JilrErdtent, Case No. 82-38, em the PiJlellas Pl.anning 23 Ccuncil.? 24 A. 'lhU is the - I guess for lack of a 25 better 1:emI - the stud!{ that was delle, that effort 167 1 that was put forth after the J:af.inEm!nt of tbose 2 land use c:atEqcn.es. 'lhU case actually as.s1.gnecl. 3 what those llEM - or wbme tbose llSIt categcries 4 wmld be used, what ptqlerties they wmld be 5 assigned to. 6 Q. So basically, tlus cae tcck: off part of 7 the ~ that ytlI1_ hem, and bmled it:lnto 8 lowar densities? 9 A. 'lhat'1S CXl%%eCt. 10 Nit.~: 'lhU is Ilespc:Ildent's 8. 11 mB cmRr: 7 and 8 m:e ~wd. 12 (Respondent '! Exhl.bl t 7 , a recel "led In eV.ldence. 13 B:i~. S1lDCIPEI(:{: 14 Q. 'I!le IleXt IIBp I'm gcing to p1t up - Lake 15 C1au'l;auqUa fI1tu%e land use, 1!l87. 1Illd l:lasically, if 16 ~ can talk abc:ut what ~ bebIeen - :In these 17 five ~. 18 A. I can t:eU ~ em this IIBp l:le:::imse I was 19 cIirectly inIIolved in what ~ thme, b1t if ~ 20 DOtice, ~ ~ can halp lIEl point to those areas 21 lbIn:ln the cenUal_tcly part of the IIBp thme 22 cIirectly in fJ:CIlt of ~ tbem, . had. a ZCZWIq cue 23 lIC2l'ElWbam in thlma. I can't recall the specific 24 prcperty, 1:lut thel:e was a :cequest to go nult1fanUy 25 fran sing:1e faaUy that cur ~ ....... :teJected 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 m-1 CIl the DBighbaI:hcad testiJIaly that it wmld be IlOt CXIIpILtible, cbange the dIa%acter, a lot of th1JIgs that . have bean talJciJlq abc:ut bea:e today. Qu: Board %ejected that. One of the ~t' IS ~ts at the tiIIe was that he was rel.yiJIq em the land use plan for the density that was being requested, and that land use plan Cl\/W thel:e reflects that - Q. nus is the 5 units right hez:e? A. Yes, sir. 'Jhat's 5 UlIits to the acre. Qu: Board said that's DOt really CXIISistent with what 'IS going em the g:r:cund thme, staff. 1st's go !:lack and take a l.ock at that and let's a;ply a less :Intense land use c:ategcl:y to that. So . I:lrccght forth what . call a planning cIizectars ~laIld using ~ticIl and placec:l the 2 1/2 UlIit per acre designator that ~ _ em the DIiIp to It!{ right side, in that _ that ~ were pointing to. Q. Right hez:e? A, Yes. Q. Is this the case that ~'re talJd.ng abc:ut, land use 11-11-84. A. Yes. Q. Mr. Cassel, if ~ a:W.d reI11E!tI what ~ ' 169 1 the stabmlnt of findUIgs of fact as to the 2 .l:.........,....d..t:ial stated to the ad!Iln1strative hearlnq 3 officer, mat t:bese blO SRi. 4 A. ~ reccI'lIlE!Ilda to the Calnty 5 CaIm1.ssicII at the t::in'e CI\ the land use c:::barlga for 6 the area wh1cb _ just mfaz:ellCed, thm:e ~ blO 7 ~ within t:ba.t .l:"""'-6.......d..t:ial. And the 8 first ~ said this zequest was pmffered this 9 past SEpt:stbar. 'lh1s was saretiJre in 1984. 10 ftISI1 the Boa%d of Cclmty CaIIld.ss.i.c:r U reII1ewed blO zaWIg xequesta, z:eCerenoe zaWIg case 12 3176 aIld 3182 in this nei.ghbadlccc1; t:.es1:iID:IW cII1dnq 13 those MaringlI ind1cated that th:la _ to CXIISist 14 of wz:y ],Q( deDs1ty, s1nqle fanUy hamB, with 15 ~ sitting em large lots, ncstlyabol1t 2 a:es 16 in We, l:eS1dent1al./agricultu%e in 1IBJIIler. 17 'Jhese zequests wem IlUltifamUy, 5 aIld 5 18 units per acre. It was cIen1ec1 aIld the Boa%d 19 dirEcted staff to ~ the ZCIl1ng and land. use 20 plan desigIlat1clls in the ana to ensure pmt:ect:1a1 21 of the exUtinq character of ana. 22 Q. step there. It said it d11:ectec1 the staff 23 to c:b mat IICM? 24 A. D1J:ected staff to ~ ZCIl1ng and land 2S use plan desigIlat1clls in the ana to ensure 170 1 pmt:ect:1a1 of the Gld.stinq character of the _. 2 Q. So it's ytlUr reccll.ect1a\, since ycu were 3 actually in\IQ1.wd in this case, that they didn't 4 think tbat lIUl.t:1fanU.y hcusing at 5 unita per 5 acre - deuelq:mmt at 5 units in th:la _ - was 6 a:upatihl.e to th:la _? 7 A.. 'l'o t:ba.t general ana Wbm:e ycu see the 8 diffm:eIICB between, the greenish, the chartzeuae 9 oo.lor, aIld the llghter tan oo.lor. 10 Q. 'Dle result of th:la, it cz:eated th:la little 11 CClI:'%idar of sinqle fa'aU.y clevelc:pIEnt at 2.5 units 12 per acre. 13 A. ftISI1 the c:::barlga was 1lliIde, :yes, sir. 14 ~.~: I wmld l.1l<e to E!Ilter this 15 as Respcn::lent' s I!:xh1J:d.t 9. 16 'DlB 0XJR:r: Elece1wd. 17 IRe.pondent'. Exh1b1t 9 rece1ved 1n eV1dence. 18 B'i~.~: 19 Q. n-e's aLlIo a parcal. of ptt:party that's 20 right bme - ~ti.a1 - 2.5 units per acre. I 21 tlel1ew it was amed by the Boy SCXluta. 00 ycu bave 22 ~ bac1cgrcund with that? 23 A. CI1l.y em the~. I recall that 24 there was a land. swap IlliIde l:letween the Boy So::uts 25 aIld a ptivate fil:m. And ultiJrately, the _ t:ba.t 171 1 ycu just pointed to -' t:ba.t was part of the Boy 2 So::ut catp - was ze-land. used aIld J:eZa1ed by the 3 City of CLeazwater for residential ~t. 4 Q. So this 14 actually land. t:ba.t was in the 5 City of Cleazwater? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Is this the land. use - the P1DelJas 8 Cclmty case? 9 A. 'lh1s 14 - yes. 'lh1s is a ~ of the 10 annexatiCln by the City of CLea.twater, aIld the U ult1ml.te c:::barlga to the land use plan. 12 Q. So it's the City of CLea.twater t:ba.t askEld 13 that th:la p1:ql8rty go IIOt to IIUl.tifanl.ly at 5 un1ts 14 per acre, l:iut 2.5 units for sinqle fanlJ.y,~ 15 c:alS1atent with this _? 16 A. 'J!Iat's IIV undarstand1nq of tbat case, yes, 17 sir. 18 ~. SAIXll4Sl<<: RespaIldent' s I!:xtUbit 10. 19 'DlB 0XJR:r: Reca:l.wd. 20 (Respondent's Exh1blt 10 recelved In eVldence. 21 ~.~: And I want to give you the 22 I.alail ~ v1c1n1ty IIEIp of 1987, 14U.ch 14 23 Re8paldant's I!:xtUbit tb. U. 24 'DlB 0XJR:r: tb. U w.LU be J:'IilCBi.wd. 25 (Respondent 'oS Exhl.blt 11 recelved ln eVl.dence. 172 1 B'i~. SllDC:Hil[(lC: 2 Q. 1Ilat I w.LU c:b 18 put up the Laka 3 O1aI1tauqua and v1c1n1ty fL1ture land. use plan for 4 2003, wb1c:h 18 bas1cally hi::M it loo1aI11Jce IICIII'. 5 Can ycu ~ ~ there am ~ -:lar 6 changes to this residential area fraIIl987 to the 7 ~t t::in'e? 8 A. VeI:y fat JftYli ~1 ",.tj a1S. 9 ~.~: RespaIldent's Exhibit tb. . 10 12. U 'DlB 0XJR:r: Reca:l.wd. 12 (Respondent's Exhl.blt 12 rec~lved ln eVldence. 13 B'i~. SllDC:Hil[(lC: 14 Q. I an just gaing to go !:lack a <Xqlle of 15 years, back to 1990, aIld sb:M you - ~ ycu c:an 16 desc:rjbe the diffeJ:eIloe - t:h1a is a 1990 aerial 17 IiIot.og%apl of Laka CIaI1taDqua and v1c1n1ty. So_ 18 have got 1980 aIld 1990. If ycu can sort of go ClIIer 19 mat's been bappen1nq. Wi bave mat you testified 20 in the 1980' s up throagh 1987, this wbole area was 21 clcwnza1ed. or d::lwn-land. used to 2.5 units per acnl. 22 1Ilat bas1cally 14 ~ em the gramd? 23 A. W!ll, generally, the ~t has been 24 ],Q( c:Iens1ty sinqle fanl.ly CXIISistent with the 2 1/2 25 unit per acre dasignator t:ba.t's em the plan. 173 1 Q. Az:e ytiI ta.1JdJlq abcut Wat ~ areas - 2 lUysiun, Olelseat4:x:d, Qle1.sea azea? 3 A. 'lhat' s CDn'eCt. 4 ~. S1lI)CHlKY: nat is gcinq to be 5 Resp::Ildant's Exhibit 14. 6 BY~. S1lI)CHlKY: 7 Q. M:IIIinq al to -- basically Wat it says 8 is - it's 1999, 'tut _ will imagine that's pxetty 9 close to the preSent. And again, Wat is haJ;peniJlq 10 .in this residEntial CIO%ridor? U A. Sam thinq, the gxori:h aIld clsIIel.cpnlI1t .in 12 that cmricbr - that JICl1 just pointed art: - has 13 fCll.lofed the land. use plan. 14 Q. And it's been dcrIe, bas1cally, fxan Wat 15 ytU testified, as Wat? S1ngle faaUy clsIIel.cpnlI1t? 16 A. Car%ect. 17 Q. And this is all bJiJ.t at 2.5 un1ts per 18 ac:e? 19 A. EssBntJ.ally,~. 20 Q. 'lhat bl:::\zJgs us all the way up to 2003, 21 this ~. Az:e YJ:lU aNare of the swap of pl:qlElrty 22 between Mr. Shaffer aIld the Cc:unty? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I'm ~ to shcN' JICl1 a letter dated 25 oJ:anu.a%y 24, 2003, a letter fxan Mr. Shaffer. And 174 1 basically, is this the prcperty that - is this the 2 pl:qlElrty that the Cc:unty cwned? 3 A. '!!Ie pl:qlElrty that's cI1zec:tly alalg the 4 laJae .shore, yes, ::1ght .in there. 5 Q. So the Cc:unty, basically, ClWIlI!!d the 6 pmservati.cl1 ~ 7 A. Car%ect. 8 Q. And tban Mr. Shaffer was able to put 9 toget:ber, as Mr.: Cal.e aptly said, them's a lot of 10 sraU lots art: them, be was able to ~ these U ~ h fxan a var:I.ety of pecple cut them? 12 A. Mr. Shaffer - I cla1' t IcncIf 1L Mr. Shaffer 13 ~ those 3fts, tut be was h the precess of 14 assad:lling ~ .in the ne1.gb'bam:lod, yes. 15 Q. And Wat are his plans? Jlgain, is this .in 16 the ~ted Cc:unty? 17 A. Yes, it is. 18 Q. So this is all l:lei1lq d:IIe there tlu:cugh 19 your shcp because - 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- it's uniJllxlIp:lnted Cc:unty. And Wat 22 are his clsIIel.cpnlI1t plans? 23 A.~, Mr. Shaffer's clesi%e was to pIt six 24 single fard.ly lots al.czlq the lal<e shere .in 25 CXI'lb1Jlati.cl1 with the prcperty that be acqui1:ed fran 175 1 the O::llmty, as -U as the other pI:qlEIrb.es that be 2 ~ al his com. tlu:cugh pd.vate scaroes. His 3 plan was to :t:mld ~tely six - exactly IWt 4 single fanily loots alalg the laJae shere. 5 Q. So this is a cc:ntinllati.cl1 - cb ~ 6 bel1eIIe this is a Caltinllati.cl1 of the deI/elqmlnt 7 pattem of s1ngle fanily llanas .in this CXlI:%ilbr? 8 A. If o::mrt:rucl:ed, yes, it 1<<:lUld haw been. 9 Q. I will shcN' ~ Wa.t: is a deed - Mm:h 10 25th - fran the Cc:unty to Mr. Shaffer. Does that U uean the pz:qlerty actually has been deeded c::IIIar to 12 hi1Itl 13 A.:As far as I 1cncIf, yes. 14 Q. But be hasn't cate fczwazd~? 15 A. N! uet with Mr. Shaffer pm:mbly two to 16 t1u:ee IICllths ago CZ1 his prc:pcsal. Due to the 17 u-''9'' and the ex:ist1nq pla.ts in the 18 ne:1ghbarbcod, them are a IIDIiler of clsIIel.cpnlI1t 19 st:aDdaz:ds that be bad to 1lCZX tlu:cugh. Be uet with 20 ~ of.fice to t%y to W01:k thrcugh those. 21 Q. And wculd the O::llmty haw ;mz c:bjecti.a1 to 22 Mr. Shaffer devel.cpinq this - 23 A. Notas~- 24 Q. - at 2.5 aa:es? 25 A. - the zaUng in the ll"d~ was 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rural msidential. Mr. Shaffer has pzcpo.sed. deuelc:plent that uet m:lSt of those st:aDdaz:ds. As I said, cme to the ex1st1Jlg plats, there were sam things - fraltage recp1rBrents, fza1tage al plblic ::1ght-<lf-ways. ~ sorts of things. It was Deller WCI:Dd th%I::u;h with Mr. Shaffer. In fact, be was as1dJIq far a IDIber of vadaIlces 'frail those %eqllirBIEnts. Q. AJ:e ~ lots hem, these ba1ses that deIl't - wben were those ba1ses 1:lullt, ~ in hem? A. Prcbably during the last ten to 12 years. And they are all ~ fard.ly? Sing:l.e fanily. So Mr. Shaffer wculcl. be CXI1lIistent with -- Q. A. Q. A. Yes. Q. - the other s:I.ngle fard.ly ba1ses? ~.~: I wculcl. liIce to int=:hlce RespcrldBnt's ExlUbit 15 aIld 16. me COORr: 'I!ley will be J:eCeiwci. (Respondent.s Exh1blts 15 & 16 recelVed 1n eVl.,jence. ) Ri~.~; Q. N! haw been talkUlg a lot abcut the history of the area aIld bar it was cbmzaIed - 2.5 177 1 units per aae. Wlat I'm gc1ng to shew 3IQU ia an 2 orcl1naDce, Pinel.las c:cunty 0I:d1JliInca 89-4, wb1ch 3 ad:pted the ~, pcl.1cies, ecax:mic assIZlptiaIs of 4 the ccunt:ywide carpmhel'lsiva plan for Pinel.las 5 O:Qnty' 6 Tllere' s a clealler c:x:py of it. I band JItll1 7 that. If 3IQU oculd turn to Page 1, the land use B secl:ia1, wb1ch is, i.f JItll1 oculd lock t1=lugh the 9 gcals and also the pcl.1cies, and exp1a:l.n wb1ch 10 policies JItll1 think that a 2.5 unit per aae land use 11 cat:egca:y is catpatible with wIlat a 5 unit per acre 12 land use ca.tego%y is not carpatible with. 13 A. 1'IaU, the vezy first thiIlq is the goal. 14 It says the land use ia ullCciated with 15 cleIIe.lqIrEnt - sbcu1d be carpatible and reasc:mabl.e 16 in tmms of both the land, SU%%CUlIding uses, and the 17 pdbllc interest. The CIIIat'aU pattern of intensity 18 of land sbcW.d be the IIDSt effic1ant o::IIfi.guzaticn 19 pcss1bl.e. Lalld uses that'a not to be auociated 20 with cleIIe.lqIrEnt sbcu1d be pzotectec1. 21 'DIat' a an mpcrtant part of this. 'DIat 22 1Il:Wd "HllY. 23 M:luUIq en to the IlBltt page, Page 2, 1lIIdar 24 the land use goals and cbject1ves says, the sc:al.e of 25 ~ land dsuelc:pEnt sbcu1d be catpatible with 178 1 - I'm -=ry, I'm %&ding the WJ:aIl1 CDe - land 2 cleIIe.lqIrEnt - let 11& pat IIJ{ ~ en hem - land 3 cleIIe.lqIrEnt pattems sbcu1d %'eCIOgIlize and SUR;lQrt 4 ~t DeigIIbaI:hocx:. ~ sbcu1d be 5 insulated 1dlenever possjhle fi:l:m diaruptiva land use 6 and 1lUi.sancss. 'DIat ia an UIportant CCIIISl.daI:aticn 7 wban 3IQU change the zc:mng = land use of a piece of 8 pxq>ert:y. 9 Lalld planninq slxWd -.gh beav:Uy en the 10 esbh1 1.w.1 c:baJ:acter of the pzed:ml.nantly dsu8l.c:ped 11 areas wban c::hanges of use = intensity of 12 cleIIe.lqIrEnt ia ccntmplated. 'DIat is another 13 jnportant pQl1cy that a public: planner or a cIec:isia1 14 IIBloar 1ICU1d lock at in maId.nq a clecia1en an a 15 rezaWIq - J:e-land use of a ~. 16 Q. So in ~ cpinia1 as a planner, that 17 1lB1lIt:.ain1llq the atatus quo of 2.5 units per llCI:e -- 18 I pat this Ilap back en bec::awIe that' a an aed.a1 that 19 sbctIs 3IQU the Wale =idr::D: - 1Il:Wd be ClCIlSistent 20 and catpatible with the area? 21 A. I think 1tBint:aininJ cha%acter and 22 naintainillq pecple' s ellpElCta.ticns of what to expect 23 wban tl1ey lock at a land use plan aJ:e vety jzrpcrl:ant 24 in IlBkinq ale of those daci.sicns. 25 Q. So the jzrpcrl:ant part is the density? 179 1 A. CaI:rect. 2 Q. And. just an aside, in Pinallas O:Qnty, at 3 the 2.5 units per acte, cu:e 3IQU able to cluster 4 JICIlr - is t:bere a lIElChanism to cluster bates? 5 A. In the ~ted _ of the O:Qnty, 6 we = baII'e zcninq designat:icns at 2.5 that will 7 alJ.c.w clustedng. 8 Q. So it ia possil:lle 1lIIdar this? 9 A. SUm. 10 Q. You baII'e seen c:l.ea%water's pIXpOSCll to put 11 a %cad t1=lugh to mally c:pen up the, _, and btiJlg 12 a spur %cad fi:l:m 1!'l1tez:prise all the WZJ dcwn to 13 here. In ~ c:piJlicn as a plannsr, = 3IQU thinIc 14 that 1Il:Wd change the xural cha%acter of the 15 neigbbodloacl? 16 A. I believe it w:W.d, or it a:uld baII'e the 17 potential to do so. 18 Q. Can 3IQU elaborate en that? 19 A. 1'IaU, the _ that' a bashetl azt t:hete for 20 the %cad, the dotted _ that ia sbcINn for the 21 %cad, passes tb=ugh that single fanUy _ to the 22 narth of the subject pxcprty, so it' a gaillq to c:pen 23 it up to Il'CIre 1:r.Iffic, and it has the potential to 24 change that c:baJ:acter wban 3IQU run lime b:affic 25 t!u:oJgh that nei.gllbxIlcod. 180 1 Q. Do JItll1 believe t:bere 1Il:Wd be a prcpensi. ty 2 to baII'e what we c:all cut-t:hrcIlgh b:affic, t:z:affic 3 cuttiJIg t1=lugh this IlIBigb1:lcII:b IICM that t:hete' s a 4 %cad 1dlete before - 5 A. YClQ will baII'e lICZIB, cartaiJI1y. 6 Q. And. what I 'm ~ to shew 3IQU ia Pinel.las 7 O:Qnty Resal.uticn No.3-55. It was l:asicaUy a 8 %eSCluticn fi:l:m the PineUas O:Qnty !li::md of c:cunty 9 0:mnI.ss1crlers as the 0:Qnt:ywide Plann:Inq 1outbcrity, 10 wb1dl derIi.ed the aj;pllcants - or the 11 ~t1aler'a - land use 'lll'11,...1-1m. ADd U 3IQU 12 o:W.d lock at Page 2 al the very tcp, the "wbeI:eas." 13 A. <2<:ay. 14 Q. Wlat aJ:e the two reasc::I1S it states in 15 t:hete? 16 A. The cha%acter of the~, and the 17 transportaticn iDpacts. 18 Q. And. so basically, ia that what we baII'e 19 beB1 t:a.lk:inq about toc:lay - 20 A. O:lI:mct:. 21 Q. Abcut the cut-t:hrcIlgh b:affic? 22 A. O:lI:mct:. 23 Q. So just to S1JIIlEIrize JICIlr testim:ll1y, is it 24 JICIlr c:piJlicn as a planner that Clea%water's plan at 25 5 units per acte 1ICU1d baII'e cballged. the established 181 1 character of the _? 2 ~ Ys,it~ 3 Q. D:es it not %eClOglIize and suax>>:t the 4 existinq ~t of the _? 5 ~ It essentially dcUbles the density of 6 what's em the grcund t:lwre. 7 Q. Is it p1:eCedential? 8 A. llbsalute1y. 9 Q. Is it s1mL1ar to what _ call spot zau.nq 10 whm:e ~ have a spot t:ba.t' s .inc:Ils1stent with 11 what's around the _? 12 ~ I d:n' t lalCIf U I oould dharacter1ze that 13 as pl%e spot zcme, bIt it oarta1nly sets a p1:eCedent 14 far the area to the scuth and to north. 15 Q. And is it :incc:Ils1stent with the gcals and 16 p:W.c:i.es of the camtywide plan? 17 ~ In IIV c:p1nia1 it wo::ul.d be based ell the 18 histoJ:y of What 's ~ Cll1t t:!Iem by La1ce 19 ~. 20 !oR.~: I have IICl further 21 ~. 22 I want 'to enter as an exh:Ih1t tb. 17 and 23 No. 18. 24 'DII!: CDJRr: 17 and 18 will be l:eCleiwd. 25 (Respondent" Exhlblts 17 , 16 rec61ved 1n 182 1 eVl.dence. ) 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION 3 B'i!oR. Cl:lIB: 4 Q. Hi, HI:. Casael.. 5 ~ Good aftem:a!.. 6 Q. iblld ~ talcB this c:gx:tunity 1-. in a 7 llBIIL-plblJ..c fONlI test1i'y1Dg' UDder oath to express 8 your c:p1nia1 as to whetbar or not HI:. Brian Sllll.th is 9 a qualH1ed planner. 10 ~ J\bsQ1.ute1y. 11 Q. Do ~ ,~ his ezpressed c:pini.al as to 12 C1nd!{ 'ra%apani? 13 ~ Absolutely. 14 Q. As to Rd::qrt; PeJ:qo11.zzi? 15 A. Absolutely. 16 Q, As to ~ Beardsley? 17 A. Ys. 18 Q. Ihd ~ persenally part1.c:1pa.te in the 19 J:eI/iso1 by the PuIallas County Plann11lq Staff of the 20 subject prcparty? 21 ~ I did not. 22 Q. ~ is Jot, U ~ Icncw - and U ~ d:rl't 23 lcncM, why is it that i'CU haw an cp1nicn - that 24 CMllr all these yems this prq:>erty hasn't l::leen 25 deue1cped? 183 1 A. I ci:ln' t lcncM. 2 Q. AI:e t:lwre any negative c:ha%acteristics 3 abcut it that cam to mind that ml.ght affect that? 4 A. P2:d:lably the o:mIBI:C1.al cx=id:lr alalq 5 0. S. 19., that can have sate mpacts and slm clcwn 6 cIeuel.c:pIEnt of prq:>erty that's adjaalllt to 7 CCIlIt'eEC1a1 lands. 8 Q. As a general prcpositi.Cl1, J.S it <XIlS1.dered 9 a geed p1ann1ng pr.;lCtice to plt a very !at 10 msidential clerls1ty adjaalllt to o::zmerc1al.? 11 A. As a general pl.azln1n; ~ti.CI1, 1ICl. 12 Q. On the b:affic issue, do i'CU IlElan to 13 suggest to oJIldga Alellandar t:ba.t JItm" persalal. 14 c:pini.al is that the J:eIIOlut1.Cl1s, so far as the City, 15 the PJlC, the PPC staff, and the PPC, t:ba.t the 16 traffic issues have l::leen resolved; that tbey are 17 mistalam; and your c:p1nia1 is that t:lwre is still an 18 issue? 19 ~ I cb1't take issue with the resal.uti.Cl1 of 20 the b:affic. ~t will salve the t%affi.c issue 21 t1u:t:Iagh that prq:>erty. 22 Q. If sambocl!r had. the ~thal and the 23 :I.nclinatial and felt it was cles1zab1e for all of the 24 host of _, incl.ucl1ng eoco::mic _, to I:Iuy 25 that prcprty and put 46 lIin;le faDlJ.y bales ell it, 184 1 wo::ul.d t:ba.t affect the character of the neigIl1xll:hood 2 as ~ sea it ri.ght DeW? 3 A. 'DIe zcrWlq in the - when it was in the 4 Ccunty, the zcrWlq of t:ba.t pz:qerty wo::W.c:l have 5 pemd.tted that. And I think the prcprty to the 6 narth is so far dIMa1ql1nq a::m1stmt with that. 7 And I think the 46 hazEls, abso1u1:e1y, it wo::W.c:l 8 c::hange the 1IIE!i.ghI::lcl. ~ wo::W.c:l be m::e bales 9 t:!Iem. Bllt as far the deuel.c:ping the character of 10 it, 1ICl, I cb1't think it wo::W.c:l. It wo::W.c:l be 11 CCI1Sistent with the 1ustori.c ZCI1inq, the histor.i.c: 12 cIeuel.c:pIEnt pattems, What's gc1zq ell in and around 13 the 1Ie1.ghbcmvxd, so 1ICl, I cb1't think it wo::W.c:l. 14 Q. ~ _ just have a potential to quil:ble 15 CMllr what it IIBiUIS to have the character. But 16 oarta1nly, =ther than having t2:ees and dirt and 17 gr.ass and shrubs and sate wetlands and stuff, U_ 18 get to II!/' bate t:lwre, U that was II!/' hare, I had. to 19 oanterld w:l.th 46 other b:::rlecwners, 14lo are not t:lwre 20 today, that 1ItUld be diffel:ent, do i'CU agree? 21 ~ Yes, it wo::W.c:l, absolutely. 22 Q. And U this was in the County and i'CU 23 asIlB::l. to assess sardlody's plan to plt 46 balBS 24 t:!Iem, 1ItUld i'CU be cc:n::mned ill:Qlt the effects ell 25 traffic? 185 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And lGlld ~ CCIlCElm aba1t the effe:::ts 3 at traffic include the fact that the O:IUnty J:aads to 4 the south are poor and substalldaxd? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. R:Iuld it effect ycur cxmIidarati.cn to 7 realize that 1st Awsme bez:e lGlld not all.at a left 8 tw:n to head south at 19? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. iba.t: - 1% ycu haw an idea, what do ycu 11 ClCrlCBive of that ycu m1ght be able to beJp fashia1 12 as a soluti.cn to the tz:affic iDpact; the prtperty 13 was in the O:IUnty and I'm a cIEMalc:pEIr and I'm 14 ta1lc::lnq to ycu aba1t IlClW' I can pit 46 bales in bm:e? 15 A. NaU, to be quite hcDest with ycu, I lGlld 16 call IIJ{ ~ ---''''1 staff to tell ycu - to belp 17 with that, and they lGlld analyze the IUII:ler of the 18 trips a:ming cut of that clauelq:mant, analyze 1% 19 thBJ:e was 8aIEl IlBf ~ts ~, analyze 1% 20 the EIX1ating rc:ad lGlld handle tbcse b:ips CXIlIUl9' 21 CIUt of that c:Iaue1.c:prent. Pethaps they would. I 22 d:::I1't knew at this paint. 23 Q. Do ycu a:IICllcle that ale thinq ycu might 24 explare 1% the CU'ClmItaIIQas ~ that I just 25 ~bed, IlClW' it zmght be poss1J:lle to exit the 186 1 prtperty ga1ng DCrth? 2 A. 'DIat' II oert:ai:ll.y a viable c:pti.cn. 3 Q. So the solutia1 that has been a=ived at 4 addtessed the traffic issue, that ~ to be CII. 5 the minds of the CPA, has beB1 resolved? 6 A. I can' t speak far the CE'A, so I d:::I1' t IaICII' 7 what was in t:bai.r minds when they bad a a:D:llm1 8 aba1t the traffic mpacts. 9 Q. NaU, Mr. SaclI:lNsky bad ya1 zead bIO thiDgs 10 that were ellpr8lIS8:l as 0I:IlCeI:IIll. In ycur 11 pzafessiaIal qdJlia1, is t:hez:e - at this paint arq 12 laIger - a CCIlCElm about tz:affic? 13 A. As far as the actual getting the traffic 14 in and cut eff:1.ciel1tly, I think that has been 15 resolved. 'DIe CJ!&Iti.cn that David askBd lIB bad to 16 do w.Lth the illpact of that tz:affic solutia1: 17 0Iarlg:l.ng the cba%acter. And in IIJ{ c:p1nia1, that 18 lGlld change the cba%acter of that ~ to 19 the 1Xlrl:h. 20 Q. NaU, we Jdnd of cate back then to a point 21 we (liCOO"'1'ed befare. In sana zespect, the cba%acter 22 of the neighboI:hood ill ga1ng to be cbanged with 46 23 s.ingle f<llli.l.y bales baing l:lu1J.t t:hez:e. 24 A. It IIEly be. 25 Q. It is JII:IU%' professional cpin1al that the 187 1 %eSidE!ntial lc:w clesignati.cn is not OCllpiLtible with a , 2 %eSidE!ntial sul::m:ban desigDati.cn? ' 3 A. It can be. 4 Q. It can be not cx:npatihle ar can be 5 0CllpiLt1ble? 6 A. It can be cx:npatihle, cerbwIly. ' 7 Q. NaU, as a ~ pI:qlOSiti.cn, do ycu - 8 can ycu a:IICllcle that - let IIEl back up and :z:estate 9 it. 10 As a gener.al pI:qlOSi ti.cn, do ycu a:IICllcle 11 that RL and RS are 0CllpiLt1ble? 12 A. Not as a ~ JZCPOSiti.cn, no. 13 Q. As a gener.al JZCPOSiti.cn, do ycu o:::IlCade 14 that any bIO of the desigDatiClls of lc:w deIlsity 15 %eSidE!ntial are c:arpatible with each ot:beI:? 16 A. WLthin that %aJlgIIl - 17 Q. Yes, sir. 18 A. - that we talJGad aba1t? 1hay can be. 19 Ycu knew, t:be1:e'1l a cliffeEent deIlsity thBJ:e. IIigher 20 deIlsit1ell II&y not be 0CllpiLt1ble with the lclwer 21 deIlsit1ell bacaulle of the fact that ya1 llUlply have 22 nme houses t:be1:e with SIBller lot sizes as c:azpa%ed . 23 to the la2:ger lot sizes and the lclwer deIlsity. 24 'DIat' II ale of :teallaIll we have tbose diffeJ:ant ranges 25 so that ycu can SEpl%ate thsn into JII:IU%' lc:w dslsi.ty 188 1 axeas and ycur higber density axeas. 2 Q. Ycu haw been bm:e aU day, aU afteJ:noa1 3 far aU of the test.1m:l1y. 4 A. AU aftez:noor1. 5 Q. lo!\' %eCall ill that Ms. Tanpani and Mr. 6 PaI:gollzz1 both ag:reecl with the idea that just, per 7 se, RL and RS are CXllpiLt1ble. 1hay are both lClIf 8 deIlsity zesidential, aU 1:IIlder the 1Zlb1:eUa that 9 ycur O:IUnty reoogcizes ill lc:w density. Do ya1 10 llUlply disagree with those cp1nials? 11 A. No, I d:::I1't. I d:::I1't. 12 Q. AU tight, sir. I heard ycu use the 13 llCrds, nlfer%iJlq to ale of the eXIUJ:l1ts, to CIW1.d 14 llaIBt:h1ng - msults in IIaIBt:h1ng that'll diaruptive 15 or CXlIllltitutes a nuisaIlce as the goal. And we can 16 axgue with that as a goal. Tu:m with lIB, please, to 17 the site plan at Tab 34. 18 A. 34. 19 Q. R:Iuld it be JII:IU%' qdJlia1 that the prcposed 20 dauelqm!nt dslalstzated. by the site plan at Page 34 21 is llaIBt:h1ng that lGlld be liJcElly diSl:uptive ar a 22 nuisaIlce to the neighlx:I%hccd? 23 A. I d:::I1' t t:h1nk it would be clisruptive or a 24 1II1isance. 25 Q. Ycu 1IBltic:rled that in the change fzan the 189 1 1982 to 1987 land use cIes1gnat::l.a1s that _ an the 1 2 charts Dav:Ld. pIt: up for us, I th1nk part of the 2 3 reascn was -- I b::1.ecI. to wrtte it c:bm exactly - to 3 4 erwure ~ of the ex1stinq cha%act:er of the 4 5 ama? 5 6 A. Co%rect. 6 7 Q. Is it a fact that land use c:hanges 7 8 scmatmes calB abcut to reflect the xeal1ty of toilat 8 9 the IIEIl:5cet: bas al.lctled to h<q:pen to an ama? 9 10 A. CIaZlges in the ueighba1:bood, carta1nJ.y, 10 11 yes. 11 12 Q. You, hailing' suffe:ed t:hrcu;h IIEl batill.i!lq a 12 13 lot th1a aftel:nccn, I'm suxe ygu've heaxI:1l1El %alBdc 13 14 a bne or two, cbsezved that the Clearwater pJ.anning 14 15 staff ~ the :equested ClIlllDltlElnt, and indeed, 15 16 ~ it, and.the zequest was initial1y sulmI.tted 16 17 to ~ to msidBntial uman. 17 18 You have heaxI:1llB a::-ve that the 18 19 c:l.ea%water lleIIel.c:plEnt Baal:d blessed the CllBldtE!nt 19 20 as favar.lble, as cI1d the c::Lea1water 0::IImlssicIl, as 20 21 cI1d the PJlC, as cI1d the PPC staff, as cI1d the PPC, 21 22 as chd Mr. SlIII.th.al bebalf of the Pinel.Las O::lunty 22 23 staff . Is it year c:pin1c:I1 that each of t:bale staffs 23 24 WElte ml.stalaen in their al CXIlClusials? 24 25 A. No, but; I dcII' t t:bink they had the llenef1t 2S 1 of the histmy of toilat ~ out there CM!r t:he 2 ysrs as far as the land use plan. 3 Q. Do ygu IIElaI1 to s;;ry to .:Jbdge Alexandar that 4 !PI th1nk each of t:hcse parsaIS I have namct, each 5 of t:bale entitieS I have natEd, wculd not have 6 favarably l.........."1'Ad this c:haDge far that piece of 7 p%qlerty? 8 A. I dcII't IalQr that. 9 ~.~: nmnk ygu, sir. '1!1at's all I 10 haIIe. 11 'DIE a:xJRr: Any red1re::t:? 12 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 13 ~~.~: 14 Q. Mr. Cassel, durinq the 1990's, cI1d ~ 15 ~!PI abc:Ut cleuel.c:p1nq this p%qlerty? 16 A. Nilll, durinq!IV camar w.l.th the O::lunty, 17 CIle of t:he t:h:iJlgB that I de a zespald to fcllc:s who 18 aze loc1dng to ~ zaWIg or see if they can 19 cha11ge t:he land use plan. I dcII' t laIcw' that ~ 20 suer ~ IIEl al that spec1fi.c piece of 21 prqlerty, bJt I taw had pEqlle in !IV office ask:i.ng 22 quest::l.a1s abcut prqlerty in this genm:al 23 ne1.gI1bozbood, gelel:ally, to the east of t:he D.1mIII.tt 24 car lot alalq, I llel.1e\/9, that's 1st AwIme. 25 And !IV genm:al respaISe bas been that, !PI 190 191 1alQr, t:he bistcnc zaling there bas been rw:al. msidBntial. It's a very lctH:ieIIs1ty ama. And that in !IV c:pin1c:I1, it wculd be d1ff1cuJ.t to chaDge the zaWIg. I IleIIer used t:he wotd inposs1ble, b1t it wculd be exb:&ml.y d1.ffi.oJJ.t basa1 an the, again, est:ablisbed cha%act:er JJ1 the nei.gbI:x:lJ:hc Q. Qlce !PI get a land use CllBldtE!nt -- aICe a land use CllBldtE!nt gees thrcugh fJ:an the 2.5 units per acre to 5 units an acre, anything can baJ::pen out there - a that ocaect - !PI aze net OOIlStzained by a pmtty cl1agrart? A. Mlen !PI chaDge t:he land use plan, !PI bas1cally c:haDge the c:les1ai.ty fl:all CIle designator or ale leue1 to the otMr. In this case it was 2 1/2 to 5 units to the acre - Q. Right. So- A. - I can't speak for the Cl.ty of Clearwater, l:lut in t:he O::lunty, the ally t:!IlB !PI wculd be oc::nstzained a if WEt CHll1ed a dEMll.c:p!r's agre&IEI1t to that. If !PI WElte to c!langa t:he land use plan of the Chlnty, it wculd s1nply de that, it wculd c:haDge it f%an CIICe c:les1ai.ty to the otMr c:II!IrIs1ty. Q. So in land use p1ann.iDq and zeuiE!IIinq these CCIlCE!pts aze net basa1 al site plans 192 1 .".......~i....lly? 2 A. Not general1y. 3 Q. Because !PI're attsrpting' to see toilat that 4 c:apac1ty wculd be t:he lIBXimD use? 5 A. '1!1at'. ocaect' 6 Q. '1!1at'. WMre they a::W.d~? 7 A. '1!1at'. bistor1cally hcIIr 1:eZalingIl and land 8 use changes have besl locIcad at. 9 Q. So if this went f%an 5 units per acre they 10 ClClUld - the 0::lun1:yw1de PlamWlg Authcr:l.ty - 11 =1:yw1de p1ann.iDq <XII'pI:~ve plan - !PI a::W.d 12 de anything' at 5 units per acre? 13 A. ~ 1alQr1edge of t:he =1:yw1de plan rules 14 wculd allCW' 5 units to the acre, be tba.t s1D;1e 15 famUy, IIUl.tifamUy, or a CCZltnnatial thereof. 16 Q. And a that the t:J.$le of CCIlCE!pt that !PI 17 base ycur incarpat:1b1l1ty al, that this go1nq - 18 that !PI sa1c1 earlier - go1nq fJ:an as to Rt, wculd 19 be incarpat:lh1e in t:he ama? 20 A. Yes. You cblblec1 the c:II!IrIs1ty and pit m:ze 21 pEqlle, m:ze bcuses, m:ze cMll.linq units, into the 22 Ill!1gb1xD:bcod. You cblblec1it. 23 !oR.~: No furt:hez: quest::l.a1s. 24 'DIE 0XRl': AI1yt:IWlq else? 25 !oR. CXlIE: No, sir, not of Mr. Cassel. 193 1 'llII!: CXXlR:l': ~ ytU, sir. A);pm::1ate 2 it. 3 Kl.. SlIIXHlK'l: O:lUnty :casts. 4 'llII!: CXXlR:l': Ilny %eb1ttal? 5 Kl.. cmB: !otly I take a sb:etc:h to 6 think - 7 'llII!: CXXlR:l': SW:e. 8 Kl.. cmB: - or ot:betw1se, to have a test 9 I:D:eak fer a Il'CIlBlt. let ne ~ heI:e. 10 (Break,) 11 Kl.. cmB: JUdge, I tr:led to talk her cut 12 of it, b1t she just insists. I cb have 13 SCIIBt:h1.ng I want to ClCIlI'ar with CIndy. 14 'llII!: CXXlR:l': Ycu am still 1lJIder oath, Ms. lS Tar.Ipan1. 16 REBUTTAL 17 CYNTHIA TARAP~II, PREVIOUSLY SWORN 18 DIRECT EXAMINATION 19 Blt Kl.. tt:lU:: 20 Q. Cindy, at 1lV re:pest, have Y'=U bad. a 21 dlance to taIaa a l.oclc at the dIaIlges that cx:x::uc:ecl 22 ouer aarEl years in the Lalae OIantauqua vid.n1ty 23 future land use u.s as pcrb:ayed in -..mal of the 24 exhibits frcm the 0:lUnty? 25 A. Yes, sir, I did. 194 1 Q. ADd have yea had a c:llance to de 110 for the 2 ~1c puzpose of assessing whether any of the 3 c:han;les.sul:lse:pmt to 1982 resulted in SC2lIlth:inq 4 other tban dcomzcrI1ng? 5 A. Yes, sir, I did l.cck at that ~f"_"y. 6 Q. 1'Ilat did yea find? 7 A. 1'Ilat I o::IIpIIm1 was ouer t::I:Ie bat t1IIElre 8 were 13 p;u:oels and bat they changlac! CM5lr ti1IB and 9 1IheI1 tJley cbanged, I alao lcc:IIaad at the dates that 10 the sulxliv1sia1 was platted. And wIlat I fomd was 11 t:ba.t ~ t:ba.t t::I:Ie fr.lml, of the 13 p;u:oels, two 12 pa%Cel.s had IlO change frcm their high, zes1dential 13 high, er 7 1/2 units per acre density; two p;u:oels 14 went up in planned categ=y fran rec/c:pIl space to a lS h1gber categQty; and thm four~, four 16 sulxliviaials, the plan changlac! to mduce it was cble 17 after the sulxlivisial to wflect; existing 18 clE!I/Ial.qm!nt. 19 So the plan change <::ate as a result of a 20 mu:5cet change. ADd a um:mt deuelqler det:emdJled 21 wIlat the right size lots wer:e to wIlat the cIemIlld in 22 the mu:5cet was, l:u1J.t those lots, platted those 23 lots, and then the change was wIlat was actually in 24 the ground, 25 '1hEe wea:e a total of eight where t1IIElre 195 1 J:Ully.1;s DO change, an up-plan, or, tJley just, 2 reflect an ex:lst1nq deIIel.c:prEnt. 3 b other five, t1IIElre was a plan change 4 t:ba.t did reduce the deDs1ty. So of the 13, there 5 wer:e 5 sulxlivisials t:ba.t t:ba.t had hagleDed. 6 Q. So t1IIElre I S a ml.xed bag? 7 A. Yes, sir, t1IIElre was. 8 Q. In the 21 years since 1982,' lots of, things 9 changed? 10 A. C1earJ.y, wbm yea _ the aerials, the 11 deIIel.c:prEnt bas pmgmssed and changed, yes, sir. 12 Q. Ctle ua.gbt ant1dpate that in the DeXt: 21 13 years, there w:llll:le m:n Changes? 14 A. I wuJ.d think 110. lS Kl.. tt:lU:: ~ Y'=U. ~t's all I have. 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION 17 BY Kl.. SllDCHlI<l(: 18 Q. Ycu spcIlB VlEY quiddy abcut all t:he!Ie 23 19 exatples, I __ they are not en t:lWIlIIlp. 20 A. 'Dlsy are en the 1IIlp. I used ygur exhibit 21 to l.oclc at tbsn. 22 Q. So yo::u I z:e say.inq that, frcm wIlat yea 23 testified, all t:lWI _in heI:e, bas1c:ally, in 1987 24 the CXlJ:I:i.dclr was 2. 5 units per acre, and yea see 25 sare cbanges in the blue, which I ~ the blue 196 1 111 an institut:ia1 for - a CEIIBte%y or a school. - 2 llut I da1' t see where any of th1s land use was 3 c:hanged. 4 A.~, actually, I lcc:IIaad at all four 5 exh:Ib1 ts that yo::u started with, wb1c::h was 1980, 6 1982, 1987, and 2003. And of the 13 p;u:oels, I 7 l.cx:Iked at the h1sto%y frcm '80 to 2003 and 8 c:IetemIlned 1IheI1 the plan changed en that part1cular 9 pa:oel and I CCUIlted 13 pa=els. 10 Q. lt1ich? Ycu keep tallc:lng abcut 13 pa%Cel.s. 11 FJ:an wbm _ sIlcw8d t:lWI earl.1er, it _ l.iJce 12 t1IIElre was a series of cbmlaIld using frcm 7.5 units 13 an acre to wIlat _ had in '87, and bas1c:ally, it 14 maintained - changed to - maintained t:ba.t. So I'm 15 cx:IIfused wbm yea SIll{ t1IIElre' s 23 p;u:cels t:ba.t have 16 l:leen. SC2lIlth:inq or another,. because I can't tell 17 frcm ~ IIaps where the _ t:ba.t _ have been 18 tallc:lng abcut bas l:leen all deI/elqled single famJ.y, 19 bat that 111 going to change to sarethinq diffez:ent 20 unless the IIaps are illco2:%ect. 21 A. I'm not say.lnq 23. I'm saying there's 13. 22 And I will be hawY to go t:lu:cugh thBn ale 1:Iy ale, 23 if yea l.iJce. 24 Q.~, let ne ask yea t:lWI, IIClne of thBn 25 t:lWI year? 1 A. 'DIat part:icu1ar ene WcI5 platted ptiar to 2 1926, and the arEnmmts weze dcrIe in 1982 to go 3 fJ:an 7 1/2 to 2 1/12. 4 Q. Right. So th1s area went fJ:an 7 1/2 to 2 5 1/2? 6 A. 'DIat ~ ene where the cleIlsity declJned. 7 Q. ~ we bad this also as ene that went 8 fJ:an7- 9 A. I didn: t ccunt that paxoal. in ene of the 10 13- U Q. Ckay. 12 A. - a the subject of the debate today. 13 But ~t a - 14 Q. But wcul4 you agree .it went fJ:an 7 1/2 to 15 2 1/2? 16 A. Yes, sir, .it did, in that __ tjne fxaIB. 17 Q. M::W.d F agree that, bas1cally, all this 18 went fJ:an 7 1/2 to 2 1/2? 19 A. It did. Sale of tbsn did go to a l.ctloar 20 dEIIs1ty, bit I t:hi.nk .it's iltpclrtant .u you want to 21 loc:it at .it case by case to reflect it. I'cr 22 exazple- 23 Q. 'IIIll, let's leek at the 1IEIpS. YaJ haw 24 all the yal.lcw' in here, then the area that we !lave 25 CCllCE!llb:ated co :d.ght t:hrcugh bEe went to 2.5. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just want to Il'BIait sure that you're not say.l.nq that these IIEIpS am not accw:ate in that this area went fran yel.lcw, wbic:h at the tjne WcI5 the laIest, 7.5, to a 2.5 ~ faDUy ctIeWng area. M::W.d you agree with that? A. 'DIat t:bare was a cIecl.ine. But I think .it'll iIIp:lrtant to reccgn1ze when did the change - and net all of tbsn ware a cbange as a polley dec1s1a1 to cbmplan eumyth1IIq. Sale of tbsn ware , pcl.1.cy ded.s1a1lI just to uerel.y reflect what the IIBDa!t aJ.zeady detemd.lIed. I'cr exalple, Clelsea Mxd Rlase II was platted in 1987. 'IIIll, the cbange haglenec1 bebIeen satet1ml -- between 1982 and 1987. Q. O:lc:ect. I think we talked about that. A. It'll CDe exalple. Another exatple a IlegeDcy Oaks. n. change WBlt betwaen 1982 to 1987 fJ:an rec/q;>en space, wbic:h a p:act1cally 110 density, to 7.5 units an acte. In fact, those am the twc IIEIpS you..haw in f%a1t of you. n. big green square co the bottan left-hand c=ner a IlegeDcy Oaks, and then lIalB tjne bebIeen 1982-1987 .it 1B1t to 7 1/2, Q. Let lIB just - I Just want to IIBke sure you aren't sayJJlq tbese IIEIpS aren't =rect? 197 198 199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No, I didn't s;q that. Q. So what' s co these 1IEIpS, this whole coa1dar - you wcul4 agree - went fran 7.5 to 2.5 units. It a l1lcB it a today? A. Not eJerY pamel went - Q. I'm talJd.rlq about this rtght here. N:IUld you agree that this ene, wbic:h a the Bey Scx:ut carp, and Clea%water tock this to 2.5 units per acte? A. 'DIat went fJ:an J:eC/q;>en space to 2 1/2, that was - Q. BecaIlse as l.a1g as _'m in ~t that that a still an accw:ate ~. A. It a an accw:ate p1cbIze of it planDec1 today, yes. Q. Bxactly. Arld it WBlt fJ:an - this a an accw:ate p1cbIze in 1980. Arld _ tock the falr II1lIpS and we went t:hzcugh the ~ and _ _ bcM the wb:lle area, bas1c:ally, c:bmzcoad or cbm-land used.? A.' 'DIat's what I'm t:z:ying to s;q to ycu. ~ entire area was not cbmzaled. 'lbm:e were bIo - Q. A. Q. lIIat part of the map a not ooc:ect:? Is not - lIIat part of this map a not ooc:ect:? 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. It's not that the map a not ooc:ect:. Yaw: CXIlClus.ia1 a incl::aect because t:hBre am twc paxoal.s where t:bare a absalutel.y 110 cbange fJ:an the high plan cat.eq:zy bebIeen 1980 and 2003. 'DIe f.1J:st paxoal. a the arange in the tqlleft-band oomer, wh1.c:h the IIlIIB of that lIUbdivaial a ODIay Place Vll.lage. It's daIIel.cpec1 and has been deuelq:led for saIB t1IlB as t:A:llmbcuEs and JIUltifardJ.y. 'l!le se:aIC! pamel where t:hBre .is 110 cbange - Q. wasn't t:bare alrea/:l1{ deue1.c:pIEnt then? A. 'DIat's II!{ paint. ~ the plan J:efJ.ect:eci what was acblally in the ~ 'lbm:e wasn't any d::MnzcIWlq. Q. Right. But for the future where ,.. .shewed dirt, where t:hel:e was dirt co the gmund, t:hBre was IIOthing t:hel:e. Arld when Mr. Slll.th said the ODIty then p1t in tbese =re specific plan ca~, that's when we bad this cbmzaWlq all t:lm:Iugh here. A. No. Only faw: of these lIUbdivisials bad a cbm plannillq after the subdivisial - Q. Had a list -- A. Can I finish? 'mE CDlRl' RI!:Pam!'.R: Yeah. Please clal't talk at the lICIle tine, fc:Uks. I can' t get it. 201 1 mB WI'IN!SS: ~, ytU as1ced lIB - keep 2 sa:y:lnq that the entire aJ:ail was cbmp.lanned. 3 Four of those subdiv:!.s1als that cbanged the 4 zaunq after the subdivi.s:la1 was platted. I S have the exact date that the subdivi.s:la1 was 6 platted. So clmr.ly, What is the c:b1cJaan arx1 7 the etJI1? b z:elat:i.a'llihlp thme is that the B subdivi.s:la1 was platted at a au:1:ain size arx1 9 the plan z:efle::ted that. 10 In anctber five, clmr.ly, the O:ulty did U IIBke a pal.1c:y dec:L.s1a1 en vacant land to 12 ~ it, arx1 I %8CXlglU.Ze that. But What 13 I'm sa:y:lnq is, thme is a ml..1t, SaIEI have the 14 plan change befaxe the c:Isuelqm!nt, and sate 15 the plan just ~ what was thme. 'Dlere 16 was nat an CIIIerall pal.1c:y change far the entire 17 ama.. 18 BY MR. S1lIXHl!C(: 0 19 Q. Do ytU xeocgru.ze the policy that the IlaaJ:tl. 20 of O:ulty CaImi.ss1.aIerI .1JlplmEDtec1 tI:u:algh t:hi.s 21 area - I think Mr. Cassel bad talJaac1 abc:Qt it - 22 wbllI:e lIUlt1fllllU.y was prqlOSed, I:lut it was cIerIied. by 23 the O:ulty, and then t:hia ama. was bralght in the 5 24 unit per acz:e to 2. 5 units per acz:e. Ycu recogni:ze 2S that? 202 1 A. He saic1 that histaz:y. I wasil' t hme, bIt 2 I have IlO reiUIa1 to c:bibt it, 3 MR. SllIlCI'SIOC: No further questiaIs. 4 mB alm: RscIi.rect? 5 MR. a::lLE: No, sir. 6 mB alm: 'DIanJc; ytU. IIIr:/ otbc 7 xd:luttal? B Ist' s go off the raocll:I:l for a m::IlEIDt. 9 (D~~cuss~on off the record.) 10 mB alm: '1heI:e will be a b:ansc:Cpt of 11 the llea%uIg ~ Camsel. will have 30 12 days after that in which to f.Ue a prcposed 13 c:dar, jf they intend. to f.Ue ale up. I will 14 tzy to gat SC2lElthinq ClUt ;in 15 to 20 days after 15 that. Is tbez:e anyth1ng f'Ilrtber frail ocunseI.? 16 MR. a::lLE: No, sir. 17 mB alm RI!:PORIER: Ycu want a ccpy, too, lB for the O:ulty, I asmme? 19 MR. S1lIXHl!C(: I guess. 20 (The hear>ng was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.1 21 22 23 24 25 203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE OF REPOPTER. STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF PINELLAS: I, SCOTT SINCLAIR. cert>ty that I was author>:ed to and d>d stenograph>cally report the torego>ng hear>ng: and that the torego>ng pages are a true and complete record of my stenographlc notes taken durlng the hearlng. I further certlt! that r am not a relatJ.ve, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the partles, nor am I a relatlve or employee of any of the partles' attorney or counsel connected wlth the actlon, nor am I flnanclally lnterested 10 the actlon. Dated th>s 20th day ot July, 2003. SCOTT SINCLAIR COURT REPORTER 204 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 additional 152/8 .. _ address 111/24 125/9 130/6 able 126/1 129/11 129/1, 132/23 139/22 140/14 152/18 174/8 addressed '186/4 174/10 179/3 185/11 adjacent 115/15 116/9 116/15 about 109/4 109/9 109/11 116/20 116/22 140/17 183/6 110/4 111/19 115/6 117/14 183/10 123/6 123/7 123/10 123/17 adjourned 202/20 124/20 125/8 125/17 130/22 administer 133/25 132/16 135/2 135/11 135/18 administration 163/4 135/20 137/24 138/5 138/10 administrative 101/1 169/2 140/4 152/3 157/1 157/17 admit 141/6 157/18 159/22" 166/7 167/16 adopted 149/14 149/20 154/4 168/3 168/23 169/15 173/1 158/7 177/3 176/24 180/19 180/21 183/3 advantages 118/11 184/24 185/2 185/14 186/8 advise 109/11 186/12 187/18: 189/8 190/15 advised 108/5 190/22 195/18 196/10 196/18 advisory 158/3 198/15 199/6 201/21 aerial 163/19 164/11 172/16 about -- 139/8 178/18 above-ground 142/2 aerials 110/10 195/10 abrupt 115/1~, affect 183/3 184/1 absolutely 133/15 181/8 affir.m 106/1 182/10 182/13, 182/15 184/7 affir.mative 143/24 184/21 200/3 after 158/11 162/8 167/1 abutting 125/2 194/17 200/21 201/4 202/12 acceptable 158/1 202/14 accepted 106/3 115/14 afternoon 104/4 121/5 158/24 access 134/12 161/8 182/5 188/2 188/4 accessed 134/18 189/13 accessible 134/20 again 118/7 129/2 152/22 accommodating 139/13 159/11 173/9 174/15 191/5 according 126/2 against 133/1 accurate 145/23 145/24 198/2 age 140/3 199/13 199/14,199/17 ago 132/16 137/18 137/18 acquainted 117/6 117/21 138/7 175/16 acquire 174/10 agree 106/16 117/5 120/9 acquired 174/13 174/25 175/2 120/10 184/20 197/14 197/17 acre 105/17 107/15 108/16 198/5 199/7 108/23 113/11" 113/12 114/6 agree -- 199/3 115/19 123/18 123/20 124/4 agreed 120/6 141/20 141/22 124/5 124/13 125/23 126/10 188/6 127/15 128/3 128/8 128/25 agreeing 144/5 129/1 129/8 129/10 150/2 agreement 191/20 199/12 151/12 151/13, 151/14 152/11 agriculture 169/16 152/15 152/161 152/16 152/16 ahead 140/3 157/12 153/8 153/10 153/11 153/12 ALEXANDER 101/15 109/11 153/13 153/14 154/21 154/21 112/11 143/25 144/15 183/13 155/22 155/23 165/4 165/24 190/3 166/1 166/1 166/11 166/18 aligned 117/14 166/20 168/10 168/17 169/18 alignment 117/17 170/12 170/20' 171/14 172/21 all 106/12 116/3 116/17 172/25 173/18 177/1 177/10 117/16 117/18 119/12 120/12 177/11 179/3 180/25 191/9 121/1 121/20 123/16 125/4 191/9 191/15 192/9 192/12 126/3 126/19 128/3 128/20 192/14 194/13 195/24 196/13 129/13 132/19 132/21 139/24 198/19 199/9 201/24 201/24 140/16 146/5 149/24 150/14 acre -- 128/16 155/19 170/5 150/17 152/11 153/6 154/18 178/17 159/13 161/20 173/17 173/20 acres 107/14 107/16 169/15 174/18 176/13 179/12 182/24 175/24 183/23 188/2 188/2 188/3 across 140/17 188/4 188/8 188/12 190/9 act 149/15 150/14 151/25 195/15 195/18 195/23 196/4 153/18 156/6 158/6 196/18 197/17 197/24 198/8 action 203/17 203/18 200/19 actual 186/13 allow 124/12 126/18 127/23 actually 153/7 154/16 155/21 128/13 179/7 185/7 192/14 156/8 163/24 163/25 167/2 allowed 165/3 189/9 170/3 171/4 175/11 194/23 allowing 118/16 196/4 200/13 a1most 109/3 156/24 adapting 126/17 along 113/5 113/14 115/8 add 104/21 119/17 162/19 166/9 174/3 174/24 175/4 addition 109/21 111/3 118/24 183/4 190/24 120/10 152/5 along a 129/4 A I~'.read~- 111/10-198/11 200/11 so 108/5 109/8 131/1 135/11 145/6 148/2 150/4 150/13 155/19 157/5 160/12 170/19 177/9 194/9 197/7 also -- 135/23 alternative 158/2 always 145/3 am 116/18 172/14 203/13 203/15 203/17 Amen 141/7 amended 153/20 amending 113/10 amendment 105/16 119/13 120/23 166/22 189/15 189/19 191/8 amendment -- 191/7 amendments 197/2 ameni t:y 118/18 American 148/24 among 126/25 amount 112/14 140/9 analysis 105/15 108/12 108/25 113/25 126/24 analyze 185/17 185/18 185/19 analyzed 107/11 anathema 132/4 annex 141/17 141/19 141/21 annexation 171/10 anomaly 115/7 another 112/2 112/20 118/3 178/12 196/16 198/16 201/10 answer 132/1 anthema 143/5 anticipate 160/3 195/12 any 106/18 106/23 115/21 124/8 134/17 136/13 142/25 148/22 161/22 170/22 172/5 175/21 183/2 186/11 187/14 190/11 193/4 194/2 196/2 200/13 202/6 203/14 203/15 anybody 190/14 190/19 anything 104/23 109/10 111/13 111/18 119/16 123/8 123/12 126/8 146/22 191/9 192/12 192/24 202/15 anywhere 113/20 152/11 appearance 102/16 108/13 145/11 APPEARANCES 102/1 appears 110/9 applicant 115/21 applicant's 168/5 applicants -- 180/10 application 116/13 117/7 155/25 168/16 180/11 applied 154/20 191/19 apply 168/13 177/22 Appreciate 193/1 approach 190/15 approached 190/20 appropriate 108/24 113/12 115/25 116/2 approval 120/15 approved 119/13 119/15 189/15 189/16 approximately 114/2 154/23 155/7 162/13 175/3 April 105/10 107/11 120/20 April 1st 120/17 aptly 174/9 are 104/17 106/8 107/4 109/13 111/10 111/21 116/3 117/17 117/21 118/25 121/8 121/9 '20's 139/3 '74 151/7 '76 137/20 137/23 '77 137/25 138/1 138/8 '77 -- 138/6 '79 151/7 151/22 , 80 196/7 '87 157/19 196/13 '88 157/19 '89 148/10 '90's 122/10 '92 157/17 -- 111/4 111/7 121/6 122/2 124/15 129/4 134/21 134/22 134/23 137/19 139/15 139/17 141/2 142/24 144/14 144/15 148/9 148/11 148/20 148/21 151/9 153/19 157/18 168/8 174/19 174/21 175/22 175/24 175/25 176/15 176/17 178/1 180/19 187/16 187/18 191/15 191/16 191/17 193/6 193/8 197/8 197/10 197/12 197/13 197/22 199/5 199/22 199/24 200/10 200/21 200/22 ----------- 102/11 o 000 127/20 127/22 127/22 152/19 159/19 159/23 166/17 03-1500 101/2 1 1.3 150/20 1.4 150/9 1.4 million 150/21 10 101/17 103/12 109/4 109/7 171/18 171/20 104 102/18 11 103/13 118/25 171/23 171/24 171/25 11-11-84 168/23 112: 101/19 12 103/14 154/16 155/1 155/2 172/10 172/12 176/12 197/3 121 102/18 124, 102/18 1250 102/19 12Ei 102/19 13 194/8 194/11 195/4 196/6 196/9 196/10 196/21 197/10 13CI 102/20 137 102/20 14 103/15 112/19 173/5 146 102/20 103/4 147 102/21 US' 103/5 15 101/17 103/16 150/3 176/19 116/21 202/14 15.5 151/12 15,6 151/14 15J. 103/6 154~ 103/7 158 102/21 16 103/17 166/17 176/19 176/21 161 102/22 163 103/8 167 103/9 103/10 17 103/18 181/22 181/24 181/25 17 percent 120/7 170 103/11 171. 103/12 103/13 172 103/14 107/11 107/23 173 103/15 176 103/16 103/17 18 103/19 160/21 160/24 181/23 181/24 181/25 181 103/18 103/19 182 102/22 19 103/4 107/20 107/23 109/6 109/16 109/23 109/24 110/6 110/16 111/4 111/7 111/12 111/14 111/17 112/16,113/5 113/14 113/20 113/23 114/6 115/5 115/8 124/25 132/23 133/22 146/16 146/17 146/19 156/15 156/19 157/1 157/3 163/21 183/5 185/8 19 -- 109/2 190 102/22 1926 197/2 193 102/23 195 102/23 1970 147/9 147/13 147/14 148/8 1970's 147/17 156/20 156/25 1972 149/13 162/7 162/10 1973 149/13 1974 149/14 149/21 1975 150/16 151/25 153/16 1979 151/6 1980 152/25 154/4 158/17 163/18 164/3 164/17 172/18 196/5 199/17 200/4 1980's 153/21 157/19 172/20 1981 147/18 147/21 148/5 148/9 1982 165/16 165/17 189/1 194/3 195/8 196/6 197/2 198/14 198/17 1982-1987 198/22 1984 169/9 1987 167/15 171/22 172/6 172/20 189/1 195/23 196/6 198/13 198/14 198/17 1988 156/16 1989 148/1 148/5 1990 122/10 172/15 172/16 172/18 1990's 158/15 190/14 1991 157/17 1992 157/12 1995 162/21 1999 173/8 1st 185/7 190/24 2 2 -- 109/3 155/19 2.5 123/12 123/17 123/20 124/12 125/23 126/9 127/15 128/3 128/8 128/10 128/16 128/24 129/1 129/8 129/10 153/12 170/11 170/20 171/14 172/21 173/17 175/24 176/25 177/10 178/17 179/3 179/6 191/8 195/24 197/25 198/4 199/3 199/8 201/24 20 127/20 127/22 127/24 202/14 200 102/3 200 feet 113/4 2001 135/8 136/11 12002 107/9 107/11 108/18 109/15 2003 101/17 105/10 172/4 173/20 173/25 196/6 196/7 200/4 203/19 ' 20th 203/19 21 107/6 195/8 195/12 22 108/11 108/18 23 107/14 107/16 195/18 196/15 196/21 2350 130/8 24 -- 117/23 25 104/10 25th -- 175/10 26 130/23 137/18 138/7 27 130/22 130/23 133/13 137/17 137/18 29 114/7 3 3-55 180/7 30 131/19 150/3 151/14 159/23 202/11 '300 152/19 315 102/7 3176 169/12 3182 169/12 32 112/8 '112/8' 33 147/10 33756 102/3 102/8 34 117/23 119/8 142/5 144/10 146/2 188/17 188/18 188/20 35 143/17 145/21 36 118{3 118/24 3rd 132/11 4 40 101/17 202/20 45-50 139/9 46 118/10 143/19 144/1 144/12 145/20 183/25 184/7 184/19 184/23 185/14 186/22 5 5-mi1e 114/2 115/8 50 percent 120/9 50-cent 110/21 580 111/9 114/4 114/14 6 60 106/5 114/3 625 102/3 7 7-0 120/18 7.5 153/5 153/14 165/4 196/12 198/3 198/19 199/3 7.5 units 151/11 7.6 151/12 727-441-2404 101/24 727-441-8966 102/4 727-464-3354"102/8 8 80's 150/12 82-38 166/22- 89-4 177/2 9 90 108/17 144/9 144/10 144/17 90's 124/1 934 159/19 A \ ability 125/18 152/21 B but 106/1 106/18 122/5 124/20 125/7 125/9 126/15 127/7 128/2 128/19 129/1 132/16 133/1 135/11 136/6 138/4 138/22 139/14 139/17 139/25 140/6 140/16 140/24 141/18 141/22 145/4 145/25 151/6 154/7 157/5 157/11 157/14 158/6 158/17 159/12 160/2 160/7 160/12 167/19 167/24 171/14 173/8 174/13 175/14 181/13 184/9 184/15 189/25 190/21 191/4 191/18 193/12 196/2 197/13 197/14 197/20 198/6 200/15 201/12 201/22 202/1 butchered 159/10 buy 116/8 140/9 140/11 141/1 145/13 183/24 buying 131/25 140/16 bypassed 132/25 C Cadillac 112/22 112/23 calculated 150/9 calculations 120/5 call 114/18 125/10 127/18 129/24 135/15 138/7 146/25 168/15 180/2 181/9 185/16 called 120/20 122/21 138/19 163/2 I calling 113/22 calming 120/11 Calvin 120/22 came 120/2 120/13 138/5 150/19 152/8162/11 164/14 194/19 camp 199/8 : camp -- 171/2 can 107/1 118/15 123/16 125/9 126/14 130/5'134/3 135/3 135/12 144/21 147/12 149/11 151/5 151/9 153/4 154/4 160/11 163/23 164/10 164/13 164/22 165/18 166/3 167/16 167/18 167/20 172/5 172/15 172/18 179/18 183/5 185/14 187/3 187/4 187/4 187/6 187/8 187/18 187/25 188/15 190/18 191/9 200/23, can't 124/14 129/5 129/10 134/1 142/17' 164/3 167/23 186/6 191/17 196/16 200/25 cannot 129/7 capacity 107/24 109/7 111/14 111/17 150/10 192/4 car 125/2 190/24 care 144/25 ,145/2 149/18 career 190/16 cars 131/14 case 101/2 104/13 106/18 106/21 117/6 117/15 117/15 143/7 166/22 167/2 167/22 168/22 169/11 170/3 171/8 171/16 191/14 197/21 197/21 Cassel 102/22 106/14 161/25 162/4 168/25 182/4 190/14 192/25 201/21 categories 149/21 150/1 150/6 150/23 151/15 151/20 151/21 152/9 152/15 153/2 153/4 153/22 154/3 154/6 154/7 154/15 154/22 155/13 156/1 37/10 137/12 137/14 141/17 156/11 156/21 157/13 157/15 .41/18 141/20 164/8 171/3 158/13 158/16 158/19 165/7 171/5 171/10 171/12 183/14 167/2 167/3 200/18 191/17 category 123/21 152/12 153/7 City'S 125/20 155/18 157/2 157/5 166/20 classifications 151/21 168/14 177/11 177/12 194/14 classified 116/5 194/15 200/4 clause 140/1 COB 117/9 clean 141/23 cemetery 196/1 cleaner 177/6 center 112/25 132/24 clear 144/6 central-easterly 167/21 clearly 124/19 136/12 195/10 certain 145/11 201/8 201/6 201/10 certainly 143/16 180/5 181/13 Clearwater 101/6 101/18 102/3 184/16 186/2 187/6 189/10 102/8 105/19 108/1 108/22 CER~IFICATE 203/2 117/9 117/9 119/24 121/9 Certified 148/25 126/17 129/2 130/8 132/2 certify 203/8 203/13 137/11 141/20 164/9 171/3 chaired 141/11 171/5 171/10 171/12 189/14 chance- 106/1 193/21 194/1 189/19 189/20 191/18 199/8 change 133/13 134/8 143/14 Clearwater's 179/10 180/24 143/20 144/1 144/3 144/6 close 113/23 160/1 173/9 144/8 144/11 145/22 146/2 closer 156/7 156/13 149/25 160/8 168/2 169/5 cluster 118/15 123/11 125/18 170/13 171/11 178/7 179/14 126/14 127/9 128/17 142/25 179/24 184/8 186/18 188/25 144/22 179/3 179/4 190/6 190/18 190/19 191/3 cluster -- 128/20 191/12 191/13 191/20 191/22 clustered 118/9 129/9 143/9 194/12 194/19 194/20 194/23 144/18 195/1 195/3 196/19 198/8 clustering 123/7 123/17 198/13 198/17 200/3 200/10 124/12 126/2 126/9 126/18 201/14 201/16 143/10 179/7 change -- 198/7 Coachman 110/6 changed 136/16 151/7 151/25 Coast 104/18 158/20 180/25 186/22 194/8 code 124/11 125/20 125/21 194/9 194/16 195/9 195/11 126/2 126/22 196/3 196/8 196/14 201/3 coherent 178/4 changes 172/6 178/11 189/7 COLE 102/2 174/9 189/10 192/8 193/21 194/3 color 114/19 114/21 165/1 195/13 195/25 165/12 165/22 170/9 170/9 changing 110/13 136/14 186/17 color -- 164/25 character 131/2 133/14 134/8 colored 114/19 140/22 143/14 143/21 144/2 colorful 114/8 144/3 144/7 144/8 145/22 combination 174/25 192/15 146/2 168/2 169/21 170/1 come 107/18 111/18 115/20 178/10 178/21 179/14 179/24 115/21 118/12 121/15 121/17 180/16 181/1 184/1 184/9 121/21 131/24 145/18 159/12 184/15 186/17 186/18 186/21 175/14 183/3 186/20 189/8 189/4 191/6 comes 109/10 137/11 141/8 characteristic 136/20 136/22 comfortable 111/21 characteristics 143/23 183/2 coming 133/22 159/21 185/18 characterize 136/17 181/12 185/20 charter 148/24 comment 142/20 143/12 chartreuse 170/8 comments 119/17 135/25 charts 189/2 commercial 112/15 113/14 Chautauqua 111/22 113/1 113/16 114/25 115/2 115/2 114/16 116/4 116/4 120/3 115/10 115/15 115/19 116/20 132/12 133/6 146/12 163/19 116/22 130/25 132/25 133/2 164/16 165/17 167/15 171/22 134/3 134/4 134/7 138/24 172/3 172/17 181/19 193/22 144/21 149/18 156/15 156/19 Chelsea 173/2 173/2 198/12 156/22 156/23 157/9 183/4 Chevrolet 112/24 183/7 183/10 chicken 201/6 commission 111/2 117/9 141/11 Cindy 105/23 106/8 106/11 141/11 167/25 169/5 189/20 117/14 117/19 124/16 124/17 Commissioner 120/22 140/20 125/17 159/1 182/12 193/13 COMMISSIONERS 101/11 157/25 193/20 169/10 180/9 201/20 circumstances 185/24 communicate 112/11 112/13 city 101/6 101/18 101/18 community 117/4 131/21 145/14 104/16 105/2 105/19 107/25 comp 153/22 108/22 111/23 117/9 119/24 compare 118/8 120/6 120/12 122/24 124/11 compared 187/22 194/7 124/17 125/21 126/2 129/2 comparisons 118/11 132/1 136/24 137/7 137/9 compat~le 116/9 123/25 A are -- 128/25 area 109/23 110/5 112/3 112/5 112/15 113/10 122/19 123/3 125/24 131/3 131/6 131/9 131/16 131/17 132/3 132/5 132/11 133/14 133/18 133/23 134/5 134/8 134/11 134/16 135/13 136/18 136/21 136/22 138/18 139/1 139/23 142/16 143/15 143/21 143/23 144/2 144/3 144/7 144/8 144/11 145/23 146/2 146/12 163/25 164/1 164/5 164/6 164/6 164/24 165/9 165/19 166/19 168/18 169/6 169/13 169/20 169/21 169/25 170/1 170/6 170/7 170/25 171/15 172/6 172/20 173/2 176/25 178/20 179/5 179/11 179/19 179/20 179/21 181/1 181/4 181/11 181/14 189/5 189/9 191/2 192/19 195/23 196/17 197/4 197/24 198/2 198/4 199/19 199/21 201/2 201/17 201/23 area -- 123/5 170/5 201/21 arE!as 116/3 118/17 122/14 128/5 128/5 131/5 134/6 134/7 136/25 155/10 155/11 155/21 156/24 160/6 167/20 178/11 188/1 188/1 arElas -- 173/1 aren't 198/25 198/25 argue 188/16 argument 160/11 ar~~nts 168/5 around 105/10 118/22 131/5 131/9 131/22 131/23 132/25 149/13 157/19 160/15 163/24 164/23 164/24 165/19 181/11 184/12 ar:dved 186/3 aside 179/2 ask 126/7 159/13 196/24 asked 118/8 126/8 131/25 171/12 184/23 186/15 201/1 asking 142/24 176/7 190/21 ass:emblage 175/17 assembling 174/14 assess 184/23 ass,essing 194/2 assessment 107/8 ass,igned 166/5 167/2 167/5 ass,istance 105/6 assistant 102/6 147/16 148/7 162/16 associated 177/14 177/19 Associates 101/24 assume 119/2 123/23 195/19 202/18 assumptions 177/3 at -- 154/16 attached 118/8 118/13 119/7 125/21 128/14 142/22 attempting 192/3 attorney 102/6 139/21 141/5 203/14 203/16 auction 140/18 AUTHORITY 101/11 120/15 120/16 180/9 Authority -- 192/10 authorized 203/9 available 141/16 Avenue 101/19 111/22 113/1 116/4 120/4 132/12 185/7 190/24 avoid 188/13 aware 108/4 108/6 122/5 122/9 122/12 122/19 122/22 123/8 123/14 126/11 133/4 133/7 140/7 173/21 awav 124/25 133/21 beholder 142/13 being 113/8 116/15 122/1 122/10 122/17 122/20 123/25 123/25 137/8 137/10 157/25 168/7 174/18 186/23' believe 106/24 107/11 116/16 120/14 124/5 129/8 132/16 133/10 136/9 143/22 170/21 175/6 179/16 180/1 190/24 195/25 believed 123/22 BA 148/20 benefit 101/6 104/25 128/19 babbling 189/12 189/25 bachelor's 148/17 163/1 benefits 123/16 123/20 126/19 back 105/9 107/9 120/21 128/21 128/22 128/25 125/11 130/19 131/8 131/10 Bertells 105/20 131/13 133/12 133/18 138/2 beside 115/1 139/3 145/18 156/16 158/7 besides 114/24 158/9 168/13 172/14 172/15 better 158/14 159/14 166/25 178/18 186/20 187/8 between 106/3 109/17 116/4 background 162/25 170/22 127/24 141/10 170/8 170/24 bag 195/6 173/22 198/13 198/14 198/17 bank 135/24 136/7 198/22 200/4 barely 138/2 between -- 167/16 base 192/17 beyond 131/13 based 116/24 120/5 120/18 big 198/20 166/13 168/1 181/17 191/5 binder 160/19 191/25 birthdays 138/2 basically 135/17 148/11 149/8 bit 105/23 117/14 156/14 157/14 158/17 162/11 163/19 blacktop 136/25 163/20 163/23 164/11 164/25 blessed 189/19 165/9 165/18 167/6 167/15 blessing 117/8 172/4 172/22 173/7 173/14 block 114/6 174/1 174/5 180/7 180/18 blue 195/25 195/25 191/13 195/23 196/13 197/17 board 101/10 157/24 158/3 199/19 158/3 168/4 168/11 169/10 basis 106/7 149/13 169/18 180/8 189/19 201/19 Bay 111/9 114/3 114/14 book 118/25 be -- 166/12 books 157/21 Beardsley 161/12 161/13 Booth 163/20 161/18 182/16 both 177/16 188/6 188/7 beautification 142/14 bottom 198/21 ' beauty 142/12 142/16 bought 131/21 136/2 138/11 became 158/1 158/3 162/14 138/13 139/15 139/15 140/7 162/15 162/23 140/9 140/17 140/19 because 105/24 111/9 111/13 Boulevard 111/9 114/3 114/14 121/25 124/1 127/14 128/25 Boy 170/21 170/24 171/1 199/7 133/19 136/1 137/10 138/23 break 129/23 193/9 193/10 140/10 142/17 144/5 144/24 Brian 102/21 117/19 146/25 152/9 157/22 157/25 167/18 147/1 147/6 161/4 182/8 174/19 178/18 187/21 192/3 Briefly 135/20 196/16 199/12 200/2 bright 164/25 165/12 165/22 become 112/7 134/12 141/8 bring 179/11 145/14 bringing 152/20 becomes 138/3 brings 173/20 been 108/15 117/8 119/14 broke 155/19 128/4 130/22 131/20 131/25 broken 136/25 132/1 133/2 134/13 135/4 broker 131/1,134/3 144/21 136/10 138/20 139/5 147/10 brought 138/16 168/15 201/23 147/20 152/2 153/7 158/17 buffer 113/12 162/24 168/3 172/19 -172/23 build 119/4 138/10 140/10 173/14 175/8 175/11 176/24 140/21 175/3 180/19 182/24 183/16 186/3 building 112/20 132/17 133/5 186/5 186/14 188/2 190/25 138/14 140/25 191/1 192/8 196/16 196/17 buildings 144/10 144/12 196/18 200/7 buil t 122/1 122/10 122/18 before 101/15 142/7 149/25 122/20 123/25 131/16 131/23 160/19 165/5 186/21 201/14 132/13 132/15 132/22 132/24 before -- 180/4 133/3 138/12 173/17 176/10 began 109/22 150/16 164/7 186/23 194/22 beginning 109/23 149/9 155/8 built -- 138/12 begun 110/7 110/11 bulk 132/17 behalf 102/5 102/9 189/22 bumps 134/1 " , , behind 113/1 business 129/14 135/11 B / c - compatible with 177/25 complete 203/11 complex 112/17 112/18 comprehensive! 123/11 138/19 142/15 143/11,151/1 152/24 154/9 177/4 192/11 concede 185/23 187/8 187/10 187/13 conce1ve 185/11 concentrate 155/10 concentrated 197/25 concept 117/25 118/9 119/8 133/4 133/8 149/22 192/16 concepts 191/25 concern 111/24 150/20 185/2 186/7 186/12 : concerned 136/7 157/1 184/24 concerns 186/10 conclusion 107/18 107/21 117/20 119/18'200/2 conclusions 189/24 concur 106/25 conduct 105/18 conducting 105/21 conduit 133/21 configuration 177/18 confi~ 104/13 107/7 confor-mance 160/15 confused 196/15 confusing 139/1 connected 203/16 connection 105/4 conservation :,153/11 consider 115/7 116/23 consideration 178/6 185/6 considered 107/25 108/24 127/25 128/1 136/15 183/8 consist 169/13 consistency 123/10 consistent 117/2 166/11 168/11 171/1~ 172/24 176/15 178/19 184/6 184/11 consisting 144/10 constitutes 188/15 constitutional 157/23 158/2 constrained 157/6 191/10 191/19 constrains 160/13 constraints 118/23 constructed 175/8 constructing 120/8 construction '109/22 109/25 110/7 110/10 ' Consultants 104/21 104/23 104/24 118/2 Consulting 104/19 contacted 105/19 119/25 contemplate 160/8 contemplated 178/12 contend 184/19 contest 142/16 continuation '175/6 continuation -- 175/5 contrast 106/4 127/20 control 149/22 150/7 156/8 conveying 113/3 coordinator 162/15 , copy 104/10 104/12 107/8 160/24 177/6 202/17 corner 125/24 198/21 200/5 corner-lot 126/1 correct 104/7 105/7 106/19 107/4 107/5 108/9 109/6 111/16 113/18 117/12 120/24 125/3 130/15 132/10 140/24 145/18 146/3 151/8 156/16 159/7 159/9 161/2 165/8 165/12 167/9 173/3 173/16 174/7 179/1 180/20 180/22 189/6 192/5 198/15 198/25 199/23 199/25 200/1 correct -- 191/10 correctly 116/19 corridor 114/4 115/9 156/16 170/11 173/10 175/7 183/4 195/24 corridor -- 173/12 178/19 199/3 cost 120/7 could 118/4 122/4 123/2 123/4 123/23 127/9 128/15 129/5 130/9 131/2 132/23 136/16 138/12 140/16 140/21 151/1 153/21 155/21 156/22 157/4 157/5 160/11 168/25 177/7 177/8 179/16 180/12 181/12 192/6 192/11 could -- 192/10 couldn't 123/11 124/19 127/9 128/1 150/20 157/22 council 111/25 147/24 148/3 157/20 157/22 157/23 158/3 166/23 counsel 164/19 202/11 202/15 203/14 203/16 count 197/9 counted 196/9 Country 200/6 Countryside 164/6 164/15 county 101/10 101/10 102/6 102/7 109/15 111/2 114/1 114/12 117/11 119/25 121/9 121/12 121/14 122/13 126/13 132/2 133/6 137/7 137/15 138/21 140/18 141/10 141/11 146/24 147/6 147/8 147/21 148/1 148/12 149/9 149/12 149/17 150/8 150/17 150/21 150/25 152/7 152/17 152/19 152/20 152/24 154/8 154/11 154/16 154/22 155/2 155/11 157/8 157/24 159/18 162/4 162/6 162/11 162/21 163/6 163/7 163/9 163/24 164/1 164/5 165/5 165/15 169/4 169/10 171/8 173/22 174/2 174/5 174/16 174/21 175/1 175/21 177/2 177/5 179/2 179/5 180/7 180/8 180/8 182/19 184/4 184/22 185/3 185/13 188/9 189/22 190/16 191/18 191/21 193/3 193/24 200/17 201/10 201/20 201/23 202/18 203/6 County -- 122/13 County to 175/10 countywide 101/11 114/12 120/15 120/16 123/9 123/10 123/13 126/9 149/13 149/14 149/20 150/5 153/20 154/11 157/25 177/4 180/9 181/16 192/10 192/11 192/13 couple 139/11 140/4 172/14 course 113/25 146/20 Court 102/3 102/7 203/23 cover 193/13 ~ 186/5 186/6 aated 153/5 153/7 157/2 162/21 170/10 criteria 125/24 125/25 126/1 cross 102/17 106/11 CROSS-E~ATION 121/3 126/5 137/5 158/22 182/2 195/16 current 147/4 155/15 159/17 162/3 currently 112/3 customized 157/3 cut 108/19 133/20 133/23 134/2 134/16 cut-through 133/5 133/17 180/2 180/21 cutting 145/4 180/3 Cynthia 102/19 102/23 106/22 108/7 109/9 125/14 193/17 ICVDress 112/25 D date 138/9 164/3 201/5 dated 173/24 203/19 dates 105/9 194/9 Dave 158/12 DAVID 102/6 124/19 137/21 143/5 186/15 189/2 day 188/2 203/19 days 202/12 202/14 deal 119/9 122/12 141/12 dealership 112/17 112/22 112/23 112/24 113/17 125/2 debate 197/12 Debra 101/24 December 135/8 136/11 decision 129/3 129/14 129/15 178/13 178/14 198/9 201/11 decisions 160/17 178/24 198/10 decisions -- 157/23 declared 158/8 decline 198/6 declined 197/6 deed -- 175/9 deeded 175/11 deep 157/10 defer 124/16 124/17 define 152/6 152/17 defined 156/6 165/7 definitely 133/24 definition 154/14 155/15 155/24 156/2 definitive 150/22 degree 105/1 105/2 134/6 148/17 159/5 159/7 162/14 163/1 163/3 demand 194/21 demonstrated 117/22 145/21 188/20 demonstration 118/4 denial 120/18 denied 169/18 180/10 201/22 densities 115/11 127/14 167/8 187/20 187/21 density 113/22 115/15 116/20 123/12 123/15 123/18 123/24 124/2 125/18 126/14 126/18 127/12 127/19 131/6 136/14 136/15 138/15 140/7 142/15 143/10 149/16 149/21 150/5 151/11 151/13 153/8 153/13 160/12 165/1 165/2 165/3 165/13 168/7 169/14 172/24 178/25 181/5 183/10 187/14 188/11 188/11 188/23 189/25 190/8 190/19 196/2 200/24 don't -- 144/24 176/10 DONALD 101/15 done 104/22 123/25 156/18 157/5 166/25 173/14 174/18 194/16 197/2 dotted 113/6 179/20 doubled 192/20 192/22 doubles 181/5 doubt 202/2 down 110/2 115/4 115/8 115/17 122/25 135/16 136/5 152/9 152/13 153/5 155/18 155/20 157/11 167/21 179/12 183/5 189/3 200/21 down-land 172/21 199/19 downland 196/12 downplan 198/9 201/12 downplanned 201/2 downstream 110/2 downzoned 155/12 172/21 199/19 199/21 downzoned -- 176/25 downzoning 194/4 200/14 200/19 dozen 131/13 drastically 134/9 drawing 112/6 143/17 145/21 146/1 127/6 Drew 109/24 Drive 112/19 113/5 130/8 driving 133/19 due 110/13 175/16 176/3 during 147/16 156/25 -169/12 176/12 190/14 190/16 194/11 203/12 dwelling 171/14 192/21 198/4 dwellings 125/22 127/16 144/11 E didn't 122/2 128/7 128/17 140/10 140/20 141/21 156/L density -- 165/10 170/3 197/9 199/1 department 108/4 109/21 difference 144/19 170/8 147/15 147/19 147/21 161/13 difference -- 172/16 162/20 162/22 162/23 different 141/8 145/3 153/1 depicted 146/1 154/19 154/21 156/14 158/12 depth 156/18 166/4 184/20 187/19 187/24 depths 157/9 196/19 DESC 103/3 differently 159/12 describe 131/2 172/5 172/16 difficult 191/3 191/5 described 126/20 185/25 DIMMITT 101/6 101/7 105/14 Design 104/20 104/22 104/23 112/23 131/14 133/23 136/11 118/2 190/23 designation 113/21 116/1 Direct 102/17 104/2 125/15 149/17 187/1 187/2 130/3 147/2 162/1 193/18 designations 154/20 169/20 directed 169/19 169/22 169/24 169/25 179/6 187/14 189/1 directly 118/25 132/23 137/11 designator 165/1 165/2 165/13 167/19 167/22 174/3 165/23 168/17 172/25 191/13 director 105/20 147/16 147/16 de,signators 165/21 165/25 147/18 147/20 147/25 148/2 166/4 166/5 148/2 148/4 148/7 161/4 de1signed 110/25 162/16 162/17 162/18 162/23 delsirable 183/23 162/24 delsire 174/23 directors 168/16 delsired 111/12 dirt 184/16 200/16 200/16 detached 118/19 128/12 128/14 disadvantages 118/12 131/20 132/3 139/23 145/1 disagree 188/10 deltail 155/20 discovering 138/4 detailed 152/14 154/18 discussed 127/1 186/21 ~ltermine 119/25 discussion 109/9 125/17 deltermined 109/1 149/16 127/10 202/9 156/10 194/20 196/8 198/11 discussions 105/24 140/3 develop 121/16 121/17 disruptive 178/5 188/14 dElveloped 107/22 118/5 121/22 188/21 188/23 1.23/3 123/4 135/4 136/10 distance 113/19 1.43/19 150/5 154/9 165/25 district 125/22 127/8 127/18 1.78/10 182/25 196/18 200/7 128/11 129/3 129/6 133/1 200/7 133/2 dEnreloper 108/14 111/23 120/5 district -- 127/2 120/6 120/8 120/10 135/5 dist;ricts 128/13 129/4 151/3 185/13 194/20 divided 154/16 d~!veloper's 191/19 division 101/1 101/4 147/14 developing 118/10 124/3 124/5 161/14 175/22 184/6 184/9 190/15 do 104/8 106/22 113/23 114/10 d4!velopment 108/16 111/12 116/7 116/11 120/1 123/15 112/15 113/4 113/23 122/5 123/23 123/23 124/11 126/1 122/6 122/15 122/23 123/1 128/15 129/5 129/5 129/24 124/21 136/3 136/13 139/22 133/13 136/9 141/4 141/19 145/19 145/25 155/17 156/2 142/3 142/18 142/18 142/23 156/5 156/23 157/9 160/3 144/24 145/6 145/8 146/12 160/5 160/11 160/13 162/22 146/14 156/7 159/1 159/8 164/7 164/14 170/5 170/11 159/14 160/14 161/17 164/18 171/3 172/23 173/11 173/15 169/23 170/21 172/2 175/5 174/22 175/6 175/18 176/2 179/6 179/13 179/17 180/1 177/20 177/25 178/3 178/12 182/11 183/12 184/20 185/10 181/4 183/6 184/12 185/18 185/23 186/16 187/7 187/10 185/21 188/20 189/19 194/18 187/13 188/9 190/3 190/17 195/2 195/11 200/11 201/14 191/21 192/12 193/12 194/1 development -- 177/15 178/2 201/19 developments 118/14 152/10 document 160/24 diagram 191/11 does 111/18 118/21 118/22 did 105/18 107/9 107/10 124/14 143/16 143/16 160/7 107/18 108/7 120/8 120/10 175/10 181/3 121/24 122/5 126/24 127/5 doesn't 125/24 125/25 129/5 127/7 127/23 135/6 135/10 doing 138/23 160/14 135/12 135/14 135/18 137/16 dominated 115/9 138/10 140/11 147/23 150/4 don't 106/17 116/16 121/19 153/7 153/18 157/3 158/5 121/22 126/15 128/9 129/8 158/5 182/18 182/21 189/20 131/7 136/14 137/12 138/17 189/21 189/21 189/21 189/22 139/4 139/4 141/3 141/5 190/14 193/25 194/5 194/6 142/19 143/5 159/11 174/12 195/4 197/16 197/19 197/19 181/12 182/22 183/1 183/19 198/7 201/10 203/9 184/10 184/13 185/22 186/6 D each 106/16 116/15 119/3 119/9 154/17 155/3 155/4 187/15 189/23 190/4 190/4 earlier 121/15 121/25 126/20 128/4 135/5 151/2 164/8 196/11 earlier -- 192/18 early 156/20 158/15 east 113/4 163/21 190/23 economic 128/17 177/3 183/24 education 148/16 162/25 effect 108/12 126/23 150/15 154/8 155/13 185/6 effective 149/23 effects 123/7 184/24 185/2 efficient 177/18 efficiently 186/14 effort 154/18 166/11 166/25 efforts 160/10 egg 201/7 eight 164/8 194/25 either 136/5 143/8 elaborate 179/18 elected 158/1 elements 150/17 else 109/10 111/18 119/16 131/21 146/22 192/24 Elysium 173/2 employed 105/5 employee 203/14 203/15 employer 147/5,162/3, end 109/24 155/8 164/12 189/4 194/17 195/2 _ exi t 185/25 expect 178/22 expectation 108/15 131/19 134/10 134/13 135/1 expectations 131/15 178/22 expected 132/8 132/9 134/19 166/12 expense 111/22 experience 116/24 explain 112/10 153/4 165/18 177/9 explain -- 135/12 explore 185/24 exploring 128/2 express 106/23 142/10 182/7 expressed 116/25 136/13 182/11 186/10 expression 110/20 110/21 113/15 expressway 111/8 extend 111/22 113/7 extends 113/4 145/7 extension 120/3 extensively 119/24 extremely 191/5 eyeball 112/9 eyes 142/12 178/2 E enforce 149/23 engaged 105/13 107/3 engagement 105/12 engineering 105/20 185/16 enough 129/10 144/4 ensure 169/20 169/25 189/4 enter 153/23 170/14 181/22 Enterprise 109/17 110/16 133/6 134/18 134/21 163/21 179/12 entire 127/6 129/12 141/8 199/21 201/2 201/16 entities 190/5 environmental 118/23 123/19 128/22 environmentally 118/16 equivalent 118/20 ESQUIRE 102/2 102/6 essentially 104/24 111/1 111/7 173/19 181/5 establish 128/11 established 150/13 160/4 160/5 160/13 178/10 180/25 191/6 estate 116/22 122/21 122/21 evaluation 105/22 even 107/17 114/18 119/25 136/14 136/23' 138/22 140/10 144/25 145/12: 156/16 ever 129/9 135/18 159/13 190/20 every 199/5 everyone 131/21 144/16 everything 198/9 evidence 146/8 146/18 146/19 149/6 151/18 163/16 167/12 170/17 171/20 171/25 172/12 176/22 182/1 evil 143/5 evolved 150/22 exact 201/5 exactly 175/3 199/16 exactly -- 189/3 EXAMINATION 104/2 124/9 125/15 130/3 146/9 147/2 162/1 190/12 193/18 example 145/21 152/25 153/1 155/22 156/24 197/22 198/12 198/16 198/16 examples 113/20 195/19 excellent 112/1 except 165/10 excerpt 114/13 exchanged 122/13 excuse 117/23 executive 147/25 148/2 148/4 exhibit 103/4 103/5 103/6 103/7 103/8 103/9 103/10 103/11 103/12 103/13 103/14 103/15 103/16 103/17 103/18 103/19 108/18 112/7 114/16 146/16 146/19 149/6 151/16 151/18 153/24 154/1 163/14 163/16 163/18 165/16 167/12 170/15 170/17 171/18 171/20 171/23 171/25 172/9 172/12 173/5 176/19 181/22 195/20 exhibits 103/1 108/11 176/21 181/25 188/13 193/24 196/5 existence 138/20 existing 154/19 169/21 170/1 175/17 176/3181/4 185/20 F facilities 150/10 fact 108/22 117/6 120/22 131/24 136/23 169/1 176/6 185/3 187/21 189/7 198/19 factors 160/16 fair 138/8 144/3 fairly 112/15 familiar 148/11 163/5 163/11 166/21 family 106/4 106/6 118/5 118/10 118/13 118/19 119/7 122/6 122/7 122/15 122/20 123/2 123/4 124/21 127/16 128/6 128/12 128/13 129/4 131/20 132/3 132/19 132/21 133/2 136/6 139/23 140/12 143/20 144/20 145/1 145/20 166/16 167/25 169/14 170/11 171/14 172/24 173/15 174/24 175/4 175/7 176/13 176/14 176/17 179/21 183/25 186/23 192/15 196/18 198/4 family -- 144/18 fancy 110/22 far 119/17 136/7 145/23 175/13 183/14 184/6 186/13 190/2 fashion 185/11 favorable 189/20 favorably 190/6 favored 120/23 feasible 123/22 feasibly 129/13 feet 127/20 127/22 felt 119/19 158/13 183/23 fences 119/4 Ferguson 102/2 few 122/7 172/8 fifth 110/15 figured 136/3 file 202/12 202/13 financed 134/4 135/21 financially 203/17 financing 138/12 138/24 ~d 113/20 140/1 142/11 34/6 findings 169/1 fine 104/9 141/13 141/13 finer 155/20 fingertips 142/4 finish 200/23 firm 138/6 170/25 first 108/19 109/14 119/21 129/24 132/15 153/6 163/25 169/8 177/13 200/4 fi t 129/11 five 112/21 134/11 162/13 167/17 195/3 201/10 flats 127/10 flexibility 118/14 118/22 flexibility -- 118/21 floor 110/3 ' FLORIDA 101/1 101/19 101/23 102/3 102/8 104/20 104/22 104/23 108/4 109/21 118/2 148/18 148/18 163/2 203/5 flow 134/7 156/24 flower 145/5 folks 106/16 131/24 133/21 190/17 200/25 follow 113/6 followed 115/10 173/13 foo-foo 142/17 Fools 120/20 foot 127/23 139/10 166/17 for -- 196/1 force 150/15 Ford 112/17 foregoing 203/10 203/10 forgot 146/7 formerly 104/19 forth 166/1 167/1 168/15 forum 182/7 forward 115/21 115/21 121/16 121/17 121/21 150/12 165/14 175/14 found 140/15 152/5 155/20 157/20 160/21 194/10 four 128/13 129/4 132/16 162/13 194/15 194/15 196/4 199/17 200/20 201/3 four-years 126/23 frame 194/11 197/16 Freedom 112/17 friend 140/2 141/14 friendly 118/16 from -- 199/16 from a 174/11 front 167/22 198/20 frontage 176/4 176/4 full 107/13 functioning 111/8 funded 110/15 funding 110/14 further 110/9 124/25 129/18 137/4 146/21 158/21 181/20 192/23 202/3 202/15 203/13 future 112/4 114/1 114/13 152/6 152/19 152/20 156/12 164/16 165/17 167/15 172/3 193/23 200/15 G gardens 145/5 gates 160/1 gear 137/19 general 117/4 161/14 163/9 164/10 166/18 170/7 183/8 G gEmeralized 156/11 gE~nera11y 115/13 133/11 155/12 155/14 172/23 190/23 J 92/2 gE~nera'te 106/5 129/10 gElnerous 139/9 139/12 gEmtleman 141/13 gElographically 154/22 GElorge 139/20 139/21 139/24 140/24 141/3 141/5 141/12 gElt 123/16 131/13 132/23 136/4 137/2 138/12 139/22 140/16 140/25 141/17 155/7 156/14 184/18 191/7 200/25 202/14 gElts 111/15 gEltting 133/21 186/13 gjve 106/1 118/21 118/22 137/23 171/21 gj,ven 108/13 get 113/1 113/19 125/22 129/21 131/7 138/2 145/1 160/16 167/24 168/12 171/13 172/14 172/18 189/17 192/6 196/22 197/2 197/19 202/8 getal 177/13 188/15 188/16 goals 177/3 177/9 177/24 181/15 goes 131/10 191/8 ge1ing 113/13 115/18 122/23 133/25 134/1 134/14 134/16 134/19 135/5 141/1 142/18 150/24 156/8 156/13 163/18 167/14 168/12 172/14 173/4 173/24 177/1 179/22 180/6 184/12 186/1 186/22 192/18 196/19 going -- 192/17 gold 114/19 114/19 114/21 gone 159/10 gCl,od 104/4 111/23 114/20 115/14 117/2 120/2 121/5 138/9 141/14 158/24 159/7 159/8 182/5 183/9 Gordan 161/12 161/13 182/16 got 131/8 140/21 153/10 155/24 160/4 162/14 172/18 Government 162/4 gz'aciously 141/20 grade 109/25 gz'ade-separated 110/7 110/11 110/15 110/20 110/22 111/6 gzanny 127/9 gz'anted 116/13 gz'aphic 113/9 gz'ass 145/5 184/17 gz'eat 119/9 157/9 gJ:'eater 143/10 gJ:'een 198/21 gJ:'eenish 170/8 Gz'eer 139/20 140/2 gJ:'ound 145/8 166/12 166/13 168/12 172/22 181/6 194/24 200/13 200/16 group 132/14 139/17 gzowth 150/14 151/25 153/18 156/6 173/11 gu:ess 141/13 166/24 202/19 Gulf 104/18 111/8 114/2 114/14 H had 108/15 108/23 109/15 109/19 109/22 111/1 121/1f 179/13 182/6 185/7 185/14 121/17 121/21 127/8 127/2 188/2 193/9 195/23 197/24 129/9 132/25 133/2 135/22 197/25 199/6 200/19 202/1 135/22 136/2 139/4 140/3 here -~~ 108/10 165/10 170/20 140/8 140/13 150/1 150/13 178/2 152/1 152/2 152/4 152/4 Hi 158/25 182/4 152/10 153/6 153/7 153/9 high 150/2 150/3 151/13 154/7 154/13 154/18 155/3 194/12 194/13 200/4 155/5 156/22 157/9 158/6 higher 115/11 152/13 i87/19 158/12 164/7 165/5 167/22 188/1 194/15 175/19 183/22 184/18 186/7 Highway 107/20 109/2 112/16 186/9 186/15 189/25 190/21 113/23 115/5 124/25 193/20 194/1 194/12 195/5 him 140/3 140/5 161/6 175/12 196/13 197/7 200/19 200/20 hired 158/12 200/22 201/21 his 139/25 143/13 ,159/10 half 109/3 109/4 152/15 153/8 162/17 174/15 174/22 175/2 153/10 154/20 165/25 175/2 175/16 182/11 half-mile 157/10 historic 184/11 184/11 191/1 Hall 101/18 historically 192/7 hand 177/6 history 117/7 176/25 181/18 handle 150/20 185/20 190/1 196/7 202/1 happen 156/9 156/13 189/9 hold 147/23 191/9 home 106/6 135/21 138/25 happened 132/22 157/18 165/19 141/15 141/16 145/12 184/18 167/16 167/19 181/18 185/24 184/18 190/1 195/5 198/13 homecoming 106/15 happening 149/11 172/19 homeowners 119/3 119/10 172/22 173/9 184/19 happens 106/21 138/4 homes 106/4 108/14 118/10 happy 107/2 196/22 118/19 122/1 122/7 122/16 Harris 120/22 122/17 122/20 122/21 123/2 has 110/7 110/11 112/7 115/20 123/4 124/21 125/18 128/6 117/8 128/4 131/19 131/21 175/7 179/4 183/25 184/7 132/1 132/17 133/12 134/13 184/8 184/23 185/14 186/23 136/25 141/12 172/23 173/12 homesites 145/20 175/11 176/1 179/23 186/3 homestead 135/16 136/1 139/16 186/5 186/14 189/9 190/25 honest 185/15 191/1 195/11 196/18 200/7 honestly 126/15 hashed 179/19 HONORABLE 101/15 hasn't 136/10 175/14 182/24 Hopefully 110/24 hat 118/8 host 183/24 haven't 141/22 house 130/16 130/17 132/14 having 117/14 143/13 184/16 132/15 133/19 135/16 140/14 189/12 140/21 having -- 142/20 houses 132/13 132/14 132/20 he 122/14 124/20 124/21 132/21 133/2 135/3 137/3 124/23 140/4 141/10 141/13 169/14 169/15 176/9 176/10 159/12 161/15 168/6 174/10 176/17 187/22 192/21 174/13 174/25 175/1 175/14 housing 128/14 131/16 132/4 175/19 175/19 176/6 202/1 132/6 135/6' 142/21 142/22 he's 140/3 141/7 161/14 142/25 143/4 143/9 143/14 head 147/14 161/14 185/8 144/7 144/9 144/17 144/18 Healey 106/13 106/14 117/19 144/20 144/23 170/4 158/12 how 130/21 133/25 134/5 Healey'S 111/24 136/17 147/7 151/24 152/4 heard 106/21 106/23 125/17 152/4 154/6 154/7 154/25 128/20 143/13 188/12 189/13 158/14 159/11 162/5 172/4 189/18 176/25 185/14 185/25 192/7 hearing 101/15 169/2 202/11 194/7 194/8 196/19 199/18 202/20 203/10 203/12 however 120/8 145/7 hearings 101/1 154/24 169/13 humor 161/9 heavily 178/9 held 147/13 147/15 162/10 help 167/20 185/11 185/16 helpful 109/11 her 106/23 106/25 125/10 193/11 here 106/15 107/1 109/8 110/2 110/18 112/6 113/3 113/17 115/19 122/6 122/15 122/24 122/25 124/1 127/6 132/11 135/4 135/6 143/3 146/8 151/10 164/16 167/7 168/3 168/9 168/20 176/~ 176/11 I I'll 130/19 I'm 104/8,104/16 104/18 108/10 109/2 113/17 114/18 121/10 122/22 123/14 126/11 128/2 130/7 130/13 130/25 130/25 133/7 137/12 137/15 138/4 138/6 138/18 140/8 142/2 142/12 142/13 143/7 144/5 144/12 148/24.150/24 159/13 163/18 167/14 173/24 177/1 178/1 178/1 180/6 1ntense 112/15 113/13 113/15 18/4 138/25 140/7 140/22 _ 115/15 168/14 41/12 142/24 143/2 144/12 intensity 115/17 149/19 146/7 155/23 156/14 158/19 155/18 177/17 178/11 164/7 169/6 171/1 172/14 interchange 110/8 110/11 173/12 179/2 180/23 184/14 110/15 110/22 185/24 188/6 193/12 195/1 interchanges 109/23 111/3 198/1 198/10 198/24 201/15 111/6 I;ust -- 198/24 interdisciplinary 163/3 K interest 135/22 136/13 177/17 interested 140/15 203/17 keep 127/11 127/13 136/1 interior 137/1 161/8 196/10 201/1 internal 136/18 kept 157/13 157/14 intersection 110/6 110/12 kind 152/6 155/17 157/6 into 116/8 131/21 136/4 141/8 186/20 141/17 141/23 143/19 145/20 knew 135/11 135/21 136/2 146/8 150/22 154/7 154/14 know 104/8 105/24 124/11 154/16 155/15 155/20 158/9 126/15 135/6 137/12 139/6 160/16 165/21 167/7 187/25 141/7 142/13 159/1 159/8 192/21 159/11 161/6 174/12 175/13 introduce 176/18 181/12 182/23 183/1 185/22 introduced 149/21 186/6 187/19 190/8 190/19 invented 152/14 191/1 Investment 140/23 know -- 182/22 involved 167/19 170/3 knowledge 192/13 involvement 105/8 known 162/22 ironically 120/17 Kurtz 101/24 is -- 110/1 113/9 142/18 156/22 171/9 173/8 issue 106/22 109/12 109/25 125/7 126/24 138/3 150/20 183/12 183/18 183/19 183/20 186/4 issued 109/15 issues 108/13 108/21 109/9 111/19 152/3 183/16 it -- 114/20 121/8 138/8 143/13 201/21 it's 106/14 106/17 114/21 115/3 117/25 123/14 125/2 126/22 127/14 127/15 131/4 131/5 131/6 132/11 133/23 134/1 136/20 136/22 137/1 139/8 142/14 142/16 143/8 155/5 156/24 161/8 163/2 164/25 170/2 171/12 173/8 173/14 174/21 179/22 191/2 197/20 198/7 198/16 200/1 200/7 item 109/14 118/24 119/8 119/19 138/3 its 111/13 111/14 155/3 itself 157/22 158/4 Ivv 140/19 J I idea 116/8 185/10 188/6 identification 154/1 identified 108/7 identifies 16'1/3 identify 107/6 if 107/22 108/10 110/24 111/13 112/8 113/5 113/19 114/19 115/4 116/12 118/3 118/7 119/7 119/10 120/11 122/2 123/8 123/20 123/22 126/18 127/12 127/23 128/19 134/17 135/14'138/18 142/16 159/12 164/22'165/18 167/15 167/19 168/25 172/5 172/15 172/18 174/12;175/8 177/7 177/8 180/11 181/12 182/22 182/22 183/22 184/17 184/18 184/22 185/10,185/18 185/19 185/24 190/18:191/19 191/20 192/9 196/23 197/20 202/13 II 101/16 198/12 III 101/7 imagine 173/8' immediately 112/25 138/13 impact 106/3 107/19 107/23 108/8 109/2 109/4 109/6 111/12 111/13'111/15 157/1 157/11 185/12:186/16 impacts 105/15 180/17 183/5 186/8 implemented 1'54/6 165/5 201/20 ' 1mplementing 155/13 165/15 important 177/21 178/6 178/13 178/23 178/25 197/20 198/7 impossible 191/4 impression 137/12 improvements 185/19 improves 111/14 1n -- 158/11 inclination 183/23 include 185/3! including 121/12 183/24 incompatibility 192/17 incompatible 116/14 116/17 116/19 116/23 '124/4 124/6 192/19 inconsistent 181/10 181/15 incorrect 196/20 200/2 increase 111/17 133/24 160/12 increased 155/16 increasing 136/13 incredible 112/14 indeed 117/15 189/15 indicated 109/14 169/13 indicating 108/7 113/17 144/3 individual 119/1 indulge 145/17 inferring 127/13 inhibit 119/6" initially 189/16 insignificant 107/25 insists 193/12 instance 152/10 155/15 165/22 instances 107/2 Institute 148/25 institutes 148/23 institution 196/1 insulated 178/5 intend 202/13 January 24 173/25 job 159/14 144/2 joined 138/6 141/25 142/1 joke 120/20 .JR 101/7 judge 109/11 112/11 125/5 126/4 129/18 140/2 141/8 141/10 143/25 144/15 183/13 190/3 193/11 July 101/17 203/19 July 2nd 146/12 jumping 157/12 jurisdictions 126/12 149/24 150/14 just 107/6 107/13 115/22 115/23 116/25 118/20 123/14 125/8 128/2 128/16 128/17 128/23 128/24 129/6 137/1 L labor 145/4 145/6 lack 166/24 lake 113/14 114/16 116/4 116/4 119/1 119/6 119/11 124/22 124/24 130/8 131/5 131/9 133/5 135/15 146/12 163/19 164/16 165/16 166/9 167/14 171/22 172/2 172/17 174/4 174/24 175/4 181/18 193/22 land 105/15 113/11 113/21 114/1 114/13 115/18 122/13 129/14 135/24 136/7 138/19 142/15 143/11 148/11 149/9 150/17 151/21 152/24 153/16 154/19 156/9 163/5 163/6 164/17 164/23 165/17 165/20 166/21 167/2 167/15 168/6 168/8 168/14 168/23 169/5 169/19 169/24 170/24 171/4 171/7 171/11 172/3 173/13 177/7 177/10 177/12 177/14 177/16 177/18 177/19 177/24 177/25 178/1 178/2 178/5 178/7 178/9 178/23 180/11 189/1 189/7 190/2 190/19 191/7 191/8 191/12 191/20 191/24 192/7 193/23 196/2 201/11 landlord 139/14 lands 183/7 language 110/23 143/2 large 101/23 107/17 127/8 145/7 145/8 157/7 169/15 larger 112/10 127/10 166/10 187/23 largest 127/3 127/19 127/25 last 104/11 105/9 112/19 134/11 160/10 176/12 late 147/17 157/19 later 150/12 162/15 law 149/24 150/15 lawns 144/24 145/2 LAWRENCE 101/6 101/7 lawyers 111/5 L least 116/5 127/7 140/13 left 162/17 185/7 lE!ft-hand 198/21 200/5 lE!gend 150/25 158/17 lElgend -- 153/1 lElngth 106/22 lengthy 115/5 less 107/24 109/4 162/16 168/13 lElssi 104/6 let 141/22 178/2 187/8 193/9 196/24 198/24 let's 129/21 144/5 155/9 168/12 168/13 197/23 202/8 letter 108/19 109/14 173/24 173/25 1E~el 109/15 109/18 110/3 133/20 191/14 lelvels 109/19 Lelzons 135/9 138/22 139/2 life 106/10 lighter 170/9 like 106/15 114/9 119/16 126/12 126/20 127/12 131/4 139/3 139/25 143/6 146/24 149/1 149/16 150/15 153/23 159/5 163/25 166/18 170/14 172/4 176/18 196/11 196/23 199/4 likely 188/21 limited 115/2 line 113/6 113/6 119/5 119/5 133/11 137/11 list 200/22 listings 153/15 li tany 123/19 little 105/23 117/14 135/11 140/22 156/14 170/10 live 112/3 130/7 130/14 131/3 135/13 lived 130/21 133/12 135/14 local 150/16 153/22 154/9 154/12 154/13 located 114/6 location 110/8 114/5 locations 111/10 logically -- 128/16 long 130/21 139/5 147/7 158/11 162/5 199/12 lo,nger -- 186/12 look 112/10 114/7 118/3 119/7 134/5 142/3 142/4 142/6 142/19 143/17 152/1 168/13 177/8 178/14 178/23 180/12 193/21 194/5 195/21 197/21 197/23 looked 113/25 117/16 117/18 135/23 154/16 154/18 192/8 194/9 196/4 196/7 lo,oking 108/11 109/2 114/15 118/24 160/10 190/18 lo,oks 114/8_ 172/4 1e,st 114/15 lot 125/24 127/3 127/8 127/19 127/20 127/21 127/23 127/24 127/25 131/7 134/4 156/7 156/10 156/23 160/16 168/2 174/9 176/24 187/22 187/23 189/13 190/24 lots 116/22 118/25 122/21 139/8 139/10 139/18 140/9 140/11 140/14 140/17 140/19 141/1 166/17 169/15 174/1r 174/13 174/24 175/4 176/9 194/21 194/22 194/23 195/8 love 110/20 145/4 145/6 low 113/22 115/14 116/5 116/10 116/20 123/15 127/14 127/18 131/6 150/1 150/2 151/10 153/12 153/14 165/1 165/13 169/14 172/24 183/9 187/1 187/14 187/25 188/7 188/9 low-density 191/2 lower 109/19 125/18 127/12 150/6 167/8 187/20 187/23 197/19 lowest 127/2 165/10 198/3 lunch 138/4 M M-C-C-O-N-I-H-A-Y 130/11 MacFarlane 102/2 made 121/16 121/19 129/3 134/17 142/20 143/12 170/13 170/24 main 134/15 151/2 maintain 119/3 140/22 maintained 123/20 136/24 137/8 137/10 196/14 maintained -- 196/14 maintaining 178/17 178/21 178/22 major 156/16 163/3 172/5 majority 122/9 123/1 make 118/15 125/10 128/17 129/12 129/14 142/19 157/22 160/11 198/1 198/24 201/11 maker 178/14 makers 127/1 127/17 128/7 making 141/6 160/16 178/14 178/24 manage ' 133/25 Managed 150/13 153/17 156/6 management 108/20 112/2 119/21 120/3 151/25 manner 169/16 many 121/10 154/25 map 110/2 114/1 130/13 151/6 151/10 153/18 153/20 154/4 158/10 164/3 164/13 164/17 165/17 165/23 166/3 167/14 167/18 167/21 168/18 171/22 178/18 195/19 195/20 199/23 199/25 200/1 maps 196/17 196/20 197/23 198/2 198/20 198/25 199/2 B9/17 March 119/23 175/9 March 19th 120/14 marked 103/3 154/1 market 189/9 194/20 194/20 194/22 198/11 master's 105/1 105/2 148/18 math 137/19 mathematically 129/13 matter 131/24 136/23 142/14 maximum 192/4 may 112/4 126/15 139/13 139/24 145/3 160/9 160/9 186/24 187/20 193/5 maybe 137/25 138/1 167/20 184/14 maybe -- 114/19 McConihay 102/20 130/1 130/2 130/5 130/7 144/14 144/16 145/17 146/4 146/11 MCConihay -- 144/13 MCCormick 112/19 113/5 MCMUllen 102/2 163/20 me 117/23 122/3 127/13 128/7 128/24 131/22 135/25 136/8 139/21 140/4 140/4 140/24 141/18 141/19 141/21 141/21 141/22 142/3 142/4 145/17 167/20 178/2 186/15 187/8 188/16 189/12 189/13 189/18 190/20 193/9 196/24 198/24 me -- 201/1 mean 122/24 129/5 131/7 135/10 175/11 183/12 190/3 meandering 121/13 meaning 166/4 means 118/9 184/15 measures 120/11 mechanism 126/17 179/4 mechanisms 126/14 medium 150/2 150/3 151/12 meet 110/24 125/25 125/25 meeting 120/13 138/22 meetings 133/8 133/9 member 120/23 148/22 148/24 161/3 members 136/6 memory 139/25 mentioned 151/1 188/25 merely 198/10 met 120/16 175/15 175/19 176/2 methodology 105/21 mid 156/25 157/8 might 119/4 139/25 154/10 162/19 183/3 185/11 185/23 185/25 195/12 miles 110/4 million 150/9 159/22' 159/23 mind 105/25 109/10 111/18 118/12 137/19 142/25 183/3 minds 186/5 186/7 mine 139/12139/25 140/2 H1nimal 136/19 136/20 mi~ 127/20 127/21 140/9 mirrored 131/22 mistake 141/6 mistaken 183/17 189/24 mix 201/13 mixed 112/14 195/6 mixed-use 113/10 mobile 135/21 138/25 145/12 modifications 172/8 moment 129/22 143/3 193/9 202/8 months 175/16 more 118/16 139/13 140/16 150/22 152/6 152/13 152/14 154/14 155/10 155/14 155/24 156/1 156/6 156/12 156/15 162/16 165/6 179/23 179/24 184/8 187/22 192/20' 192/21 192/21 195/13 200/18 more -- 155/17 " more-or-less 138/9 mortgage 131/1 134/3 144/21 most 104/21 110/13 127/21 131/4 131/9 132/15 164/2 164/5 176/2 177/18 mostly 169/15 move 110/5 110/8 Moving 112/16 173/7 177/23 MPO 109/15 nine 164/8 I . "iection 143/8 146/20 149/3 _ no 101/2 106/24 109/14 111/20 9/4 163/15 175/21 115/16 115/20 121/15 121/17 oDjectionable 142/11 144/11 121/21 121/24 124/7 126/11 objections 134/17 129/16 130/18 131/12 131/12 objective 155/16 134/23 136/2 137/4 143/7 objectives 177/24 146/20 146/21 146/23 149/3 observe 189/18 158/21 161/23 164/20 166/22 observed 189/14 171/23 171/24 172/9 180/7 obtained 162/13 181/20 181/22 181/23 183/11 occasionally 106/11 184/10 184/13 187/12 188/11 occupation 130/24 189/25 192/23 192/25 194/12 occur 157/4 195/1 198/18 199/1 200/3 occurred 132/17 158/15 193/21 200/9 200/20 202/2 202/3 October 1st 108/18 202/5 202/16 of -- 104/10 152/25 none 196/24 off 110/2 129/21 132/12 nor 203/15 203/17 132/23 134/15 134/18 136/25 north 110/5 110/9 111/9 138/7 157/21 167/6 202/8 112/16 112/19 112/22 112/23 202/9 112/24 113/7 113/19 115/23 offensive 128/3 120/4 121/6 121/11 128/6 office 112/17 112/18 112/20 131/17 157/8 159/6 163/22 113/4 115/10 156/21 157/2 164/7 164/12 179/22 181/14 175/20 190/21 184/6 186/1 186/19 officer 169/3 northeast 110/6 Okay 136/20 143/18 180/13 northern 122/1 197/11 northwestern 124/23 old 106/15 126/23 not 108/7 114/18 115/16 old-timers 139/2 116/14 117/24 118/21 118/22 once 140/15 191/7 191/7 121/10 122/1 123/14 124/4 191/22 124/6 125/2 126/1 126/11 one 107/1 107/10 108/11 112/7 127/9 127/14 127/15 127/23 112/10 113/19 114/6 117/13 128/15 129/1 129/5 132/9 121/17 121/21 126/25 127/7 132/9 134/16 134/23 136/23 127/18 128/11 128/15 129/3 137/8 137/10 137/14 138/18 129/6 129/9 143/12 150/4 139/12 140/7 140/8 142/13 152/16 153/11 154/17 154/21 143/7 143/7 144/1 144/6 155/3 155/22 160/9 161/4 144/12 145/3 145/8 145/22 161/10 166/1 167/6 168/5 157/3 158/5 158/11 160/9 178/24 185/23 187/24 188/13 168/2 168/11 171/13 175/23 190/17 191/13 191/14 195/12 177/12 177/19 181/3 182/8 196/22 196/22 197/1 197/6 182/21 184/19 185/7 187/1 197/7 197/9 198/16 199/7 187/4 187/12 187/20 190/5 202/13 191/10 191/25 192/2 192/25 one -- 178/1 195/19 196/21 198/1 198/2 ones 152/13 198/8 199/5 199/21 199/23 only 114/4 119/19 120/6 199/24 199/25 200/1 200/1 126/23 129/10 131/12 132/9 201/16 203/13 134/18 134/20 137/1 139/22 Notary 101/23 141/16 157/3 158/5 170/23 notebook 142/4 191/18 200/20 notes 203/11 open 118/17 118/17 119/9 141/1 141/1 nothing 126/16 129/18 151/7 134/12 179/11 179/22 194/14 200/17 198/18 199/10 notice 167/20 operating 109/18 now 104/17 104/18 105/4 107/7 opinion 111/11 115/25 116/14 108/11 109/8 109/25 110/14 116/24 119/12 131/22 133/12 112/8 115/20 122/14 122/23 145/22 161/17 178/16 179/13 124/5 124/6 128/6 128/23 180/24 181/17 182/8 182/11 130/23 134/12 138/6 138/18 183/14 183/17 186/11 186/17 139/24 140/17 159/10 166/4 186/25 188/19 189/23 191/3 169/23 172/4 180/3 184/2 opinion -- 182/23 now -- 141/24 Op1n10nS 106/23 106/25 117/15 nuisance 188/15 188/22 188/24 117/16 188/10 nuisances 178/6 opportunity 112/9 156/5 182/6 number 107/17 109/3 140/11 opposite 116/18 141/12 151/17 152/3 153/25 option 186/2 157/4 162/18 164/18 165/21 or 104/7 104/11 115/11 115/21 165/25 175/18 176/7 185/17 115/23 117/1 118/11 118/13 numbers 158/18 118/25 119/5 124/17 128/12 131/13 132/16 133/20 133/25 136/6 136/13 136/14 137/7 137/18 137/23 143/4 143/9 144/18 145/7 149/13 149/18 155/12 155/22 156/2 157/4 M Mr 105/14 105/20 106/13 106/14 106/14 ~06/14 111/24 117/19 121/5 126/8 130/1 130/5 136/11 144/13 144/14 144/16 145/17 1~46/4 146/11 149/1 149/8 161/18 162/8 162/19 164/2 i65/6 165/15 165/20 166/2 166/19 168/25 173/22 173/25 ~74/8 174/9 174/12 174/12174/23 175/10 175/15 175/22 176/1 176/6 176/15 182/4 182/8 186/9 188/5 189/22 190/14 192/25 200/17 201/21 MS 123/6 125/9 188/5 193/14 much 131/4 131/10 152/4 152/4 154/14 156/5 160/3 160/6 160/13 mu1tifamily 132/4 132/6 142/21 142/22 ,143/1 143/9 143/14 167/24 1169/17 170/4 171/13 192/15,200/8 201/22 multiple 153/~5 municipality 107/3 my 104/5 104/14 104/24 106/1 108/18 113/25114/15 130/17 131/19 131/22 132/1 132/14 132/23 134/13 '137/9 137/11 137/19 138/2 139/20 140/14 140/25 141/16'141/19 141/22 142/25 161/13 1162/13 168/18 171/16 178/2 i81/17 184/18 184/18 185/16 186/17 188/5 190/16 190/21'190/25 191/3 192/13 193/20 '200/12 203/11 'mvself 104/7 117/19 N name 104/4 104/5 130/5 130/9 147/4 158/20 159/11 162/3 200/6 named 190/4 190/5 names 135/8 narrowed 157/10 nature 106/17!, 118/11 144/22 146/1 near 113/21 I nearly 131/19 necessary 120/11 need 120/1 140/20 152/6 needed 155/21 needing 150/22 negative 108/8 183/2 neighbor 143f4 143/4 neighborhood '134/24 135/2 166/15 168/1 169/12 174/14 175/18 175/25 179/15 179/25 180/3 180/16 184/1 184/8 184/13 186/18: 186/22 188/22 189/10 190/231191/6 192/22 neighborhoods I 178/4 178/4 neighborly 135/10 neighbors' 119/6 never 110/24 134/13 136/12 176/5 191/4 new 153/17 154/3 154/6 154/7 155/13 156/1 158/6 162/21 166/4 167/3 185/19 new -- 167/3 next 108/10 108/11 110/5 167/14 177/23 195/12 o Oaks 198/17 198/22 oath 125/13 182/7 193/14 object 134/23 143/9 143/10 particular 107/20 108/2 150/16 150/25 159/17 162/4 113/16 196/8 197/1 162/5 163/6 163/7 163/9 orange 200/5 parties 203/15 166/22 171/7 177/2.177/4 order 102/16 140/10 140/14 parties' 203/16 179/2 180/6 180/8 182/19 140/25 141/21 202/13 parts 121/8 121/9 129/14 189/22 203/6. ordered 108/23 passes 179/21 pink 114/24 115/1 ordinance 177/2 177/2 past 132/18 156/9 169/9 place 158/6 158/7 '200/6 original 107/10 Pat 140/19 placed 166/19 168/17 originally 105/13 patch 145/7 places 131/8 Osceola 101/19 paths 106/11 plan 105/15 108/20 111/22 other 106/16 113/20 115/10 pattern 164/10 175/7 177/17 112/2 113/11 114/1 114/13 1:24/7 128/1 128/13 129/6 patterns 160/4 178/3 184/12 117/21 117/23 117/25 119/8 1:29/16 131/5 140/19 145/6 Paul 102/22 105/20 161/25 119/21 120/3 123/9 123/11 150/7 156/4 166/8 175/1 162/4 164/22 165/18 123/13 126/9 138/19 142/6 176/17 184/19 187/15 191/14 pay 120/9 142/11 142/15 142/19 143/11 191/22 194/4 195/3 202/6 peak 104/13 149/14 149/20 149/22 149/23 others 126/25 pending 107/14 116/13 150/5 150/16 151/1 152/25 otherwise 193/8 people 131/14 131/22 133/18 153/22 154/11, 154/12 154/12 our 105/24 107/7 133/18 133/21 137/2 139/19 144/23 154/13 154/19 155/3 155/4 134/15 141/10 152/21 153/22 145/2 145/15 150/21 174/11 155/5 155/15 156/11 156/12 154/9 154/13 155/16 167/25 190/21 192/21 157/21 158/6 158/8 162/14 1Ei8/4 168/11 175/20 people's 178/22 165/16 166/21 168/6 168/8 out 105/21 108/21 118/20 per 105/16 106/6 107/15 169/20 169/25 171/11 172/3 119/4 120/13 127/11 127/14 108/16 108/23 113/11 113/12 172/25 173/13 175/3 177/4 131/23 136/6 140/15 145/5 114/5 115/19 123/17 123/20 178/23 180/24 181/16 184/23 153/21 154/10 159/12 174/10 124/3 124/5 124/12 125/23 188/17 188/20 190/2 190/19 174/11 179/19 181/18 185/18 126/10 127/15 128/3 128/8 191/12 191/21 192/13 194/16 185/21 186/14 190/1 191/9 128/25 129/1 129/8 129/10 194/19 195/3 196/8 200/4 193/11 202/14 151/14 153/11 165/4 165/24 200/12 200/18 201/9 201/14 ou1: -- 150/9 173/12 166/1 166/1 166/11 166/20 201/15 ou1:1et 112/2 168/17 169/18 170/4 170/12 plan -:- 154/10 192/11 ou1:side 120/19 170/20 171/14 172/21 172/25 planned' 194/14 199/14 , O~tr 124/24 145/12 147/18 173/17 177/1 177/10 177/11 planner 104/16 107/2 107/3 157/4 159/22 168/8 172/18 178/17 179/3 180/25 188/6 111/21 115/3 115/13 115/24 175/11 182/24 184/15 190/1 191/9 192/9 192/12 194/13 116/7 116/7 159/3 159/15 1513/22 194/7 194/8 195/.24 199/8 201/24 201/24 161/15 178/13 178/16 179/13 oVEtrall 166/10 177/17 201/16 perceive 108/8 116/19 180/24 182/9 o~lrpass 110/21 110/23 percent 106/5 107/24 108/2 planner'S 118/8 oVElrpasses 111/3 111/10 109/5 109/7 planners 106/19 117/16 117/18 111/16 perfect 134/6 148/25,. o~lrstated 111/13 Pergo1izzi 102/18 104/1 104/5 planning 101/11 104/20,105/3 Owr.L 139/11 145/4 145/13 121/5 126/8 159/8 182/14 115/14 117/2 117/4 117/10 154/13 155/3 155/5 175/2 188/6 120/15 120/16 147/15 147/15 oWTLed 135/6 139/19 140/12 perhaps 104/7 106/13 109/1 147/18 147/20 147/21 147/24 170/21 174/2 174/5 185/21 148/1 148/3 148/12 148/19 OWTler 105/14 115/20 121/15 period 147/17 148/23 149/9 149/12 156/8 owners 128/20,128/21 periphery 170/23 157/19 158/2 161/14 162/19 owr.~rship 119/2 135/22 144/23 permit 140/25 153/8 155/21 163/6 166/10 166/22 168/16 145/10 145/11 145/15 156/23 178/9 180/9 182/19 183/9 Owr.LS 122/14 122/24 permits 160/6 183/11 189/14 191/24 192/10 permitted 138/15 140/6 184/5 192/11 200/21 permitting 162/12 plans 135/18 136/3 154/25 person 135/6 174/15 174/22 191/25 personal 183/13 plats 175/17 176/3 personally 182/18 platted 139/6 139/8 139/18 persons 190/4 194/10 194/22 197/1 198/13 Petitioner 102/5 129/19 201/4 201/6 201/8 Petitioner's -- 180/11 plausible 125/20 Petitioners 101/8 125/9 play 141/9 133/10 please 112/10 114/7 130/10 Phase 198/12 142/5 143/17 145/17 160/21 phonetic 140/19 188/16 200/24 photo 135/3 please -- 142/3 photograph 163/19 172/17 plethora 128/23 physically -- 129/13 point 108/13 109/17 110/9 physics 148/17 148/21 112/25 115/3 130/13 136/5 picture 114/7 164/11 199/13 138/20 154/10 167/20 185/22 199/14 199/17 186/11 186/20 200/12 pictures 146/8 146/11 146/13 pointed 171/1 173/12 piece 178/7 190/6 190/20 pointer 114/15 PINELLAS 101/10 102/7 109/15 pointing 130/13 168/19 114/1 114/12 117/11 121/8 policies 177/3 177/9 177/10 126/13 147/6 147/7 147/21 181/16 147/24 148/12 149/9 149/12 policy 127/1 127/17 128/7 o p p.m 101/17 101/17 202/20 PAC: 117/10 183/15 189/21 page 109/2 109/14 177/7 177/23 177/23 180/12 188/20 pag~s 104/12 203/10 paJ::,erwork 139/24 pax'cel 115/22 170/19 196/9 197/9 199/5 200/5 200/9 pax'ce1s 116/1 118/20 194/8 194/11 194/12 194/13 194/15 196/6 196/9 196/10 196/15 200/3 paxk 120/12 133/6 134/14 134/18 134/20 139/14 145/14 pax'k -- 139/9 parks 135/22 138/25 139/7 139/11 145/13 145/13 part 122/2 127/10 135/7 138/24 164/12 166/10 167/6 167/21 171/1 177/21 178/25 189/2 199/23 199/25 participate 182/18 properties 118/21 121/11 ____ 121/12 134/4 134/8 145/9 166/6 166/8 167/4 174/11 152/18 174/14 175/1 property 105/5 105/13 114/22 117/22 118/4 118/10 118/20 121/6 121/6 121/7 121/7 121/16 121/18 121/22 122/15 128/19 128/21 131/18 131/25 135/7 135/14 135/19 135/23 135/24 136/1 136/10 137/11 137/16 137/17 138/11 138/13 138/16 139/6 139/15 139/20 140/12 143/19 145/20 148/14 157/8 161/1 163/12 164/23 167/24 170/19 171/13 173/21 174/1 174/2 174/3 174/6 174/25 175/11 178/8 178/15 179/22 182/20 182/24 183/6 183/21 183/25 184/4 184/5 185/12 186/1 190/7 190/15 190/21 190/22 property -- 157/8 proposal 175/16 179/10 proposed 105/15 108/16 113/8 117/21 176/1 177/25 188/19 201/22 202/12 proposed -- 175/23 proposition 183/8 183/11 187/7 187/10 187/12 187/13 protected 177/20 protection 169/20 170/1 189/4 provide 112/2 113/12 118/14 133/20 202/11 provide -- 133/18 provided 156/1 providing 118/17 120/11 155/14 providing -- 152/3 provision 169/8 provisions 169/7 proximity 115/6 public 101/23 163/4 176/4 177/17 178/13 pump 141/22 purchase 136/10 137/16 141/19 purchased 137/17 pure 181/13 purpose 105/11 194/2 purposes 107/7 put 134/1 135/5 137/19 140/14 145/5 146/7 153/19 153/19 154/7 158/6 158/11 163/18 166/13 167/1 167/14 172/2 174/8 174/23 178/2 178/18 179/10 183/9 183/25 184/23 185/14 189/2 192/20 200/18 p poor 185/4 ' population 150/8 152/7 152/20 159/17 159/20 portion 124/22 portions 119/6 portrayed 193/23 position 162/17 positions 147/12 147/23 162/10 positive 123/7 123/19 126/19 possession 145/16 possibility 127/4 136/15 possible 126/22 177/19 178/5 179/8 185/25 , possibly 116/6 159/11 166/13 potential 124/20 156/3 179/17 179/23 184/14' pow-wow 193/9 PPC 111/2 117/10 117/10 119/22 119/23120/13 120/14 120/23 120/24;148/8 183/15 183/15 189/21,189/21 PPC's 108/20 practically 198/18 practice 107/3 115/14 117/2 183/9 precedent 181/13 precedential ,181/7 predictably 109/1 predominant 128/11 predominantly" 178/10 prepare 105/14 prepared 117/25 119/8 present 172/7: 173/9 preservation ;,153/6 165/11 174/6 I preservation -- 170/20 president 104'/18 104/19 presumably 119/1 presume 124/1,5 pretty 126/24' 131/4 131/6 160/3 160/6 173/8 191/11 previous 148/6 149/15 165/23 previously 117/24 125/14 150/6 158/7 193/17 pride 144/23 145/15 primarily 113/10 156/22 prior 109/18 197/1 priorities 11'0/14 privacy 119/4' private 107/2,170/25 175/2 probably 106/17 110/4 112/20 132/17 139/25,164/7 175/15 176/12 183/4 problem 130/18 PROCEEDLNGS 1P2/12 process 138/14 174/13 profession 104/15 106/2 quadrant 124/24 106/18 117/3 qualified 159/3 159/15 161/15 professional 105/6 106/10 182/9 111/11 115/13:115/24 116/7 quarter 166/17 117/18 118/7 186/11 186/25 question 119/20 122/4 126/7 proffer 149/1 132/1 145/18 186/15 proffered 169/8 questions 124/7 129/16 137/4 program 110/16 158/9 143/13 146/21 158/21 181/21 progressed 195/11 190/22 192/23 202/3 prohibits 123/13 126/9 126/16 quibble 184/14 project 105/8,107/22 118/16 quickly 195/18 129/12 142/14; quickly -- 125/10 projected 159/20 quiet -- 131/7 promotion 162/14 quite 116/18 120/17 185/15 propensity 180/1 quo 178/17 Q range 156/5 165/3 165/24 187/16 ranges 155/23 187/24 rarely 144/22 144/24 rather 115/18 118/18 184/16 rather -- 166/8 re-adopted 158/9 158/10 re-did 108/24 re-land 168/16 171/2 178/15 re-named 157/14 158/13 158/17 re-naming 157/13 reached 117/20 read 186/9 reading 178/1 real 114/8 reali ty 189/8 realize 145/3 185/7 really 138/1 140/8 140/10 142/17 168/11 179/11 195/1 reason 113/8 113/9 136/9 137/1 189/3 202/2 reasonable 119/2 177/15 reasons 180/14 183/24 183/24 187/24 rebuttal 193/4 193/16 202/7 Rebuttal. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 102/13 rec 194/14 198/18 199/10 recall 167/23 170/23 188/5 received 103/3 117/8 120/18 146/17 146/19 149/5 149/6 151/17 151/18 153/25 163/15 163/16 167/11 167/12 170/16 170/17 171/19 171/20 171/24 171/25 172/11 172/12 176/20 176/21 181/24 181/25 recent 132/15 recently 110/13 recognize 116/8 146/13 178/3 181/3 198/7 201/12 201/19 201/24 recognize -- 146/14 recognized 117/3 recognizes 188/9 recollection 170/2 recommendation 169/2 169/4 169/7 recommended 120/14 190/6 reconsider 120/21 reconstituted 157/24 record 107/1 129/21 202/8 202/9 203/11 recreation 118/17 red-dotted 133/11 redesignated 166/10 redevelop 160/12 redeveloping 160/2 redevelopment 160/7 160/8 redirect 102/17 124/8 124/9 146/6 146/9 161/22 190/11 190/12 202/4 reduce 152/18 155/17 194/16 195/4 reduced 108/15 112/7 157/11 reference 166/6 169/11 referenced 107/21 169/6 referred 135/5 referring 113/16 124/21 124/23 188/13 refined 165/21 refinement 167/1 reflect 107/1 158/14 189/8 163/14 163/16 167/10 167/ 170/15 170/17 171/18 171}. rElflected 158/16 200/12 201/9 171/23 171/25 172/9 172/12 201/15 173/5 176/19 176/21 181/25 rElflects 168/8 response 143/12 190/25 rElfused 141/18 responsible 120/7 161/3 re'gard 142/22 161/10 regards 147/23 148/23 rest 149/19 150/11 193/8 Regency 198/17 198/22 restate 187/8 regional 105/3 restrict 157/4 re,ject 127/5 rests 129/19 193/3 re,jected 127/2 127/3 167/25 resul t 108/20 108/22 116/14 168/4 116/16 149/22 150/8 153/15 re,lated 141/3 153/17 155/9 170/10 194/19 re,lating 115/22 resul ted 194/3 relationship 106/3 201/7 results 188/14 relative 111/14 160/25 203/13 retail 157/2 203/15 retir~t 136/4 relevant 156/13 review 162/15 162/22 168/25 relying 168/6 169/19 169/24 171/9 182/19 remark 189/13 reviewed 117/8 169/11 remarked 120/19 reviewing 191/24 remember 121/23 138/2 138/17 rezoned 171/2 138/22 rezoning -- 178/15 reminds 140/4 rezonings 192/7 render 105/5 right, 106/24 107/7 109/25 report 107/22 109/16 109/19 111/1 113/23 119/12 122/5 160/25 161/10 203/9 . 124/24 125/19 130/17 132/11 REPORTED 101/22 132/12 133/1 135/15 137/24 REPORTER 203/2 203/23 139/7 141/23 142/1 142/25 represent 107/24 143/6 148/6 151/4 153/3 154/5 request 107/15 108/5 10~/15 155/5 156/4 160/18 161/11 108/21 115/22 116/12 167/24 168/9 168/18 168/20 170/20 169/8 189/16 193/20 174/4 184/2 188/12 191/16 requested 119/13 168/7 189/15 194/21 197/4 197/25 199/6 requests 169/11 169/17 200/15 required 150/14 185/19 right-of-ways 176/5 requirement 154/13 RL 187/11 188/7 192/18 requirements 176/4 176/8 road 109/17 109/17 110/6 requiring 156/7 110/9 110/16 111/9 114/3 reserve 128/15 114/4 114/14 120/8 120/9 reside 112/4 120/12 133/5 133/5 133/7 residences 143/20 133/11 133/17 133/20 134/15 residency 165/13 136/5 179/11 179/12 179/20 residential 105/16 113/22 179/21 180/4 185/20 114/5 115/11 115/15 115/22 road -- 132/22 116/5 116/6 116/8 116/9 roads 120/1 121/13 132/24 116/21 123/21 126/10 131/6 136/17 136/18 136/23 137/7 131/20 132/3 134/15 149/18 137/7 137/10 150/11 185/3 151/2 151/11 151/13 151/15 roadway 137/1 157/11 151/21 152/9 153/9 153/9 Robert 102/18 104/1 104/5 153/10 153/12 153/13 155/10 104/7 104/9 159/8 159/10 155/11 156/21 157/2 160/5 159/15 182/14 164/23 165/2 166/16 169/16 role 148/7 171/3 172/6 173/10 176/1 roll 153/21 1133/10 187/1 187/2 187/15 Rottlund 108/14 118/1 119/8 1138/8 189/17 191/2 194/12 roughly 106/5 ],13/7 residential -- 127/19 rounding 107/14 residents 112/3 112/4 131/13 Roy 122/13 resolution 180/7 180/8 183/19 RS 187/11 188/7 192/18 resolutions 183/14 rule 138/21 141/8 resolved 183/16 186/5 186/15 rules 192/13 respect 140/6 156/18 161/17 run 115/4 115/8 179/24 1136/21 rural 136/21 136/22 138/18 respond 190/17 140/22 153/9 164/11 166/15 responded 108/6 176/1 179/14 191/1 Respondent 101/12 102/9 Rutgers 105/3 1155/16 resume 104/12 104/14 149/2 Respondent's 103/4 103/5 resumes -- 104/12 103/6 103/7 103/8 103/9 103/10 103/11 103/12 103/13 103/14 103/15 103/16 103/17 103/18 103/19 149/4 149/6 151/16 151/18 153/24 154/1 R s SADOWSKY 102/6 164/2 186/9 said 121/21 127/17 128/9 128/10 132/2 143/5 154/3 155/5 165/15 168/11 169/8 169/22 174/9 176/3 192/18 200/17 202/1 said -- 135/12 same 117/20 124/1 126/7 143/2 150/15 152/12 152/12 157/14 158/18 158/19 173/11 197/16 200/25 sat 109/8 saw 130/18 165/22 199/18 say 104/6 105/10 121/24 122/2 123/1 124/14 169/3 190/3 196/15 199/1 199/20 saying 121/25 144/4 151/24 195/22 196/21 196/21 198/1 198/25 201/2 201/13 says 104/23 144/14 173/7 177/14 177/24 scale 177/24 scene 108/14 school 159/6 school -- 196/1 science -- 148/18 sciences 163/3 SCOTT 101/22 203/8 203/22 Scout 171/2 199/7 Scouts 170/21 170/24 se 188/7 secluded 134/25 second 119/22 146/25 200/9 section 177/8 sections 157/7 sector 154/23 154/23-154/25 155/4 165/16 sectors 154/17 154/17 155/2 see 115/9 119/9 124/19 135/3 140/5 144/22 145/8 154/4 164/3 164/10 164/13 166/3 167/7 168/18 170/7 184/2 190/18 192/3 195/10 195/24 196/2 seeking 112/11 112/13 seemed 186/4 seems 127/12 196/11 seen 117/23 129/9 133/7 133/8 142/7 145/12 145/14 179/10 segment 109/16 114/2 114/2 seldom 155/16 self-employed 104/17 sell 136/6 141/21 seller 141/4 semi-public 182/7 semiretired 130/25 Senior 102/6 sense 108/23 125/10 128/17 161/9 separate 187/25 separation 109/25 September 169/9 septic 141/15 141/16 series 196/12 service 109/16 109/18 109/20 137/2 141/18 141/18 serviced 134/5 134/15 services 152/2 152/21 162/22 set 126/13 152/14 sets 181/13 seven 164/8 several 109/13 109/22 135/20 139/17 162/15 166/8 193/23 sewer 150/11 152/2 152/4 152/22 Shaffer 122/14 173/22 173/25 174/8 174/12 175/10 175/15 " \ s ---- swap 170/24 173/21 sworn 104/1 122/4 125/14 130/2 147/1 161/25 193/17 sync 107/4 system 141/23 142/2 152/3 T Tab 104/10 107/6 108/11 112/8 112/8 114/7 117/23 118/3 142/5 143/17 145/21 146/2 160/21 160/24'188/17 Table 107/21 109/3 109/6 take 104/13 106/22 113/7 135/15 137/23 144/25 145/2 145/15 163/23 164/22 165/14 168/13 182/6 183/19 193/5 193/21 taken 146/11 157/21 203/12 taking 107/13 talk 111/19 135/18 167/16 193/11 200/25 talked 123/6 123/6 123/17 125/8 135/20 187/18 198/15 201/21 ' talking 122/25 123/9 124/20 138/5 166/7 168/3 168/22 173/1 176/24 180/19 185/14 196/10 196/18 199/6 Tampa 101/19 tan 170/9 Tarapani 102/19 102/23 123/6 125/9 125/14 159/1 182/12 188/5 193/15 193/17 target 106/24 team 141/25 142/1 teased 105/23 117/13 technician 162/12 tell 104/4 134/3 142/17 144/21 149/11 167/18 185/16 196/16 telling 128/7 128/24 ten 118/25 132/18 132/19 134/11 176/12 tend 145/5 tendency 104/6 tenents 145/13 te~ -- 166/25 terms 156/7 177/16 testified 111/1 165/6 165/20 166/2 166/19 172/19 173/15 195/23 testify 159/13 testifying 155/25 182/7 testimony 102/15 120/13 120/19 128/4 ,145/19 145/25 168/1 169/12 180/23 188/3 testing 131/14 than 107/24 115/11 115/18 118/18 128/1 139/14 143/10 150/6 184/16 194/4 Thank 104/10 104/25 121/2 125/4 125/6 126/3 129/17 137/21 138/10 146/4 161/20 161/24 190/9 193/1 195/15 202/6 , that -- 127/16 143/13 150/4 174/1 187/8 that's 106/18 107/5 110/21 112/8 115/21 116/12 116/25 117/2 120/25 121/1 121/22 122/1 123/9 125/24 130/17 132/10 136/2 136/8 136/9 138/9 138/19 139/11 140/24 142/1 143/3 143/7 145/24 146/5 147/10 150/21 154/20 160/6 160/9 161/20 165/8 165/12 167/9 168/10 168/11 170/19 171/16 172/25 173/3 173/8 174/3 177/19 177/21 178/18 179/19 181/10 183/6 186/2 187/24 188/14 190/9 190/24 192/5 192/6 192/7 195/15 199/20 200/12 200/19 the -- 114/18 135/7 157/13 166/24 184/3 the subdivision 200/21 their 119/4 133/19 135/8 135/11 135/16 135/16 135/25 136/1 136/4 137/2 141/23 144/24 145/2 145/13 157/25 165/16 186/7 189/24 194/12 them 111/5 128/23 129/11 144/25 152/9 153/19 153/20 153/20 155/24 187/25 195/21 196/22 196/24 197/19 198/8 198/9 then 107/14 110/5 110/8 112/17 112/19 112/24 113/1 122/2 132/15 132/23 133/1 139/15 140/18 147/15 147/17 149/18 149/21 150/1 150/12 150/19 151/12 151/13 152/1 152/17 153/8 153/10 153/13 153/18 153/19 153/21 154/12 154/17 157/2 157/5 157/24 158/5 158/6 158/8 158/11 160/1 162/24 174/8 186/20 194/15 194/23 197/7 197/24 198/22 200/11 200/12 200/18 201/23 then -- 155/20 theoretically 126/22 there -- 186/11 191/10 there that 153/19 there's 107/8 112/14 112/20 115/5 115/20 119/9 126/16 128/19 128/23 144/18 170/19 174/9 177/6 180/3 187/19 195/6 196/15 196/21 there's -- 166/3 thereby 152/19 therefore 123/2 123/24 134/22 134/24 152/8 157/21 158/1 thereof 192/15 these 111/3 111/16 121/11 126/19 128/21 128/22 132/19 144/10 144/12 146/11 153/15 154/3 154/15 155/13 156/1 167/16 169/3 169/17 173/1 174/10 176/9 176/9 176/10 182/24 191/25 195/18 196/17 198/2 198/25 199/2 200/18 they 108/24 123/23 126/18 127/3 127/5 127/7 127/7 127/11 127/13 127/17 127/23 128/9 128/10 128/14 128/25 129/1 131/25 132/21 133/19 134/17 135/12 135/14 135/14 135/18 135/21 135/22 135/23 135/23 135/25 136/1 136/2 136/3 136/4 136/5 136/7 136/8 136/12 136/14 137/2 137/7 137/9 137/12 138/3 139/4 141/18 141/20 141/21 141/22 144/17 144/24 144/24 145/15 150/13 153/17 154/7 155/11 58/14 160/10 160/12 167/4 _70/3 176/13 176/20 178/23 183/16 185/17 185/21 186/7 187/18 188/7 189/25 190/18 192/6 192/9 194/8 194/9 195/1 195/19 195/20 202/13 thing 114/8 128/3 138/18 173/11 177/13 185/23 things 109/13 145/6 149/16 149/23 150/4 151/25 160/14 168/3 176/5 186/9 190/17 195/8 things -- 176/4 think 104/11 111/5 112/20 116/2 116/25 117/4 119/2 121/10 121/19 128/8 128/9 129/2 130/22 131/4 131/5 132/11 133/13 133/17 134/19 135/8 136/14 137/17 139/4 139/4 141/3 141/5 142/18 142/21 143/16 143/23 150/8 170/4 177/10 178/21 179/13 184/5 184/7 184/10 184/13 186/14 188/23 189/2 189/25 190/4 193/6 195/14 197/20 198/6 198/15 201/21 think it 157/18 this -- 117/19 thorough 126/24 those 107/2 111/10 116/1 116/3 117/13 119/3 119/10 122/9 128/17 132/12 134/6 140/21 140/21 146/13 150/5 151/5 151/9 153/21 155/23 166/5 166/9 167/1 167/3 167/3 167/20 169/13 174/13 175/20 176/2 176/5 176/7 176/10 178/24 185/20 187/24 188/10 189/23 190/4 190/5 194/22 194/22 198/19 200/20 201/3 though 137/14 thought 119/14 120/19 126/18 150/10 three 104/11 128/12 132/16 151/2 151/14 151/20 175/16 three-ring 160/19 through 112/12 120/12 124/19 133/6 133/20 133/23 134/2 134/16 147/17 148/1 148/8 151/7 164/22 172/20 174/18 175/2 175/19 175/20 176/6 177/8 179/11 179/21 179/25 180/3 183/21 189/12 191/8 196/22 197/25 199/18 200/19 201/20 through -- 163/23 throughout 149/24 152/17 154/22 tie 152/9 152/13 time 106/12 119/21 119/22 121/1 138/8 138/10 138/23 139/20 139/21 140/5 140/5 140/11 140/13 140/20 140/25 147/17 147/25 149/15 151/6 154/10 164/1 165/2 165/3 168/6 169/5 172/7 189/14 191/18 194/7 194/8 194/11 197/16 198/3 198/22 200/8 200/25 time -- 163/25 times 107/14 107/16 135/21 tinier 111/15 111/15 111/15 to -- 166/7 171/1 173/7 196/14 S Shaffer -- 174/12 Shaffer's 174/23 share 182/11 shares 159/5 she 159/3 159/5 193/12 she's 106/24 shocked 120/17 shop 174/19 shopping 112/25 132/24 shore 130/8 135/15 174/4 174/24 175/4 should 104/21 119/13 119/14 120/6 143/19 158/13 159/13 177/15 177/18 177/20 177/25 178/3 178/4 178/9 show 113/9 150/24 172/15 173/24 175/9 177/1 180/6 showed 196/11 200/15 showing 114/13 shown 109/19 133/10 179/20 shows 109/16 178/19 shrubs 184/17 side 116/3 166/9 168/18 signalized 110/5 significant 107/19 115/4 significantly 111/17 si:mi1ar 181/9 simply 187/21 188/10 191/21 since 122/10 123/9 141/7 147/9 147/13 147/21 162/7 162/10 162/24 170/2 195/8 SrNCLAIR 101/22 203/8 203/22 single 106/3 106/6 118/5 118/10 118/13 118/19 119/7 122/6 122/7 122/15 122/20 123/2 123/4 124/21 127/16 128/6 128/12 128/13 129/4 131/20 132/3 132/19 132/21 133/2 139/23 143/20 144/18 144/20 145/1 145/20 166/16 167/25 169/14 170/11 171/14 172/24 173/15 174/24 175/4 175/7 176/13 176/14 176/17 179/21 183/25 186/23 192/14 196/18 198/4 sir 106/9 111/20 119/12 121/20 125/6 125/19 129/20 142/7 146/15 146/22 146/23 158/24 161/20 161/24 168/10 170/13 171/17 187/17 188/12 190/9 192/25 193/1 193/25 194/5 195/7 195/11 197/16 202/5 202/16 site 113/2 113/8 113/21 115/23 117/22 124/3 125/25 129/11 142/6 142/11 142/18 156/3 162/14 188/17 188/20 191/25 sites 118/18 sitting 169/15 situation 126/20 six 127/24 140/14 140/16 141/1 164/7 174/23 175/3 si~t -- 175/3 Six-tenths 108/2 108/3 size 118/20 127/8 127/19 127/20 127/21 127/23 127/24 169/16 194/21 201/8 si~:e -- 127/3 sizes 187/22 187/23 slot 147/16 147/16 slow 183/5 small 139/18 145/7 174/10 smaller 187/22 Smith 102/21 106/14 146/25 147/1 147/6 149/8 161/4 162/8 162/19 165/6 165/15 165/20 166/2 166/19 182/8 189/22 200/17 Smi th 's 149/2 social 163/3 sold 133/3 sole 111/22 solid 152/22 solution 185/12 186/3 186/16 solve 183/20 some 105/5 106/22 109/9 110/10 115/17 122/17 122/22 124/20 129/6 133/20 136/5 136/24 136/25 138/21 138/23 139/14 147/12 155/20 161/9 164/13 166/5 176/3 180/5 183/5 184/17 185/19 186/21 193/22 195/25 197/19 198/9 198/22 200/8 201/13 201/14 somebody 183/22 somebody's 184/23 someone 123/22 133/12 142/18 something 105/25 114/8 115/5 116/25 117/1 156/5 156/11 166/18 188/14 188/21 193/13 194/3 196/16 196/19 202/14 something -- 188/14 sometime 169/9 sometime -- 198/14 sometimes 106/16 106/17 157/10 189/8 somewhat 124/25 166/14 somewhere 167/23 soon 138/11 sorry 178/1 sort 114/24 115/17 132/24 172/18 sorts 176/5 sought 116/12 Sounds 137/24 sources 175/2 south 110/4 111/8 112/16 113/20 115/23 120/1 121/7 121/12 131/17 163/2 163/22 181/14 185/4 185/8 southern 109/24 164/12 space 118/17 119/9 194/14 198/18 199/10 speak 106/22 143/2 149/12 186/6 191/17 speaking 104/8 speciaJ. 149/15 specific 165/6 167/23 190/20 194/2 200/18 specifically 127/1 166/6 192/1 194/5 speed 134/1 spell 130/9 split 155/2 spoke 195/18 spot 165/10 181/9 181/10 181/13 spouted 138/7 spur 179/12 square 127/20 127/22 127/22 166/17 198/21 staff 117/10 117/10 117/11 119/24 119/25 124/17 148/7 158/12 160/25 161/3 168/12 169/19 169/22 169/24 182/19 183/15 185/16 189/15 189/21 189/23 staffed 148/8 staffs 189/23 stand 105/24 standards 157/14 175/19 176/2 started 136/4 138/13 147/14 165/15 196/5 starting 135/4 149/13 state 101/1 101/23 111/9 114/3 114/3 114/14 130/5 147/4 147/12 148/18 151/5 151/9 162/3 203/5 State -- 148/19 stated 121/15 169/2. statement 117/5 121/17 121/19 156/2 169/1 states 180/14 Statewide 150/13 status 178/17 stayed 155/23 158/18 158/19 stenographic 203/11 stenographically 203/9 step 115/17 130/19 STEPHEN 102/2 102/20 130/2 130/7 still 125/12 134/1 138/23 156/15 183/17 193/14 199/13 stop 150/24 160/1 169/22 stories 112/21 street 102/3 102/7 109/24 132/12 140/18 146/13 streets 131/7 stretch 115/9 193/5 strip 115/5 strongly 119/19 structures 123/12 study 105/18 166/25 stuff 184/17 style 128/12 subdivision 118/19 145/2 194/10 194/17 200/6 201/4 201/5 201/8 subdivisions 194/16 195/5 200/20 201/3 subject 105/4 114/22 115/23 117/7 117/22 121/6 121/7 131/17 145/19 148/14 156/15 160/25 163/11 164/23 165/19 166/7 179/22 182/20 197/12 submitted 189/16 subsequent 194/3 substandard 185/4 suburban 114/5 116/9 123/21 126/10 153/11 187/2 successfully 122/20 123/3 123/5 133/3 such 105/18 105/21 113/22 116/20 128/2 128/19 143/4 145/9 152/15 165/25 suddenly 145/14 suffered 189/12 suggest 183/13 suggestion 114/20 Suite 102/3 summarize 180/23 Sunset 109/17 110/9 support 119/17 148/7 152/21 178/3 181/3 sure 114/18 121/10 124/14 130/11 137/13 137/14 138/18 142/13 143/7 144/5 179/9 189/13 193/7 198/1 198/24 surrounding 128/5 177/16 123/15 . 73/20 179/11 179/23 187/8 J9/2 194/14 202/13 today 121/24 126/23 138/!:l - U up -- 167/14 142/8 142/10 168/3 180/19 U.S 107/23 109/6 109/16 up-plan 195/1 184/20 197/12 199/4 199/15 109/23 109/24 110/6 110/16 updated 108/12 153/22 together 174/9 111/3 111/7 111/12 111/14 upland 155/12 told 136/8 138/17 139/19 111/17 112/16 113/5 113/14 upzoned 155/11 139/21 140/8 140/13 140/24 114/6 115/8 132/23 156/15 urban 105/16 116/6 153/14 142/12 156/19 157/1 163/21 183/5 189/17 too 202/17 ugly 142/19 urbanization 164/14 took 147/18 149/18 155/6 Uh-huh 156/17 160/20 us 104/4 131/24 131/25 134/7 158/7 158/9 162/17 167/6 ultimate 171/11 149/11 156/7 159/6 160/14 199/8 199/17 ultimately 119/4 159/25 161/9 163/23 164/22 173/20 top 135/7 164/13 180/12 200/5 170/25 189/2 total 194/25 umbrella 188/8 use 101/6 105/15 113/11 totally 121/10 unconstitutional 157/20 158/8 113/13 113/15 113/21 114/1 toward 156/12 under 104/10 107/6 109/3 114/13 116/9 116/10 119/6 town 138/5 109/24 112/8 117/23 118/3 129/15 138/19 142/15 143/11 townhome 118/13 119/1 119/8 125/12 125/20 148/12 149/9 149/19 150/18 townhomes 106/4 106/5 107/12 125/21 126/10 137/12 138/20 151/21 152/24 155/12 160/7 107/18 107/23 118/9 142/22 145/21 146/1 149/15 160/24 163/6 164/17 164/23 165/17 townhouse 145/9 162/19 177/23 179/8 182/7 165/20 166/21 167/2 167/15 townhouses 144/22 200/8 188/8 193/14 168/6 168/8 168/14 168/23 tract 166/7 understand 122/17 144/1 169/5 169/19 169/25 171/11 traffic 105/20 106/6 107/8 144/13 144/15 144/17 172/3 173/13 177/7 177/10 107/23 108/12 109/9 109/12 understanding 106/2 116/18 177/12 177/14 177/24 178/5 111/19 120/11 131/10 131/12 137/9 171/16 178/7 178/11 178/15 178/23 133/21 133/24 134/6 134/7 understood 134/14 138/24 180/11 188/12 189/1 189/7 179/23 179/24 180/2 180/2 unincorporated 121/8 121/11 190/2 190/19 191/7 191/8 180/21 183/12 183/16 183/20 121/13 126/13 163/7 164/6 191/12 191/21 191/24 192/4 183/20 184/25 185/3 185/12 174/16 174/21 179/5 192/8 193/23 196/2 186/4 186/8 186/12 186/13 Union 163/22 use -- 153/16 163/5 171/7 186/16 unique 115/6 117/1 used 132/7 142/21 150/6 trailer 139/7 139/9 139/11 unit 106/6 123/12 144/20 151/15 154/11 154/12 154/15 139/14 145/14 152/15 152/16 153/8 153/10 157/6 158/14 167/4 171/2 transcript 159/12 202/10 153/11 154/21 154/21 155/22 172/21 191/4 195/20 199/19 transitional 113/13 166/1 166/1 166/20 168/17 uses 112/14 115/10 115/10 translates 145/10 145/11 172/25 177/10 177/11 201/24 115/11 115/18 116/15 116/17 transportation 104/20 105/14 units 105/16 107/15 108/16 154/19 177/16 177/19 193/23 108/5 108/19 108/21 109/22 108/17 108/23 109/4 113/11 usinq 153/21 168/16 196/12 112/1 119/20 120/2 152/5 113/12 114/5 115/19 118/15 152/23 180/17 119/10 123/17 123/20 124/3 trees 184/16 124/5 124/12 124/12 125/23 tried 141/17 189/3 193/11 126/10 127/15 128/3 128/8 trips 185/18 185/20 128/16 128/18 128/25 129/1 true 106/20 120/25 151/6 129/8 129/9 129/10 129/11 152/12 203/11 144/7 144/9 144/17 150/2 truer 156/1 151/13 151/14 152/11 152/15 truly 139/2 152/16 153/12 153/13 153/14 trust 161/17 155/19 155/22 165/4 165/24 Trustee 101/7 166/11 166/17 168/9 168/10 Truthfully 131/12 169/18 170/4 170/5 170/11 try 104/7 140/1 175/20 202/14 170/20 171/13 171/14 172/21 trying 144/13 159/13 161/8 173/17 177/1 178/17 179/3 199/20 180/25 191/8 191/9 191/15 tune 106/8 192/9 192/12 192/14 192/21 turn 108/10 112/8 160/21 194/13 195/24 196/12 198/19 177/7 185/8 188/16 199/4 199/8 201/24 turned 167/7 University 105/3 163/2 twain 110/24 unless 141/17 141/19 141/25 twenty 159/23 142/1 196/20 two 104/11 133/8 133/8 140/17 unlimited 156/24 140/19 152/15 154/23 155/6 unobstructed 119/11 123/18 155/7 160/10 162/8 165/14 128/22 166/17 169/3 169/6 169/11 until 135/7 136/10 175/15 180/14 186/9 187/14 up 107/11 107/14 110/18 112/6 if 189/14 194/11 194/13 198/20 113/7 115/4 115/8 120/2 122/8 199/22 200/2 122/10 122/24 123/25 126/13 two-thirds 113/8 133/1 133/6 135/4 143/10 type 131/15 134/12 135/23 147/17 148/1 150/2 150/2 139/22 192/16 150/3 150/19 151/14 151/21 types 150/7 152/8 152/11 154/10 155/2 typical 118/18 127/21 159/6 163/18 164/12 164/16 typically 115/16 118/14 165/3 165/14 172/2 172/20 T v vacant 201/11 variances 176/7 variety 174/11 various 152/1 version 109/18 very 119/19 120/2 136/12 136/22 136/24 154/18 155/16 169/14 172/8 177/13 178/23 180/12 183/9 191/2 195/18 viable 186/2 vice 104/19 vices 141/12 vicinity 163/20 164/16 171/22 172/3 172/17 193/22 views 119/11 123/18 123/19 128/22 Village 200/7 vintage 139/3 virtually 117/16 voiced 111/24 VOLUME 101/16 voted 120/24 want 104/6 105/10 107/6 111/18 115/16 119/3 127/11 127/23 129/24 131/8 140/10 142/10 143/2 144/6 160/14 171/21 181/22 193/13 197/20 198/1 198/24 202/17 wanted 127/7 127/13 127/17 128/10 128/14 135/25 152/13 ~r wants 144/15 144/16 was -- 156/20 189/3 199/11 wasn't 121/22 122/3 127/6 128/9 200/11 200/13 202/1 waste 141/23 152/22 water 119/5 141/19 141/22 141/23 150/11 152/2 152/3 .152/4 152/22 way 106/10 111/23 118/4 135/10 143/8 144/12 173/20 179/12 W;i.ys 133/16 145/3 W4!l' 11 138/7, W4!l're 115/24 122/25 123/9 166/7 199/12 w4!laring 118/7 wl!ligh 178/9 wl!light 107/13 wl!lll 105/1 105/25 106/13 110/12 112/10 127/17 136/24 139/9 139/13 139/17 140/2 142/12 150/17 152/22 165/20 172/23 174/23 175/1 177/13 179/19 185/15 186/9 186/20 187/7 190/16 196/4 196/24 197/23 198/13 201/1 w~!nt 119/22 119/22 120/12 135/15 150/12 156/4 192/9 194/14 197/4 197/7 197/14 197/18 197/25 198/2 198/17 198/23 199/3 199/5 199/10 199/16 199/18 were 105/5 112/11 113/3 113/19 118/8 121/25 122/10 132/12 135/8 135/25 136/7 138/17 139/2 148/4 149/8 150/6 150/10 151/2 151/5 151/24 152/18 153/4 153/15 153/17 154/3 154/6 154/7 154/25 155/11 156/25 158/14 158/16 161/10 163/24 165/21 165/24 166/5 166/9 168/19 169/6 169/17 170/2 176/3 176/10 186/10 189/1 189/24 191/20 194/8 194/21 194/25 195/5 197/2 198/8 198/9 199/21 WElren't 127/25 WEIst 163/21 166/9 western 116/3 wEltland 119/5 122/14 wEltlands 184/17 What -- 185/10 what's 123/25 124/4 124/6 150/25 160/15 163/2 168/12 172/19 181/6 181/11 181/18 184/12 199/2 when 104/21 105/23 113/15 122/13 124/20 128/3 132/12 132/22 132/22 132/24 136/3 137/16 138/6 138/16 139/14 140/5 140/7 145/4 145/15 148/1 149/20 150/19 150/21 154/9 154/20 157/16 158/12 159/24 160/12 162/17 1~5/15 169/10 170/13 176/10 178/7 178/11 178/23 179/24 184/3 186/7 191/12 194/9 195/10 196/8 196/11 196/15 198/7 200/17 200/19 wb,enever 178/5 wbere 107/2 113/17 113/21 114/5 119/9 122/25 126/14 127/8 128/6 128/11 128/1: 128/21 129/6 129/9 130/14' 136/25 144/23 145/13 145/15 149/23 157/6 157/8 167/3 170/7 180/4 181/10 192/6 194/25 196/2 196/17 197/6 200/3 200/9 200/15 200/16 201/22 whereas 119/7 144/12 156/9 180/12 wherewithal 183/22 whether 107/19 124/11 124/14 143/8 144/17 182/8 194/2 which 107/11 107/24 108/20 109/16 110/9 112/7 112/18 114/3 117/7 118/19 119/1 119/5 120/3 121/8 121/9 122/14 127/18 127/21 151/11 151/12 151/14 152/21 153/9 153/11 153/12 153/13 153/14 156/6 156/21 157/3 165/3 166/1 166/16 169/6 171/22 172/4 177/2 177/8 177/9 180/10 195/25 196/5 196/10 198/3 198/18 199/7 200/6 202/12 while 109/8 112/9 115/23 who 117/16 131/23 133/12 135/6 139/19 140/20 161/12 184/19 190/17 whole 122/19 123/19 128/23 131/7 139/1 165/9 172/20 178/19 199/2 199/19 why 121/22 122/1 123/11 127/5 127/11 128/2 136/9 182/22 182/23 wide 139/10 widen 120/1 wi11 104/7 106/1 107/7 111/16 119/10 126/7 133/20 136/6 146/17 149/5 150/24 151/17 153/25 159/13 159/22 164/20 171/24 172/2 173/8 175/9 176/20 179/6 180/5 181/24 183/20 195/13 196/22 202/10 202/11 202/13 wish 112/4 within 134/10 152/20 155/18 155/23 156/23 157/5 165/24 169/7 187/16 Without 149/4 163/15 witness 129/25 146/25 won't 128/24 wondering 123/8 Wood 173/2 198/12 word 132/7 142/21 160/7 191/4 words 156/4 188/13 work 104/22 104/24 108/21 110/16 118/22 126/20 128/24 133/22 150/16 162/11 163/4 175/19 175/20 work -- 129/12 worked 105/21 112/18 119/23 147/7 156/12 162/5 162/12 176/6 working 140/12 163/24 works 110/25 161/13 workshops 154/24 worth 154/24 wou1d -- 132/6 Wouldn't 132/8 wri te 189/3 writing 108/6 wronq 178/1 Y yeah 109/13 110/22 115/1 125/12 138/1 146/14,148/15 152/1 158/19 159/16 160/23 164/20 200/24 year 105/9 110/15 119/23 160/10 173/21 196/25 years 112/19 130/22 130/23 131/19 132/16 132/18 132/19 133/13 134/11 134/11 136/4 137/17 137/18 138/7 140/4 145/12 147/10 155/6 155/7 159/21 162/8 162/13 162/15 162/18 164/8 165/14 167/17 172/15 176/12 182/24 190/2 193/22 195/8 195/13 199/18 years' 154/23 ye110w 113/6 113/6 164/25 165/12 165/22 167/7 197/24 198/3 Yep 161/7 yes 104/14 105/10 105/19 106/9 106/12 107/5 107/10 107/16 108/18 110/19 112/1 114/10 114/17 114/23 116/11 117/25 118/6 119/14 120/25 121/25 122/7 122/11 122/18 122/22 124/24 125/1 125/19 129/20 135/2 135/10 136/12 136/12 142/7 142/9 142/23 146/14 146/14 147/11 147/22 148/13 149/10 151/23 153/6 159/2 159/4 161/5 161/11 161/16 161/19 162/9 163/8 163/10 163/13 164/4 1~8/10 168/21 168/24 170/13 171/6 171/9 171/16 173/19 173/23 174/4 174/14 174/17 174/20 175/8 175/13 176/16 181/2 182/17 184/21 185/1 185/5 185/9 187/17 189/11 192/20 193/25 194/5 195/7 195/11 197/16 199/15 yes -- 123/5 yet 175/14 you -- 151/1 172/15 185/16 187/7 you're 108/4 108/6 113/16 117/6 122/19 123/8 125/12 127/13 128/7 128/24 140/7 144/4 145/4 148/1 148/2 168/22 192/3 195/22 198/1 you've 189/13 your 104/4 104/12 104/15 105/8 105/11 105/25 106/2 106/10 111/11 115/3 116/13 116/24 117/3 118/7 118/15 118/15 119/12 119/17 129/24 130/5 130/6 130/9 130/24 131/15 131/16 133/12 134/10 134/24 136/18 137/16 139/6 139/15 141/15 142/4 143/21 145/4 145/19 145/22 145/25 147/4 148/16 160/25 162/3 162/25 170/2 174/19 178/16 179/13 180/23 180/24 182/8 183/13 183/17 185/2 185/6 186/10 186/25 187/25 188/1 188/9 188/19 189/23 192/17 195/20 200/2 Ivour -- 179/4 Z zero 151/11 165/3 165/23 -:,?-.... Z 166/16 181/13 -- zone zoning 124/11 125/7 125/21 125/22 126/2 127/2 127/8 127/18 128/11 128/13 129/3 129/4 149/16 149/18 150/7 154/19 156/10 160/6 162/16 162/17 162/18 163/6 166/14 166/15 167/22 169/11 169/11 169/19 169/24 175/25 178/7 179/6 181/9 184/3 184/4 184/11 190/18 191/1 191/4 \ 201/4 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CASE NO.: 03-1500 DIVISION: K 6 City of Clearwater, for the use and benef>t of LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT, 7 III, and LAWRENCE H. DIMMITT. JR, as Trustee, 8 9 10 Petltloners, v. PINELLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 11 COMMISSIONERS AS COUNTYWIDE PLANNING AUTHORITY. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Respondent., / HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE DONALD R. ALEXANDER VOLUME I July 10, 2003 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. C>ty Hall, City of Clearwater 112 Osceola Avenue Tanpa, Florida REPORTED BY: SCO'M' SINCLAI R Notary Pubhc State of Flor>da at Large Debra Kurtz & Assoc>ates 727-441-2404 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 APPEARMlCES: S'1EPIIEN O. COLE, ESQUlllE MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court Street, Su>te 200 Clearwater, Florida 33756 727-441-8966 on behalf of the Petitioner DAVID S. SADOWSKY, ESQUI:RE Sen>or Assistant County Attorney Pl.oellas County 315 Court Street Clearwater~ Florida 33756 727-464-3354 on behalf of the Respondent PROCEEDINGS OpenJ.nq Statements By Mr. Cole........................................ 4 By Mr. Sadowsky.................................... 5 19 TESTIMONY 20 (In order of appearance.) 21 22 23 24 25 ~ ~ ~ Dand Healey 10 31 M>chae1 W>l1enbacher 33 38 42 Cynthu Tarapani 45 79 94 ,/ 1 3 1 2 3 Qgf. 4 Petl.tJ.oner'5 1 - 36 5 Exh>bi t 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ MARKED RECEIVED 39 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ o:llm: Wa ~ here a1 the IlELtter of case No. 03-1500. W:IUl.d the parties enter their ~ for the mo:m1 beginning with the let1t:ia1ers, U yea wcul.d, sir. Kt. CJ:lm: Yes, sir. StEphen Cole with the fiml of Nidrarl.ane, !ergusaI , M1-Illlen here for let1tia1er. Kt.~: David ~ with the Office of the O::iunty Attamsy for Respcodent. ~ o:llm: 1my ~ 1lELtt:ers by o:uJSel. ? Kt. CJ:lm: N:I1e that I'm aNare of, JIxlga. ~ o:llm: Mr. Cole, cl1d yea have an c:pen1ng statarent, sir? OPENING STATEMENT, PETITIONER Kt. CXlU!l: Yes, sir, just this: ~ let1tia1ers will be asldng ycur Baxlr to enter a J:~......d.d. cmEr to rebm1 to the Boa%d of O::iunty 0:mld.ss1alers, sitt1nq as the O::iunt:ywi.cle Plann1ng Autbari ty for pjne]J,as O::iunty, that j,n effect, EIlbr.Ices or E!lIdorses the l.e......a....d.tia1s, histar:1cally that have been ~ a1 this z:equest by the planning' staff of the C:l.ty of Cleal:water, by the O::rlmm1ty tleI/e1qmInt Boa%d of the C:l.ty of Cleal:water, by ~~ the City Catmiss1a1 of the City of CLearwater, by the Pmfessia1al1ldv:isoIy Calmittee of the O::lunty, by the PmaUas Pl.anninq counc.u, tJut alas, not by the Board of Calrnlss1cnml. I 1le!Jl.ected, by the W<q, the staff of the PPC is another ale that bas J:eIIi.aIed and ~ the recp!St. 'DIe request was for an alE!ldrent to the ccuntywicla future laIX\ use plan xegaxd1nq the affected pn:perty to be changed fJ:al\ a des1gnatia1 of %eS1LlentJ.al sUbw:ban to residential. lc:w. And that will be part and pa=e1 of what we talk ab::ut. And I will step at that and be mady to cliw into it. N3 ~te yo::ur assistance and attentia1, J\ldr;le . 'DIE rom: Mr. Sacbmky. :1 'I !i I; 7 Ei Sl lei 1] 12 ]1, 14 1.'5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OPENING STATEMENT. RESPONDENT !\R. SA[l(H;I(l(: Your HaIor, this laIX\ use ccntrauersy inIIolves the PmaUas O::lunty Board of O::lunty Calm1ssicmers acI:1nq as capacity as the O::luntywicla Planninq Authotity's clerIia1 of a recp!St to change the future laIX\ use cl.assificatia1 CI1 the CXlIlI1tywicla ......~dalSive plan CI1 the subject pn:perty fzan residential. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ]5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sUbw:ban, wbi.cb al.lcMs 2.5 units per acz:e, to residentJ.allc:w, wbi.cb al.lcMs 5 units per acz:e. Fetitialers haw stated that they clesiJ:e to deIIelc:p the subject pt:qlerty with IlIIltifcnUy lo1s1ng with 5 units per acz:e and l::o.1i1d an access road thrcugh a wooded aJ:ea to mitigate the mpact of the .in::1:easec! density CI1 the ~ s1ng:1e faIIl.J.y ne1gbbothcoc:Is. 'DIe subject property is ~ by ptcperty en the north and sc:R1th sides with a laIX\ use c:lass1ficatia1 of residential. sUbw:ban that al.lcMs 2.5 units par acz:e. ElElspaldmt will sbcIIf bet< the Board' s decisi.a1 to rraintain a residential. sUbw:ban land use c:lass1ficatia1 of single flllliJ.y , daue1qm!nt en the subject ptcperty is ocnsistent with the ser.ies of land use decisia1s IlBde in the last three decades. In the 1970' s, the subject prqlBrty and ~ residential. ptcperty had the least intensiw of the three ava1l.able residential. land use c:lass1ficatials at 7.5 units per acz:e. In the 1980's, the PmaUas Pl.anninq CcuncU ad:pted m:o:e ~ic residential. land use cl.assificatials, and the land use 5 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ]5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 classificatia1 CI1 the subject and the lIIlrl:tUlding residential. property was iI'lEIIlded. to residential. sUbw:ban, wbi.cb al.lcMs 2.5 units per acz:e. 'DIe Board eIIeIl tumed cbm recp!Sts in the 1980' s to pemd.t the daue1qm!nt of IlIIltifcnUy hou.s1nq at 5 units par acz:e CI1 residential p:cperty and the SI.lCOUIld1nq azea. In the late 1980' s to the 1990' s and to the present, the SI.lCOUIld1nq residential p:cperty bas been steadUy and ocnsistently deveJ.cped with single fcnUy ~ withul the 2.5 units per acz:e l.imI.tatia1. Fetiticmer's property WJ.th the land use ...1 "aai 4'i catJ.a1 of residential. sUbw:ban is cne of the rEIlBininq 1JlldElIIelc:.p pieces in the aJ:ea. Respandent will sbcIIf that aIp1e E!IIidenoe exists to prc7IIe that Fetiticmer's pn:posal to davelq> IlIIltifarmJ.y lo1s1ng at 5 units per acz:e is, ale, incaIpat:ll:lle with the esi-"hli.._ grcwth cha%acter and single fcnUy daue1qm!nt pattam in the LaIce 0Iau1:aulpL azea; bIo, inca1sistent with the goals and polic:ies of the ccuntywicla ,.a,p:l!ibe!Ilsive plan; and three, 6 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ]5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 inca1sistent with the land use dec1s1.aIs of the Board and the PmaUas Pl.anninq CcuncU Oller the last three cIecades. Finally, alE!ldrents to the .......l-'"d.....sive land use plans axe a leg:islative deci.s1al subject to a-fairly dEiatable' standal:d of rev:1.EM. 'DIe fairly dEiatable standal:d of rev:1.EM is highly dBf4mmtial. and requ1zes ~ of a plann1ng' actia1 that zeascmable persaIS o:W.d differ as to its pn:priety. 'lhis case inIIolves a leg:islative plann1ng' dec1s.1on to rraintain the status quo of a ccuntywicla .......pt,d>ensi.ve plan. Respandent will prc7IIe that the Board's decisi.a1 to rraintain the stabls quo of the residential. sUbw:ban land use ","'..ai4'i=b..al neets the fau:ly dEiatab1e standaxd, and therefore nm:its J:eIIi.EM of the ~.......:htia1~. ~ ytlU. 'DIE rom: ~ ytlU, sir. Mr. CCll.e, axe ytlU mady to call yo::ur first wibless, sir? Nt. c::mz: Yes, sir. And I think we understand that the WJ.bless will be David Healy. 'DIE rom: Mr. HaaJ.ey, if ytlU ,want to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a seat up here, please, sir. DAVID HEALEY, SWORN ~. CDIB: As a ~iT'9' uatter, I'm going to hand to the witness a cx:py of a group of dcClm!nts that are identified as Exhibit 1 through 36. And I have p1:OIIided a cx:py to your Haler aIX\ to Mr. 5adl:Msk;y as well, aIX\ have a cx:py for reference by the witnesses. And I'm Ullderstandlnq fran CIllr pretr1a1 dL",.'"""i ans that Mr. Sad:lwslc;y aIX\ I are in agJ:eEIIB1t to st1p1late to the a:tnis.sjbi11ty of all of the exhibits we have shamd with eaCh other -- ~. Sl'lDa4S1<lr: 0Jr.I:ect. ~. CDIB: - so paz:haps as a uatter of ~jrq, I can just IIDIIe ElllIIBSSe the introc:luct.1al of Pet.iticller's Exhibits 1 tJu:ough 36. 'mE cmRT: 'Dley Will be received. (Pet1t1oner's Exh~b~ts 1-36 recelved In eV1dence.) ~. CDIB: And they'm taI:i:led. with those lI1:I'Ibers, aIX\ so for refe....lQe paxposes I Will refer to them pe1:haps either by the I1lrIbar of the tab that o...,,L~lds with the exhibit I1lrIbar . 1 'mE cmRT: Okay. 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION 3 Br~. CDIB: 4 Q. Good aftemcon, sir. Tell us your nate. 5 A. 1'\' nate is Dav1d Healey. 6 Q. ftJat is your profess1a1? 7 A. I'm a city planner. 8 Q. YCIllr cw:mnt occupat::Lal.? 9 A. I se>:W> as the elIeCUt1ve cIi.J:ector far the 10 Pine11as Comty Plann:Inq 0::ulciJ.. 11 Q. N::iw, you're cr::mIng tJu:ough a little weak 12 here. Can you hear lie clcay? I'm not sure :IX we 13 EI\Ier-- 14 'mE cmRT: I den' t think we EI\Ier got it 15 en. But. . . 16 ~. CDIB: Don't be bashful then. Speak 17 up. Am you hea!:ing lie ~ 18 'mE WI'lNI!'SS: Yes, I lIlI. 19 Br~. CDIB: 20 Q. I wculd llllie to -- well, first, ask :IX ycu 21 waIld shate with us just a little bit, as the saying 22 goes, the ~ t:InzIbnaU slcetdh of your 23 professuxW. eclucat1al, backgrcund, t:ra1n1nq aIX\ 24 experience in your professial. 25 A. I have an undergraduate deg%ee fran 9 11 1 Colgate thivers1.ty. I have a IIBSter's deg%ee in 2 city plarm1nq fran Ohio state thivers1.ty. I have 3 been a city planner for Oller 35 years. I ~y 4 sez:wd as plarm1nq diJ::e::tar for the City of 5 CleaJ:water. About hal.f Ill{ Cla%eE!r I have served U1 6 the private sector as a o::asultant, for the last 14 7 years as execut1ve diJ::e::tar of the P1nellas O:Iunty 8 Pl.amw1q 0::ulciJ.. 9 Q. Ycu bad preIIiously furnished lie with a 10 cx:py of your resare, and just for reflm!!lCe, it's 11 inc1udec1 with a couple of other ris1zres under Tab 12 25. And pe1:haps you can tw:n to it aIX\ ClCX1f1ml that 13 that is in::leed your resare. 14 A. Yes, sir, it is. 15 Q. YCUllE!l1t1oned that you have been executive 16 diJ::e::tar for 14 years with the Pine11as Planning' 17 0::ulciJ., does that date to the beginning of the 18 0::ulciJ.? 19 A. It dates to Jprillst, 1989, at Wh1c:h 20 point the Plann:Inq 0::ulciJ. bad been %eCaISt1tutec:l. 21 under an atIlIIdlent of a spec1aJ. act of the State 22 1s}1slatw:e - createc:l. the Plann:Inq 0:ll.1Ilc1J., aIX\ a 23 Comty charter atIlIIdlent subsequent to that in 24 NcM:Id:ler of 1988. 25 Q. All right. Let's take a coup1e of 10 12 1 mLtmtes,:IX we can, to eclIJcate us about P1nellas 2 Comty's systEm for .land use mgulat::Lal. aIX\ what, :IX 3 ~, nay be diffe%ent about the systEm in 4 PinelJ.as Camty in CCI1t:rast to other =ties 5 thrcugbclI.t the state. So a starting poult mlght be 6 just to desc:rjbe what is the P1nellas Planning' 7 0::ulciJ.? And ycu refer to it as the PPC. It's 8 often lcncIm as the PPC. 0Jr.I:ect? 9 A. 'nlat' s 00D:'eCl:. 10 Q. Help us, JUdge Alexandar aIX\ uv.seJ.f, and 11 Mr. Sad:lwslc;y, :IX he needs it, to understand a little 12 better what the PPC is. 13 A. ~ Plann:Inq CQmcll, your Ha1or, is a 14 creatw:e of a spec1aJ. act of the state Leg1slatw:e, 15 IlCSt %eCEllltly, Olapter 88.464, LaIfs of F1oI:ida. It 16 was createc1 as a CCllIllt:ywide plan with %Epre5Ellltatial 17 fran all 24 cities in the un1nco1:poI:atecl =ty, and 18 a IIEIIber of the school boan:1. ~ cu:e 13 llBd:lers 19 Cll the 0:Iuncil. It is set up to serve in an 20 adII1saty capac1ty to the Boa%d of O:Iunty 21 CalmLs.s1alars, sitting in their special capac1ty and 22 J:Ol.e under the spec1aJ. act as the 0:Iuntyw1de 23 Planning' Aut:hoc.ty. 24 It's charged with prepatinq the =tyw1de 25 plan, and adninistedng that CCllIlltyw1de plan so as 13 1 to zequiJ:e OCIIS.1stellcy of all of the 1cca1 2 ~t plans that a%9 ~ under OIapter 3 163, Growth Mmagment Act, so that theI:e is a 4 cIegree of OCIIS.1stellcy and c:xIU'laIallty arcng the 5 plans countywide. 6 Q. P:l.nellas O::lunty is by no IIBaI1S the largest 1 county in the state. Ibf does it fa%9 density-w.l.se 8 as far as intErls:lty of deuel.c:pIEnt? 9 A. Nit a%9 a laJ:gely I::lI1ilt--up county. In 10 tems of I1I1'lbers of pecple, we a%9 ~ a 11 million. pecple. It's certainly ale of the IICSt 12 densely pcp11ated counties, I thiJIk the seo::llld IICSt 13 in the state. 14 Q. Ibf do we fa%9 in nmI:ler of 1.5 IIIlIIic:l;allties? 16 A. ~ a%9 24 sepamte ~ted cities 1'7 or towns, abcut a thUd of the O::lunty xalEl1ns 113 un1ncaI:pc:Izated. And so we have 25 separate 1cca1 19 gcuenmnt junsd1.c:t1cns, and that was part of the 20 reasal, I suspect, for the c:reat:l.a1 of the 0::unc.1l. 2:L in the first place. 2:! Q. And ycu IlE!Iltialed the O::luntywide Planning 2:i Authcn.ty, that's, in effect, the Boa%d of O:IUnty 24 0::Ilmlss:ianar, but ~ a bat with a d1%~t 2.!i naae? 14 A. Yes. 2 Q. 1!lat' s llaIBtines refar.red to as the c:t'A? 3 A. 1!lat is CXln'eCt. 4 Q. All right, s1r. A1:e ycu acquainted with 5 the ~ Which is the subject of this d1sprl:e? 6 It's scmot:InBs refeI:red to as the Il.1mnl.tt prc:party 1 or the Lake CIautauqua~, give or take a 8 little nme than 22-acres bebieen U.S. Highway 19 9 and the car daalersb1p/xepa.1.r fac1llty theI:e at the 10 west, Lake Clautauqua at the east. 11 A. Yes, I CIII. 12 Mt. CDLE: All right, s1r. JUdge, I will 13 prci:lably refer fJ:al\ t1nB to t1nB to either the 14 sUbject prqlerty or the l)jJ!mltt~, and 15 bcpefully we will all UDCIerstand that's what 16 we're here to be cxtIOElDleCl. abcut. 11 BX' Mt. CXlLB: 18 Q. Mr. Healey, 18 the subject ~ 19 located within a 1II.IIl.1.dpality? 20 A. It is. It has been annexed to the City of 21 Cl.ea%water . 22 Q. Arxl.is ny understandiJlq =reel: that the 23 owner of the prqlerty, m::u:e than a year ago, CIEPlled 24 for a land-use Change that went t:h%tNgh sate 25 p:ocess:I.nq at the IIUlli.cipal or city level before 15 1 CXZIIIJlq to your body? 2 A. 1!lat's ny understandiJlq that it was 3 prcoessed in the City of Cl.ea%water, I thiJIk, dating 4 I::laclc to Femuaz:y of 2002. 5 Q. Made its way th%ough a city process and 6 then theI:e c:ate a t1nB, give or take a year ago, 7 pel:haps mlc:IstmIer last year, Wen the ~t:l.a1 8 under our countywide rules then went to the PPC for 9 its:t'E!lli.ar and analysis? 10 A. 1!lat' s CXln'eCt, yes. 11 Q. ltlen the ~tian for the arerdrent 12 c:ate to the PPC, what was the gist of the request? 13 A. '!be natw:e of the request was to amand the 14 .land use plan categol:y fJ:al\ residential su'I:m!:lan, 15 Which allc:Ms 2 1/2 cklll.1nq units per acre, to 16 residentiall.cw, Which W01ld aUc:w 5 units. 17 A portia1 of the ~ -- a SlBll. 18 portia1 of the prqlerty -- was actually designated 19 preservat:l.a1, sort of a fringe at the lake fJ:a1t. 20 And theI:e' s a SlBll. body of water that was 21 designated as a water dI:ainage featw:e at the site 22 as well. 23 Q. Arxl. there's no issue abc:ut seeIdng to 24 Change a designat:l.a1 as to either this preservat:l.a1 25 portia1 al.aIg the lake or the wet.land., so what's - 16 1 A. No, s1r. '!be rara1JIcler of the ~ 2 was cl""'1jf1~ as residential su1:mban; the upland 3 part of the ~ as residential l.cw was the 4 natw:e of the request. 5 Q. SO in sate seIlSEl what all this ClCIlElS c:bm 6 to is the prcp:iety of the %8lp!Sted arerdrent to 7 Change fJ:al\ residential su'I:m!:lan, also calJ.ecI. RS, to 8 .residentiall.cw, also refac:ed to as RL? 9 A. 1!lat' s CXln'eCt. 10 Q. Desc:ribe in ganeJ:a1 tems the natw:e of 11 the process for :t'E!IIi.ar/eIIaluat:l.a1 of an ~t:l.a1 12 for a Change to the CXlIJntywide fUtw:e land use plan 13 1dIen it ClCIlElS to the PPC. JUst Idnd of CCIIlCeptually 14 what haA;e1s? 15 A. In the fiIst analyll1S, theI:e's a 16 cleteard.naticn of whether it's a scx:allecl 17 IlI:Ibthresho1d alEllldrent or a regular arerdrent. 18 ~ a%9 a series of thresholds that W01ld aUc:w an 19 alEllldrent, based em. its s1%e or the natw:e of the 20 alEllldrent, maan1nq what - to what this is ~ 21 to go. It was all.c:lwIE!d to be treated as a 22 IlI:Ibthresho1d atElIXtrmt subject to a less rigoI:Qls 23 :t'E!IIi.ar process. 24 'D1is, :because of its s1%e and the natw:e 25 of the request of .iJIcreased density, was a zegular 1 aII'EIlCimnt, and we reviewed it according to the 2 critena. in our ccunt:ywide plan far a J:egUl.ar 3 aII'EIlCimnt. 4 ~ cu:e SCllB six najar o:::nsideratials 5 that we l.oo1ced at, so-called releIrant ccunt:ywide 6 o:::nsideratials. Wa evaluate whel:har ar not any or 7 these aze triggeI:ed ar inIIclved in the aII'EIlCimnt, 8 and then conduct a rrcre in~ analysis of 9 these - of the six that aze ~. 10 Wa then fomulate a staff %eCXIlJIEIlda1:ia1. 11 nmt draft staff :t..............da1:ia1 is sutml.tted to a 12 revi.at Dy the Pl.anners Adlr.lsory O:mnI.ttee J'lElde up 13 of, essentially, the planning di%ectors and the 14 planning staff of the local gtMmIlIE!I1ts of the 15 indiv:LcmaJ. cities and Ccunty - 16 Q. Quick aside hme. So the Pl.anners 17 1tdlI1.!=y O:mnI.ttee is also J:eferzed to as the PAC? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. So the PAC advises the Pl'C - 20 A. 'D1ey do. 21 Q. - en route to the CPA? 22 A. Cbc:ect. I will try to avoid the alpIabet 23 soup. 24 Q. It's, h<u:d to avoid, I:lut we're at IICIW the 25 Planners 1tdlI1.!=y Ccmm.ttee, the PAC, bas a role as 1 well. R1at is that, please? 2 A. It's ',si11ply to reviSI' our staff 3 %eCXIlJIEIlda1:ia1. And they aze free to ~ an 4 ~d.ut l:ElCu.......d.l::I.a1, if they cbcose, to the 5 CcIlrdJ.. So wbeD the llatier gees to the PJ.anninq 6 CcIlrdJ., they haII9 the benefit of not only their am. 7 staff:re\l1ESt and ~.............d.1:ia1, I:lut of the planning 8 pz:afessialals fran ~t the Ccunty in tezms or 9 eithBr erldorsing or distinguishing wj,th respect to 10 that %eCXIlJIEIlda1:ia1. 11 Q. And the IIBIbers or the PAC aze 12 ~tatives of upmrds, I think, of 17 13 III1lIicipali ties? 14 A. I bel.ieue ~ aze 17 1IBIbers, fomaJ. 15 1IBIbers, of the Pl.anners Adlr.lsory O:mnI.ttee, plus an 16 EllC offic:l.o IIEIII:ler of the sc::bool Ixlard. 17 Q. And a ~tative fran the Ccunty as 18 well? 19 A. Cbc:ect. 20 Q. And that ~tative is Mr. Gordan 21 Beardsley? 22 A. I think that Mr. Bea1:dsley nay be the 23 altel:nate. I bel.ieue the planru.ng d1rec:tar, Brian 24 SnLth is, pel:haps, the designated ~tative. 25 Both Mr. IlearcIsley and Mr. Paul Cassel. cu:e 17 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 designated as altel:nates. Q. In fact, at the II'aIElI1t in 2003, Mr. Bea1:dsley, I think, is the dha1r of the PAC. Do ytlU recall that? A. He nay be. I'm not 0E!rtain. Q. NcM, the c:Ielibamtials of the PAC aze 1:'ElCC:l%dec1 in minutes. Cbc:ect? A. Cbc:ect. Q. And if ytlU will, please, just ccmfiml J.cxkI.nq under Tab 6 that ~ pages, which ytlU Id.ndly proIIidec1 ne, cu:e cx:pi.es of the pages which exnstitute the minutes of the Pl.anners Adlr.lsory O:mnI.ttee of its mael:inq, ~ 9, 2002. Is that accurate? A. 'Dlat is accw:ate, yes, uh-buh. Q. If ytlU fl.ip Ollar to Page 7 of these pages, ~'s noted thete a tti......'....i""l zegard1ng Case N:l. tw-02-39. 'Dlat's the designa1:ia1 for the case relating' to the subject ptq>erty. Cbc:ect? A. 'Dlat's correct, as it was sutml.tted in ~ of 2002. Q. Yes, sir. And just dJ:cHlinq tbm to the next: to the last line, the minutes reflect that the PAC 1lDIIed ~ of the staff ~..............Ja1:ia1 to ~ the rec;pasted aII'EIlCimnt Dy a vote or 12-o? 18 20 1 A. Cbc:ect. 2 Q. Mr. SbsIrl.a1 abstaining. If ytlU go back to 3 the fizst page of Exh1b1t 6, then, do ytlU agree with 4 ne that the ~tatives fran etery listed 5 rrunicipality as well as the Ccunty and the sc::bool 6 district, with the exceptia1 of Mr. SbsIrl.a1 Who 7 abstained, all. endarsed the staff 1..............d.1:ia1 of 8 ycur staff to ~ the rec;pasted lm!llt:iIant? 9 A. 'Dlat wculd be C02:%eCt, yes. 10 Q. And just while we have ycur hands a1 these 11 pages, 1f ytlU fl.ip Ollar to Tab 6, Exh:I.b:I.t 6, can ytlU 12 affi1:m that that is a o:py of -- althaJgh the 13 1II1lt1ple eXhibits cu:e not attacbed - I:lut the base 14 agerm IIEI'lDt'aIIlUn far the presenta1:ia1 or this 15 rec;past to the Pl'C back a1 ~ 18, 2002? 16 A. I didn't follolf ytlU. 17 Q. Yes, sir. Uldar Tab 8. 18 A. Tab 8. CJ\ay. 19 Q. I'm just as1dnq ytlU if ytlU can affiml that 20 this is a true o:py of the agerm lIEIlm:ancbn far the 21 Septs1I:lar 18, 2002, Pl'C mael:inq. But I IlEI1tia1ed it 22 ~ 1II1lt1ple attac'lm!nts ar exhibits, and 23 these aren't included W1th tlu.s. 24 A. NLth that exceptia1, that...ant to the 25 Planning CcIlrdJ.. Yes, sir. 1 Q. NcIr, in this case, El\I\!!n t:hough t:ber:e was a 2 12-0 vote far ~ fran the P1tC, the ultiIlate 3 c:Iecis1a1 f%all - ar .L......."'...""'-ticn of the Pl'C back 4 in ~tad::ler 2002 was to deny the :request by a 6-5 5 vote. 6 A. ~t's accurate, ~. 7 Q. It then went to the Boa%:d of B O:rlmlssialers, sitting as the cmntyw1de PlanniJIq 9 Aut:hari.ty, the CPA, and at that leIIal. - and heI:e we 10 am up to Octci:ler 15, 2002 -- is it CClJ:%eCt that the 11 d1spos1ticn at that point was to gr.mt a ccntinuance 1.'2 of the IlBtter, and in ad:litial to rE!IBIld it far, I 1.3 th:iJlk, what they c:har.Icterize as ~tial by 14 ytllIr bodJr by the Plann:lnq Coonci.l? 1.5 A. ~t is CClJ:%eCt. liS Q.~, Id.nd of the c:hralology of th1.s, 17 after the CPA 1I'eeting', 0c1:.c::bar 15, 2002, t:ber:e was 111 sam further zeu:lst ar pmoessirlq relating to this 1.!1 CIIE!llCitEnt in ytllIr Plann:lnq Coonci.l. Carmct? 2() A. I l:lal.i.eve it was z:esuJ:mitted in Mm:h, 2!. then, of 2003. 22 Q. All right, sir. At that ttrre there had 23 :been sam acl:li.t1aIal. infomatial that was l:a:l::ught 24 foz:wan:l. by way of cDkessinq traffic issues, I 25 th:iJlk. 1 A. ~t' s CClJ:%eCt. 2 Q. And aICEl again, the IlBtter went befate the 3 PJlC? 4 A. It did. 5 Q. And H you will .indul.ge ll'e rlCW' J.ooking 6 uncIar Tab 14, El/IUbit 1.4, can you affinn that these 7 pages a:nstitute the minutes of the PJ.anners 8 kllI1saEy II'eeting' of Ma%ch 1.0, 2003? 9 A. I cb1' t have -- ~, that is CClJ:%eCt. 10 Yes. 11 Q. And by the way, em the fiIst page it 12 identifies Mr. Beardsl.ey of the cmnty as chai% -- 1.3 A. YEp. 14 Q. -- and that's, I think, Whel:e I p1clced up 15 that ticI:lit. 16 And bmling to Page 5 of ExlUhit 14, 17 t:ber:e, again, is it CClJ:%eCt that that's the point at 18 whicb t:ber:e is noted the di ~'a",i.a1 in actic:II1 19 relating to the subject prqlerty? 20 A. ~t' s CClJ:%eCt, ~. 21 Q. ~ over to Page 6, it indicates that 22 the act:ial of that l:xxl/{ was to seek to ~ the 23 CIIE!llCitEnt by a vote of 1.3-o? 24 A. To ~ the alE!llI:iIE!nt based an the 25 staff's %eClaIIIBIdatial, which was subject to the 21 23 1 traffic ll'rpttMmmts and ~ by the City of 2 C1.eaJ:water. 3 Q. nIaIlk you. And we am not going to doIell 4 em it at this point, but with other witnesses we 5 will speak sam of the traffic issues. Il1t suffice 6 it to saD;/, far p%eSE!ntiy m::JI7inq us fatWa%d, traffic 7 ocmcems wem adl:essed and wem a tcpic of sam B disr,,,aai"l. at this point in t:.1ne? NcIr we':re up to 9 Mm:h 2003, Mm:h of this year? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Again, clu:alo1ogically, the IlBtter went 12 back to the PlanniJIq Coonci.l. Carmct? 1.3 A. Yes. 14 Q. And H you will look with IIEl uncIar Tab 15, 15 again, is what is :refez:red to as an aget1da 16 lIBICI:andIm, albeit without exlUbits ar attaclm!nts, 17 related to at that neet1ng? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. And at the - the ClCIIsideratial of the 20 IlBtter befate the Pine1.las P1ann:lnq 0:0uncU, 21 Mm:h 19, 2003, what was the decis.ian ar :result? 22 A. '!be PlanniJIq Coonci.l ........."'...d.d ~ 23 of the alE!llI:iIE!nt CXI1Sistent with the earlier 24 :r::.............""'-tial that it wculd be subject to the 25 current mmagBI'E!I1t proI1isia1s of the City of 22 24 1 C1.eaJ:water, and the traffic ~ts that the 2 City of C1.eaJ:water had offeJ:ed in ~ of the 3 artEIIlimnt. 4 Q. All right, sir. Not to Ilalce a Il!r'Stexy of 5 it, because again, we will speak to 1t further later 6 an, but the essence of the traffic ClCIIsideratial was 7 adl:essed by the agreEmlI1t offered by the City and B the clsuel.c:per to sba:re the expense to elttend 9 ClautalJqua Avenue north to intersect Ent:mpl:ise 10 Read. Carmct? 11 A. That is CClJ:%eCt. 12 Q. '!be current cIes1gnatial, residential 1.3 1lIlbw:ban, wculd al1.oIt em these 22 acJ:eS the 14 cxmsb:uct:ia1 of sam 46 single famLly hares. Is 15 that CClJ:%eCt? 16 A. It wculd al1.oIt the cxmstructicn uncIar the 17 CXIUl\tyw1de rules of ~tel.y 46 ~ uzu.ts, 18 ~. 19 Q. Is it 00I:%eCt, H you 1cnl:M, that what's 20 been prqlOSEld far cleuelc::pmnt w:Lth the :requested 21 artEIIlimnt am 90 units of clustered ar attached 22 toImhouses? 23 A. That was the ~tatial by the City of 24 C1.eaJ:water,~, sir. 25 Q. Technically, and we kind of IIEI1tioned 1 this, the request is to go frail RS to RL, 2 residential sul:mban to residential lc:M? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. WLthin the =tywide land use plan, are 5 theJ:e general ranges for residential des1gnatia1s 6 that are 0CII.Sic:Iere:1 high, 1IEldi1Zll, lc:M? 7 A. Am you talking generally? 8 Q. Yes, sir. 9 A. Yeah, theJ:e are thI:ee. Your Ha1or, theJ:e 10 are thI:ee IlBjor residential cla.ss1fi.cat1cns, 11 p1ann.inq cla.ss1fi.catia1s, within which theJ:e are 12 asc:ribed indiv1.dual plan categories. ~ indiv1.dual 13 cate;lcries up to 7 1/2 units an acre are CXIllS:idared 14 residential lcIf, res.idential lcIf J:ange; fran 7 1/2 15 to 15 is 0CII.Sic:Iere:1 a 1IEldi1Zll clans1ty res.idential 16 :z:ange; and 15 and ab::Ive is ClCI1Si.del1:ec a high deas1ty 17 residential J:ange. WLthin eac!b. of those :ranges are 18 indiv1.dual plan categories to define or :refine those 19 broader cla.ss1fi.cat1cns. 20 Q. All dght. So undar the Ulb%eJ..la of the 21 ","'aai ~i catial of residential lcIf, theJ:e is EIlbI:aced 22 both residential stJbl.mlan and res.idential l.cw? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. And that sam Ulb%eJ..la wculd also extend 25 up to the next higher ca~, res.idential w:ban? 1 A. ~t' s coz:rect as -U. 2 Q. So :in sate SE!IlSe, the requested llllBIdrEnt 3 is to go fran a lcIf cla.ss1fi.catial to another lcIf 4 cla.ss1fi.catial? 5 A. To a dist:1nct plan catego1:y within the 6 ouerall lcIf derIs1ty J:ange, yes. 7 Q. If a request far atE!IIlirent has the 8 appmIIal of yo:m' bx!y, of the P.lnellas Pl.ann1ng 9 O::unci.l, and it gees then to the Boa%:l1 of ~ty 10 0::mIIissi.mers to be acted upa1 :in its capacity as 11 the ~tywide Pl.ann1ng Authar1ty -- am I getting II!{ 12 nares dght? 13 A. (N:xk11ng'. ) 14 Q. - H, then, a request for atI!Idtant gees 15 with the appmIIall.........,...d..tial fran the PPC, is 16 theJ:e a prcvis1al :in the l.aw that provides whether 17 samt:h1nq other than a s1nple IlBjar.1ty VQte is 18 xequired :in crder to overtum the J..............datial of 19 yo:m' b:x1y? 20 A. Yes. In fact, :in either event, a 21 ..........,...d..tial to ~ or to c:Iany, H the 22 ~tywide Planning Authar1ty disagrees with that, 23 :in crder to overtum the %elXrlIIBIdatial of the 24 O::unci.l, it rrust be by a super-uajar.1ty vote. 25 Q. I'm thinlc::I.ng the l.aw provides it wculd be 25 ' 27 1 a IlBjar.1ty plus ene. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. In the case of our ~ty Cl:::IImLssia1, _ 4 have what, SElIIeI1 ItBIbers IlClII? 5 A. Con:ect. So it wculd J:eqp1re a vote of 5. 6 Q. Yes, sir. And you use the EDIpl:eSSia1 7 super-uajar.1ty, is that the W<q it's :referred to in 8 ycur parlance? 9 A. I den' t lcncw. ~t' s the W<q I :refer to 10 it. It DBy be IlBjar.1ty plus ale. It cbes IIBke it 11 clear in the stab1te that it is of the ent1%e Board, 12 not of the qu<nun present. 13 Q. Ve%y -U. Based at yo:m' expe.rieooe I1CIII' 14 auer 14 years, H you can character1ze it at a 15 percentage basis, what has been the - I will S<rf/ -- 16 reject.1a1 %ate by the CPA of IlBtters that a:zre to it 17 with the ~ of the PPC? 18 A. ~ land use plan llIIBICtnants are WI:Y 19 seldan 0IIIllrbmled or changed by the O:luntywide 20 Planning 1luthar:I.ty - WI:Y raxel.y. 21 Q. Regardjng' the O:lunty's fublm land use 22 plan, it's been in effect new for sate, gcodlIess, 23 ccuple of decades or IIDre - ocm:ect - sate I1lZIber 24 of years? 25 A. I'm s=ry? 26 28 1 Q. ~ CXlUI1tywide fublm land use plan has 2 been in effect far sate mmber of years, at the 3 crder of a oouple of decades or 1lDI:e? 4 A. In its present fcmn, J:eally, datillq back 5 to its~, %e-'\/al1dat1al., when the Planning 6 0::IImcU was J:eCCIlSt.1tuted :in 1989, so :in its CUJ:reIlt 7 fcmn undar the stab1te since that date. 'DleI:e did 8 exist prior to that what was :referred to as the 9 CWP, or the Countywide land Use Plan, that preoecIec1 10 that,!lut undar a diffez:ent set of rules and 11 d1fferent leg1slatial act1al. 12 Q."" will pidt up then. Cu:aIol "T """ly, 13 let's pick up fran '89 far it 1lIIder the CUJ:reIlt 14 arr.mgBIB1t. Has the larx1 use plan been arrended or 15 changed fran tine to tine? 16 A. CI1, yes. 17 Q. Can you give an 1daa of the ~ with 18 which that has ocx:urxed? lb1thly? Or even extended 19 at an ammal. basis? 20 A. I will ay to character1ze it. I need. to 21 cb that in bIO BEpar.lte ways. ~ the =tywide 22 plan was m-aa.pted, the Pl.ann1ng O::unci.l 23 J:eCCIlSt.1tuted:in '89, part of the IlElIf leg1slat1al. 24 mqu1red for the f1J:st tine with any cBgree of 25 specifid.ty that eac!b. loca1 larx1 use plan be 29 :l OOIISistent with that CXIlII1tywide plan, and it set up :! crit:er:i.a. by wh1c:h to IIBaSIlrE! that ccns1stency. :1 N! went through a fairly protracted ~l process with all the local planners Oller a !. ~ period to reconcile all 25 local plans Ii with that CCIlIltywicle plan. ~ were literally l' hIlndreds of areIldrents IIEK2 in that first tlu:ee-year e wi.ndcw' to J:eCCD::J.le those plans, and end up with a So clet:emu.natia1 of ccns1stency for each of the local 10 plans. 11 So in tems of CClUI1t.:ln:J the IUd:ler of 12 areIldrents, I CXIlII1t those ldnd of in ale categcry. 13 N! called thEm ccns1stency aIEllliIents - 14 Q. And initial fluc:y of activ:ity, ytlI1 might 15 s;q? 16 A. -- to reconcile the separate planning. 17 Subsequent to that, I WQl1d suggest that 18 there's sc::IIBIhare l:lebIeen five and 10 areIldrents a 19 ncnth; l:lebIeen 60 to 100 aIEllliIents a year that we 20 process al a .tCUt1ne I:las1s since that tilIe. 21 Q. And just evm .in bI:oad-brush tems, what 22 baIIe ytlI1 found. to be the reasalS for c:hanges? 23 A. N!U, I:=ad-brush, they always baIIe geed 24 reasaIIl, I guess. 25 Q. BveI:y prcp:oent is SUJ:e it's a geed 1 reasal. 2 A. Absolutely. I guess there IlBY be th%ee or 3 four categcl::ies ytlI1 can place than.in. One wcul.d 4 certa1nly be to reconcile what's there with the 5 plan. N! cb get lIlEIDrents :routinely that prcpose 6 c:hanges to the plan to I::letter reflect what's al the 7 grcund. N! ''119 had to xeact to a DOIICICIlfamBnc 8 siblatia1 m effect. So that's me categcry of plan 9 lIlEIDrents. 10 Secc:IId, wcul.d be where we' z:e given a 11 cw:rent J:eqUizmllnt for set-back and '~i"lg and 12 al-site attentia1, the size of the p:cperty. 'Jhe 13 depth of the cw:rent ...",....iF,""tion can't 14 accamodate expans:i.aI or :teCXZ1Sb:uct1a1, and so 15 frapillltly we az:e asked to altar the plan areIldrent 16 in a fairly 1ns1gni.f1cant w;q to pl:OIIide ar:kIi.ti.alal 17 xoan for relocatia1 or expansiaI. that can't be 18 ~ted under the cw:rent classificatia1. 19 And I guess the third WQl1d just be given 20 'that we az:e fast approaChing tmld-<IUt of Pinellas 21 o:.unty, we az:e IlCW' seeing a good bit of 22 re:leuelq:rrEnt activity, and that re:leuelq:rrEnt 23 activity frapillltly involves a ~tia1 of 24 the plan areIldrent. 25 ~. cmE: 'n1ank you, sir. ~t's all I 31 1 baIIe at this ~. 2 mE croRr: Mr. Sad::Msky. 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4 ~~. S1lll(H;RY: 5 Q. Mr. Healey, you had IlB1tialed that wben 6 the Pl'C was J:eOCIlIStiblted there were these 7 ccns1stency lIlEIDrents as you labeled thEm - 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. -- .in the early 1990' s? 10 A. CorJ:ect. 11 Q. Was the subject p:cperty part of this 12 ccns1stency lIlEIDrent process or was it not 13 affected? 14 A. I ci::ln't baIIe any xecollect:i.an that there 15 was an lIlEIDrent al this part1cular piece of 16 p:cperty. I bel.i.eIIe it was classified residential 17 sul:lm:ban at the tilIe and was not cbangec:l as a 18 f'unctial., to ny 1alo:M1edge. 19 Q. To ycur 1alo:M1edge, it rEIlBined the salIB 20 befoz:e and aftar these ccns1stency lIlEIDrents? 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. You also IlB1tialed that you needec1 - the 23 C1?A needs a IIEljority plus one to 0II9rtum a deci.s1cIn 24 of the PPC? 25 A. CorJ:ect. 30 32 1 Q. And in the subject case, was that needec1? 2 Was that rule put mto effect? 3 A. Yes, it was. 4 Q. And cb you Ialo:M the vcte to 0II9rtum it? 5 A. I bel.i.eIIe the vcte by the Board of OlImty 6 CC:rll'lIlss1.a was ~, 7-0. 7 Q. It was 7-0. So m effect, that didn't 8 care to affect - the ~jcrity didn't care 9 .into play -- the IIEljcrity plus one - because it was 10 a UlllUl.im:us clec1siaI. by the BoaJ:d of o:.unty U CC:rll'lIlss1.a? 12 A. Yes, sir. I th1nk the chaimBn, 1% I 13 recall the diP'"o.~..i on at the 1IEletinr1, J:eIIInded the 14 BoaJ:d befoz:e the vcte that 1% it was other than what 15 the 1?lann1ng 0:IuIIcU ...........,....:lI.d, it WQl1d be 16 z:equ1red - that exb:a-majcrity vcte. 17 ~. S1lll(H;RY: Your Honor, I wcul.d l1l<e to 18 resez:ve and call Mr. Healey unW aftar ny 19 presentatia1 so he can resp::md to what I will 20 put al befoz:e the - 21 mE croRr: 1lll right. 22 ~. S1lll(H;RY: 'n1ank you. 23 mE croRr: Anyl:h1ng lime, sir? 24 ~. cx:u:: N:l, ycur Honor. 25 mE croRr: 'n1ank you, Mr. Healey. 1 ~te it. 2 'l1lE WImE'SS: Shall I leave this here? 3 'l1lE CDJRr: Yeah, j% you WOlld, please. 4 Kt. c:mE: Next I call Mr. WU1enbacher. 5 MICHAEL WILLENBACHER, SWORN. 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 ~ Kt. Cl::lm: SQ. And IlCIf you have a1J:eac\r told us ytlllr 9 nate, so I wal' t ask you that again, bIt tell us 10 what you cIo. 11 A. I'm the ~t for the cparaticrls here 12 for Rottlund Hares in the TaIIpa area. 13 Q. And give us just a sbart sIaetch of ytlllr 14 bacIcg:tt:und in ytlllr particular ~. You're 15 president anc1 have :been - 16 A. Yeah. I start.ec1 with another natialaJ. 17 b1ilder in Iae O:lunty anc1 m::Mlcl up here n1ne years 18 ago to start up the cparatia1 here for Rottlund 19 Hares.i.nvolving land deuel.c:prEnt for the last n1ne 20 years -- land acq).lisitia1, deIIel.qmmt -- of our 21 caanm1ti.es here in Pinella.s O:lunty anc1 ~ 22 O:lunty. 23 Q. '1h1.s IIEJ/' care as a shock to you, bIt it's 24 poss.ihl.e that JUdge Alexandar is not ent.i%ely 25 tuned-in to Rottlund Hales, so I'm going to give you 33, 35 1 A. Yes. O::a:zect. 2 Q. BIt WOlld be ccnveyed with a plot of land 3 as a fee s:IJIp1e comersh:Ip? 4 A. 1bat is =recto 5 Q. Has Rottlund ocntracted to I::luy the subject 6 p.a:perty? 7 A. Yes, I have. Yes _ have. S Q. Yeah, _. N;)t Ml.chae1, but Rottlund? 9 A. 1bat' s =recto 10 Q. And I'm going' to clizect ytlllr attentia1 11 badIc to Tab N::l. 34, please, anc1 ask j% you can 12 affiml j% this is a ~tatia1 of the site plan 13 ~ what Rottlund seeks to cIo at the subject 14 p.a:perty? 15 A. Yes, sir, it is. 16 Q. By the way, cIoes Rottlund have its own 17 prafessiaIa1 staff of planners? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Is the site plan that is before you here 20 UIIder Tab 34 SCIIBth1ng that's the product of 21 Rottlund's in-house expertise? 22 A. Yes, it is. All of our caanm1ti.es a%e 23 designed by 'J:1m Wl.tt of our CXlZpCrclte offioe; all of 24 our proc:Iucts and/or site plans. 25 Q. I=Idng at Exh1h1t 34, over em the tight 34 36 1 an qp:lrbmity to just toot the b::u:n a little bit 1 is sam legend, it indicates 90 taImhates. So is it 2 anc1 tell him what it is. 2 =rect, then, that the desiJ:e far the requestEd 3 A. M;l're a natialaJ. b1ilder llased in 3 at'Ell1dlBIt is to be able to cIevalcp the ~ in 4 Minneapolis . M;l a%e a private oc:rrpany rlght 1lCIf. 4 the rrannar dEpicted here em Exh1bit 34? 5 L1.ke I sa14, _ :bui1c1 in Pinellas anc1 ~. 5 A. Yes, it is. 6 M;l a%e the lm:gest b1Udar in Pinellas O:lunty as far 6 Q. It's 90 resicIences spread over - I 7 as pezm1ts plllec1 anc1 clos1ngs in the Pinellas 7 belieue the COlll1t is - 34 b1i1d1.ngs? S O:lunty area, anc1 in the tcp ten in the tri~ty S A. 1bat's =recto And that WOlld be sale 9 area which wcu1cl. be 1Ii11sbc:>%cugh, PulaUas, anc1 9 four-p1axes anc1 sam bo:>-p1eooes. 10 Pasco O:lunti.es. 10 Q. Amlx of- 11 M;l cIo a lot of what I refer to as infill 11 A. Fours anc1 bios. 12 b1i1dI.ngs . 'l'c:IIm1D1lIes a%e our spedalty. M;l a%e 12 Q. - quads anc1 bios? 13 cunently r.mlald I1UIbar five in the COlll1b:y, anc1 13 A. O::a:zect . 14 _'re the tcp lm:gest attadhecl. -- tc:Mnhare 14 Q. N::lIr, what is ytlllr understandinq as to the 15 speci.f1cally. 15 Clln'eIlt ability to cIevalcp the ~ under the 16 And the rest of our bus1ness here is 16 residential sub1J:Dan designatia1? 17 single falIUy, which _ cIo infills also. toIlen we 17 A. 1bat WOlld be 46 single falll.ly ~. 18 refer to infills, that is anyWhere bebIeen 30-35 to 18 Q. All rlght, sir. If you lock under Tabs 35 19 200 units. 19 anc1 six, there's a a:IUple of ~taticrls of ways 20 Q. Ycu use the expz:essial "attadhecl.," what 20 the prqlerty cculd be deIIeJ.cped with single falll.ly 21 cIoes that nean in ytlllr b1siness? 21 bales. 35 was cme that was clone by ytlllr planners? 22 A. Attached, not the aparl:Irents, but fee 22 A. 1bat's =ect. 23 sinple townhales, 1S all we have clone here. 23 Q. And 36, I think, was clone by a CXIISUltant, / , 24 Q. But in sana instances shating a cc:mn:Il 24 Florida Design Calsultants, prev:I.cus1y? 25 wall? 25 A. Yes. 1 Q. Based en pIr own mper1ellce and ,2 c:bsaJ:vat1als, cb yea peroeive there are awJ '3 part.ia1lar benefits ar adIIantages, CIle w;q ar the 4 other, far the davel.c:pmnt of a site such as the 5 subject site in an attached. cluster of t:aImhc:rles as is qp:lSSd to sinql,e famUy? '1 A. As yea can see depicted en the reDderings, Il by clustering' the uni.ts, a 10t ncre natu%al !l vegetatia!. will be saved by clustering' in that 10 fashion. 11 Also, I belieIIe that the - as yea can see 1:' based en our sinql,e famUy site plan, the m:IIber of 1:1 houses en the prcperty Wl:lUld run back into the lalaa 1<1 itself ar up to the prcperty l1ne, wbeI:eas if I were ].!, to de the clustering' of the t:aImhc:rles, all the areas lEi I:lehind the taImbares within 5 feet - let rre go 11 !:lacIGraz:tls. lB lIIen I plat IIV t:c:lImhare prcperty, the 19 amers actually own 5 feet I:lehind the tomhaIe, 20 Which will aocx:mn:x:Iate the air ClCIldit1alar area. 21 Besides that, all the rest will be cxmn:II1 areas. It 22 oculd be lJke a pal:K far the zesidents, too. 23 Q. So yea peroeive that there is actually an 24 eoolog1cal benefit? 25 A. Yes, definitely. And ~""Y by sav:Ing 37 38 1 the b:ee l1ne -- or aees that 1alld be saved by the 1 2 clustering' . 'lbat's the w;q we designed the site 2 3 plan was far the sav:Ing of the aees. 3 4 Q. All right. Q:r>..i ~bly fEMllr pools 4 5 lllIe1y? 5 6 A. Panlcn lIB? 6 7 Q. lJ:irIside:I:aby fEMllr SIdmlllZIq pools lllIe1y? 7 8 A. Ole. Ole mster pco1is all that 1alld be 8 9 located en the site. 9 10 Q. In CCI1trast of a J.iJaa1.ihcoc1 of 46 pools? 10 11 A. Mat Wl:lUld be in a sinql,e famUy - the 11 12 a\Il!lI:agIil - about 85 percent of the bares that we 12 13 l:A1Uc1 are with swimnIng pools. 13 14 Q. If I can de the ItElth mal quickly, give ar 14 15 taIce about 40 pools Wt'Uld be predictable as ll1nqle 15 16 fanUy? 16 17 A. Yes. 17 lB Kt. CDLE: 'lbank yea, HI:. itilleIIbacber. 18 19 'lbat's all I have at this tille. 19 20 mE rom: HI: . SaI:k::iwsk;v. 20 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION 21 22 Kt. S1oDCHlIC{ : I Wt'Uld lJke to use the 22 23 easel. \ 23 24 Can I introcluce this as an exh:Il:lit IIClW' ar 24 25 shculd I wait? 25 39 1 mE rom: Yeah, if yea want to go ahead 2 and mmc it. 3 Kt. S1oDCHlIC{: 'lhis will be Exhibit 14. 4 Kt. CDLE: Of ClCIUrllEl, I will stipulate, 5 JUdge. 6 Kt. SIlD(H;Kl(: 1999 aez::ial ~ of 7 the Lake Clautauqua area. And yea can see this 8 is the subject prcperty, what is in the gold 9 part. 10 (Exhlblt 14 marked for ldentlflcatlon.) 11 ~ Kt. S1oDCHlIC{: 12 Q. YClll had IIBltianed that you have the 13 in-bouse expart:1se When yea de these plaIls? 14 A. cm::rect. 15 Q. If yea lock under Tab - I think it's -- 16 35- 17 A. CJlay. lB Q. -- Which is the sinql,e fanUy develcprent. 19 A. R:l.ght. 20 Q. So t:hrcugh pIr in-lxule expertise, yea 21 cIete:mdned that yea oculd l:A1Uc1 a viable sinql,e 22 famJ.y davel.c:pmnt en the prcperty, all the 23 set-baclcs - it wtlI:ks? 24 A. Yeah, it waW:l1lC%k. 25 Q. It Wl:lUld 1IC%k en that prcperl:y? 40 A. If I can expcIJIId. J!l:x:rlaDics not included, yes, it 1alld 1IC%k. Q. ~ are not bam for ea:o::mLcs - A. I IlIIdarstand that. Q. - wbel:ber it Wt'Uld WCI:lt ar not. It's not hcIf IIUdb mmey yea 1IBkB. A. I didn't nean it that w;q. Q. Are yea famLUar with the area at all? A. Yes, I am. t.\' off.ioe is located Just to the scuth of the prcperty en M::CaI:mick. Q. So yea're famLUar with Elysiun area right in heI:e? A. Yes. Q. And the Clalsea W:xxls, 0le1.sea ltilst, and the various d1f~t areas around heI:e. A. And the a:mtElrCial prcperty en U. S. 19. Q. lb11.d yea llaI/ that the plan that pIr staff drew en 35, Tab 35, Which is a s1Ilgle famUy delve1.c:plent, Wt'Uld yea llaI/ that's pretty IIUdb is Il1ml.1ar to the Elysiun delve1.c:plent, 0le1.sea W:xxls? I nean, in the w;q it's l.a1d out, the cul~sacs, the sinql,e hale davel.c:pmnts? A. 'DIe ll1Ze of the lots I'm not mal fanUiar with in Elysi1ZlL I'm not sure hcIf large those - Q. ~,these are all -- all in this area, 1 if I tal.d you that all this area was land use - 2 W1th the sate land use as l:eSidlmt1.al suI:Ru:ban at 3 2.5 units per acz:e, so 1% that's the case, all this 4 bm:e has to lle built to 2.5 units per acre. SO if 5 that's, in fact, true, ~ you s;q that what J/I=lIl%' 6 staff o:eated in ~ 35 resEIIbles this, basic:ally, 7 all that is c:bm bm:e? 8 A. 1tqain, W1thcut go1nq thrcugh that notdlock 9 I <bl' t - if that's the case for a fact, the sate 10 sue lot - 2.5. 11 Q. SO it's vm:y simUar. And in a~, that 12 ~ lle a o:ntinuatial if we left it at res:iclent1.al 13 suI:Ru:ban of wbat was ck:na c:bm bm:e? 14 A. Can I ClCIIIlElI1t a1 that? 15 Q. Yes. 16 A. A o:ntumatial? 17 Q. 'Dl1s was I:lu1J.t-<:lUt J.n the '80' sand' 90' s, 18 assme. 19 A. Corl:ect. 20 Q. SO if you plt that sam type of 21 deveJ.cplEnt, it ~ resenbl.e this? 22 A. I ~ agxee. 23 Q. You ~ agxee. 24 You said that J/I=lIl%' units 1lIldar the 25 l:eSidlmt1.al l.oIf ,..",....i~i,..,.tial1llldar ~ 34, I 1 belieIre, they am go1nq to lle -- in each structure 2 theI:e am gcing to lle four units in SCIlB structures? 3 A. CCc:ect. 4 Q. SO that wculd lle 1II1ltibcus1ng -- 5 IlUltifanUy hcusing? 6 A. Attached s1ng:le fanUy, correct. 7 Q. And so it ~ be four units in SCIlB 8 structures, and two units jn others? 9 A. Conect:. 10 Kl.. SlltlCHlIC{: tb furthar ~tials. 11 'DIE CXXlRT: Redirect. 12 Kl.. CXlIB: Yes, a httle follaMlp. 13 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 14 B'i Kl.. CXlIB: 15 Q. Sale of the ~tials that Mr. Sadaomky 16 asl<Ied bad to do w.l.th the msic:le!lces to the south and 17 east of Lake Clautauqua. Correct? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. And he ~ted that ale IIElaIIS of 20 deveJ.cplEnt of the subject pamal. was to IIElke 21 samt:h:I.nq aldn to a o:ntinuatial of this style of 22 deveJ.cplEnt. But let rre ask you to help the judge 23 identify a Clalple of things to see if there am -- 24 A. Certainly. 25 Q. - any chffere!1CElS. 41 43 1 For exarple, this lccab.a1 J.n o:ntrast to 2 this lccatial. lIlat is this? 3 A. U.S. 19. 4 Q. Is that a I:lusy maa? 5 A. Yes, it is ptti:lably the I::Iusiest maa in 6 Pinellas County. 7 Q. Is it a big mad? 8 A. Yes, it is. 9 Q. And wbat' s that? 10 A. 'Dlat's a CXIIIIElrCial plaza. llmmI.tt 11 Cle\n:Qlet . 12 Q. I think that's a car dealersh1p. 13 A. Yes, it is. 14 Q. lIlat's that lot there? 15 A. A pal:Idng lot, if I'm not mlstaklen. 16 Q. Part of the 0la\n:Qlet dealersh1p? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you %eCXlgIlize - this is 1st Street. 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. '1h1s is a car ZlipU.r facility? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And these am c:pEatials that haw lights 23 en, far exarple, 24 ~ a day? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. '1h1s is a shqp1ng CEIlter hem? 42 44 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. You IIEI1t.i.a1ed M::O:lI:ml.ck Office PaI:lc. 'Dlat 3 is SCIIBIbe:te c:bm bm:e? 4 A. Yes, it is. 5 Q. Your offices am in tlu.s -- 6 A. Right off M::O:lI:ml.ck. 7 Q. - SCZIE!WtleEe in this neigllboI:b:xxi. 'Dlat ' s 8 a !!'om dealer? 9 A. Yes, it is. 10 Q. 'Dlat' s a Cadillac dealer? 11 A. Yes, it is. 12 Q. SO weadng J/I=lIl%' bat as the president of 13 Rcttlund Ho::IIes, do you pexoeive that this prcperty 14 J.S identical in 1Iat:enal respects to this ~ 15 A. tb. In that fashia1, DO. ~ ~tial 16 aslaad, was it laid out the sare as laid out the 17 sate, but I den' t belieIre the w1nd::lif is near the 18 sara as Ell/S1U11 and all that area. It has a IIDJ:e 19 CXIIIIElrCial effect be1ng lccated up a1 19 whem it 20 is. SO that's why I said I <bl't belieIre it's a 21 ccntinuatial of s1ng:le fanUy. 22 Q. ~ CXIIIIElrCial corridor l:lac1c1lYJ fzan 23 Highway 19 bm:e just south of the prcperty cares 24 l:lack to whem? M:lte or less there? 25 A. Correct. 45 :l Q. If JIOI1 ext:eIIded that line lIClrth, it wo::Wd ~! take, pe%haps, blo-t:h1zds of the subject site. :I 00I:%ect? ~, A. Yes, it wo::Wd. 5 Kl.. CXlIB: 'J!lat' 8 all I haIIe. Eo 'DIB CDJRr: Any other quest1.als? " Kl.. S1lIlCHilIcr: No, your Haler. S 'DIB CDJRr: bnk JIOI1, sir. S. Kl.. CXlIB: JUdge, _ will call Ms. 10 'l'arcIpani. 11 CYNTHIA TARAPANI, SWORN. 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 Bl!' Kl.. CXlIB: 14 Q. Far the zecom '!Dr, tell us your lIaIIB. 15 A. l<\T lIaIIB is ~ 'l'arcIpani. 16 Q. Your resme, I th:lnk, lIaJIll cynthia. 17 A. cynthia. 'J!lat' 8 What IIf{ I!Dt:har calls lIB 18 when she' 8 lIEId at lIB. 19 Q. I will avoid that, U JIOI1 pzefer. You 20 haIIe pI:CIIided lIB with a copy of your rirsaIB, aIld U 21 JIOI1 wo::Wd 1.ock with lIB, please, Tab 25, U JIOI1 bm1 22 to the second page. 'nlere it begins - ~ resme, 23 aIld JIOI1 called ~ cynthia them. 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. JUst will JIOI1 affizm that that' 8 a b:ue 1 cc:py of your resme? 2 A. 'J!lat is IIf{ rirsaIB, yes, sir. 3 Q. ADd withcut belaborinq to mad it all, 4 tell us What your c:unmt jcb is, aIld then give us 5 just a tittle insight into your exper1eIlce aIld your 6 ~ess.1a1. 7 A. I'm a =ty planner far the last 22 years, S this ]/&!Ir. AbCIUt a t:h.iJ:d of IIf{ exper1eIlce is in 9 private practice planning aIld abCIUt blo-t:h1zds in 10 loc::al gouez:ment. I'm rDI, actually, blIO years this 11 nrath, been the planning c\1rector far the City of 12 Clea%water. Prtar to that I was the assistant 13 planning c\1rector far the City of Clea%water far a 14 tittle c:I\Ier four years. 15 Q. ADd your exper1enoe also iIlcludes 16 addit:1alal years within the TaIpa Bay area aIld 17 Pinellas CClUnty in partJ.cular. 18 A. Yes, sir. I ~ far P1JleJ.l.as CClUnty 19 when I first got out of schoo1.. I ~ far the 20 City of TaIpa far five years. I served as a planner 21 far a private law f1zm far three years. I ~ in 22 TalJ.ahassee with a ~ts pteSmvati.a1 grcup far 23 three years. 24 ADd .1nmad1ately before oaninq to 25 Clea%water, I wa:lced far a planning fizm in TaIpa, .~ ", H .. ~~>-" .' }-"#' ),~~--< 47 1 1!'llgLebaxdt, Haarer & Jlssoc:1.ates., toIl1le I ,was a 2 pr:i.nc.1.palln that fizm, I was dc1ng' plan ~ts 3 EI'lI1nent daIain, all sorts of planning activities for 4 private clients as well as plbl1c clients. 5 Q. """ la1q has the ~ of planning 6 been zecogn1zed as a distinct field of sci.ence as a 7 disdpL1ne? 8 A. Gosh, in I!'mqle, prcmbly since the 9 1700' 8. I lIElan, Bara1 HaffiIEm cb:eI plans far Paris 10 in the 1700'8. In the t!li.ted states, J.t land of 11 g%eK' CIUt of the c:i ty :beautiful aIld the sanitati.a1 12 pxcDlEms _ _ having in mI.d 1900' 8. 13 By the bm1 of the centw:y, oertainly, 14 them _ planners We -- both nat:1alal planners 15 aIld c:ity planners t:!u:aJghcut the t!li.ted states. In 16 fact, them was a plan cble far Clea%water in 1926 17 ty CIl8 of the m::>st welllcnclwn planners, Jcihn Nolan. 18 So in the t!li.ted states, DDre than 100 years - s;q 19 150 years. 20 Q. ADd adl1anced clragz:ees - ~te clragz:ees 21 are ava:l1ablB in the d:I..rnl' 11 ....? 22 A. 'nlere are. REally, toc:Iay, the accepted 23 zmn:Imm far a planner wo::Wd be far a IIBSter'8 degree 24 in planning. 25 Q. You haIIe a IIBSter' 8? 46 48 1 A. I c:i:), frau I!1arida. state t!li.versity, aIld a 2 DBSter' 8 of sci.ence in w:ban aIld xeg:1alal planning. 3 Q. Do JIOI1 attach si.gnificanoa -- just walder 4 U JIOI1 haIIe OOIlScl.ously thalght of this - that J.t. 8 5 a IIBSter' 8 of sci.ence rather than a IlElSter' 8 of 6' arts? 7 A. I c:i:) th:lnk them' 8 a diffarerlCEl. A lot of 8 falJcs - a lot of architects are planners as well, 9 ar might do scme planning 1I01:lc, but I th:lnk them. 8 10 a distinct d:l.ffarerlCEl in a DDre qualitative ~ of 11 analysis than just design 1I01:lc. 1IleJ:e I design a 12 certain part of it, them' 8 a good part of analysis 13 of what. 8 ~ in the nm:lce1:place, what are the 14 t:zeD:Is in your c:ity, why are things ~ the 15 W3!l they are. 16 ADd then a qualitative ;q:proach to solv:l.11q 17 ptdlle:I& is a xea1 sc:I.mt:W.c ;q:proach to 18 1dentif'ying' the pzxblEm, loclcinq far altetnatives, 19 aIld deIIe1c:pinq the best soluti.a1. In IIf{ mID:l, them 20 is a dist1llct:l.a1, aIld them is a s1gn:I.f1caIlOe 21 attached to that. 22 Q. ADd it. 8 fair, JIOI1 th:lnk, far it to be 23 treated aIld respected as a sci.ence? 24 A. I th:lnk so, in IIf{ cpi.Iucn. 25 Q. ftlat' 8 the jcb of a planner as the 1 pl.ann:lD] cI1%ectar far the City of Cl.ea%wa.ter? H1at 2 J.S ygur respaIS1l:lU1ty to the cib.zens of 3 Cl.ea%wa.ter? 4 A. ii!l have a fairly geed-sued dEpartDEnt. 5 ii!l are 17 planners altogether and ~ staff. 6 ii!l're respalSible far both lalg-range pl.ann:lD], 7 strategw pl.ann:lD] far the City, .l.ocldJlq Ol.1t 20 8 years ar so. Damtown pl.ann:lD] J.S CI1 a 20""'Jl&lr 9 plan. 10 ii!l are also respalSible far ~t.o-day 11 site plan %eIIiew, rezaUn:] infomatial, helping 12 pecple get their hcuse I:luiJ.t ar an additial to a 13 CCIIII'erCial st%ucture. 1!Ie Cleanoater M1lll, we just 14 redaI/elqled that plan -- was ~ t:h1:cIugh alr 15 deparlzlEnt. El1:oad range, the daily aspect of 16 J:eSi.clential and CCIIII'erCial, and also .l.ocldJlq ~ 17 the future of the City and helping to guicIe the 18 City in its policy de:::is:La1s abcut it. 19 Q. Wl.th Wat goal? H1at Q:) JIOl undarstand to 20 be ygur profess1alal respaIS1l:lU1ty far the City? 21 Is it to, far exmple, guicIe the City with 22 respalSible pl.am1ng? 23 A. Wall, oert:a1nl.y, it wcWd be to guicIe the 24 City in IlBldD; respaWb1e de:::is:La1s. But I be1.1eue 25 the City Calrn1ssial., aided by the citizens, are 1 gc1ng to dizect hctI the City proceeds. And in 2 Clea%water, we have II'iIde it pmtty c:.lear that -- the 3 City Calrn1ssial. bas II'iIde it very c:.lear that their 4 goal is to actively seek redE!IreJ..c:plt, S1DCEl we are 5 a 9S pm:cent I:luiJ.t-out city. But hctI will we gI:CM? 6 Hr:M will we cx:nt1mJe to succeed except by 7 reclevelc:p1ng Wat is there? I!'1nd1ng little pockets 8 of vacant land ped1aps, recIavelcping' a site, and 9 achieI11ng that gxart:h in that Wa!f. 10 Q. YOl.1 ~ sitting bare when Mr. Haal.ey 11 CXIIIIEIlted abcut the O::Junty, and I th1nk 12 chaclcterized it as the nest intensely c:leuelqled -- 13 A. It's prc:i:lahly the first ar seccad nest 14 dense =ty in the state of Florida, clepeIld1ng CI1 15 hctI JIOl c:alculate it. 16 Q. JIzIp1ng to the tq:dc of the subject 17 ~,I'm sure it's =rect that far alr record, 18 please affi.l:m that JIOl are acquainted with the 19 subject~, the IlliImitt ~. 20 A. I'm very well acquainted with the site, 21 both in the field and the tec:hnical. data SIl%%'OUDCl1nq 22 the site. 23 Q. An ~tial was filed back a JI'5l%' ago 24 February, I be1.1eue - 25 A. Yes, sir. 49 51 1 Q. -- regarding' the subJect~. At the 2 tiJIB it was filed, Wat was the relief that was 3 ~ted? 4 A. 'Dley actually asloaci far a change fnm 5 J:eSi.clential subw:1:lan at 2 1/2 units per acz:e to 6 resic:lential UJ:ban at 7 1/2 units an acz:e. 7 Q. And JIOl also beard Mr. Haal.ey's dlsco',c;c:n 8 about the classificati.als of lcw, ned1an, high 9 density as it %elates to resiclerIces. Ulder the lcw 10 UIbml.l.a, wcWd cauer densi.ti.es up to 7 1/2 UlU.ts 11 per acre. Is that the SiIIEl experieIIce and train.i.nq 12 that JIOl've had as a professialal planner, that 13 that's an ac::u=te cbaJ:acteri.zab.a1? 14 A. Yes, I wculd definitely agree. And the 15 ccunt:yw:Lde plan IIElkas that very c:.lear that up to 7 16 1/2 units is lcw density. 'Dley are, in fact, ask1nq 17 far ale lcw density "',,cc;F;cab.a1 to another lcw 18 density classificatial. 19 Q. Pemaps in faizness, it's cI<ay to c:bserve 20 that it was 1eapfzogg1nq auer ale in the mLddle, 21 also a lcw density -:-1 "..c; Ficatia1, J:eSi.clentiallcw? 22 A. Yes, sir. ~'s true. 23 Q. So as su1:mI.tted, the request was RS to RU? 24 A. O::lz:xect. 25 Q. 1!Ie ~t also 1ncluded a request far 50 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 annexatia1. H1at wculd be the ratialale far an amer ar a cleuelqlar to annex this ~ A. oJIlst about elerf annexatial request we get is a need to get setllar ar water service ar both by the City of Clea%water. And in fact, that was the reasa1 far the recJleSt in this case, is to get san1ta%y lIElMar service started to the site. Q. So absent annexatia1, UIIder the pmsent ccunt:yw:Lde plan, and I'm refm:nng to the aeC.al that Mr. Sad::Msky put up earlier, if the prc:perty had not been annexed, it could, in t:heozy, !lave been c:leuelqled within the O::Junty with 46 siD;le fanUy %esic:lerJces each with Wat? WLth SEptic tanks? A. 1!Ie ally altez:native available to tl1an wcWd be SEptic tanks because the O::Junty cklesn' t have san1ta%y salar in that area. cmly the City bas the service available. Q. A. 2002. So annexatial was requested and ccc::uned? Yes, sir. It was ~ in oJ\me of Q. Take us, please, in genexa1 texms, t:hn:lIlgh the process far %eIIiew and analysis of the subject ~tial at the City level. ii!l will o:rre back and I'm gc1ng to ask JIOl to 1cck at a staff ~ ;In 1!DI:e detaU. But just in broad texms, tell us 53 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what haglens in your depart:rrEnt. A. QIce the a;:pl1cati.al is flled, it Wl:W.d be handled by QIIe of the lalq-range plamlers. In this case, it was Maz:lc Mariano, aided by the mmagar, Gina Claytal. And they ~ do their field. ~, dr.Lve the site, dr.Lve the enviraIs, look at existing patteJ:ns of c:IaIIoalqrtEnt in the ama, EIIIal.uate traffic jnpacts in the ama, both OIl the local arm as well as OIl the Ilajer ~ there, which is U.S. 19. ~ we haw what we call a De\IelqIIE!nt Review Camd.ttee, which is all the City professiala1 staff. It 1ncJ.udes the City arlxlrist; the City eDgineers; the planners, of 0Clllr.!le; the SESler and water eDgineers fJ:a'l\ the City. All the folJc:s that look at all the technical. aspects of that aaU1cati.al. And that zreet.inq was beld in !mch. And then we~, based OIl all the input ftan the cliffel:ent staff, we pnpare a staff ~- Q. '!bat was Ma%cb ?002, by the w;q? I A. !mch 2002. c::oaect. And then based OIl that j,nfonmt1a1 and the fi.eld ~ and analysis that we bad delle as the pl.aIln1Jlq staff, we pnpare a ~ for the Oamullity I:leIIe.lcplEnt Bcaxd, wIIo then 1 bears the case. And then that J::""""'"......Aati.al is 2 faJ::WaJ::ded OIl to the City CaImissia1. 3 Q. Quick Idnd of an aside, Oamullity 4 De\IelcplE!nt Bcaxd, explain what that is, please. 5 A. 'Dle Oamullity I:leIIe.lcplEnt Bcaxd is a 6 pl..aIIIunl] Bcaxd. In other cities it's caUecI. by a 7 little lalgar naIe. It's nBda up, actually, of 8 pIOfess1alal staff as well as citi%ens. ~ all 9 have to be IIBIbers - er J::eSidents of the City of 10 Cl.eaJ::water. And the BoaJ::d today is nBda up of seven 11 plus QIIe altemate. l'Ia have bIO attome!y.s, a city 12 plamler, an eag:mear, an aJ::C:hitect, a OOJ::pQJ::ate 13 tJ::avel plamler, an e1c1er1y caz:e cansultant, and a 14 gcueJ::mEIltal l.i.aisa1. So it's a pIetty wide variety 15 of experierlce OIl the BoaJ::d. 16 Q. And t:hcugh citi%ens -- they aren't 17 ci ti%ens wIIo Just haw randr::m qua11f"icaticlls, they 18 aJ::e aleS We in seueJ::al instances have very specific 19 quallficaticlls J::elated to plam1ing? 20 A. Yes, sir, that's J::eq!Jired by Q1r ccxle. 21 Q. And then after J::eView and analysis by your 22 staff, input at the CDS, it gees to the City 23 CaImissia1? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And that was the case heI:e, this ,,>-.., ,1~~"" i" ....-; ...~-w x..." 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 aaU1cati.al went t:hJ::cu;jh that pl::tlCe&S. And in that, pl::CCl!SS in this tine f:I:am back in ear1y 2002, was CCIlSidered fer the J::eSidential uz:ban change - A. cc=ect. Q. -- 7.5 units per acJ::e? A. Yes, sir. Q. Ie!: , s tum to Tab 2, please, Exh:Ibit 2. 'lhis is a cx:py of the staff ~ fJ:a'l\ your depart:rrEnt, your pLanninq depart:rrEnt. cc=ect? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. 'Dle fiJ:st ten pages of it aJ::e nac:ative JICU will see, and I ~ l.iIcIe to just call your attenti.al to a CXlUple features about it. If JICU look at the SElCXIId page there is -, the fint of -- a total of seven IUd:lers in I:lalcl titles, and w!lat aJ::e these llEMlI1 things, please? A. 'Dle seven issues aJ::e seven requiJ:alEnts that we J::eView wary a;:pl1cati.alby, so we go ahead and 1mkB SIlJ::e that we have ocueJ::eCl it cx:npletely, llsted it in the staff ~, and then J::espald to that. So there aJ::e ccxle requiJ:alEnts that we EIIIal.uate for each a;:pl1cati.al. Q. And then this nac:ative \IIICler each of the 1:lalcl-m:atl:leJ::ed sectials of the ~ is the di.I""o"...i<;a of your clEpartnEnt relative to w!lateuer 54 56 1 the pertinent secti.aI WQJ1d be? 2 A. cc=ect. An analysis of hew the case does . 3 er does IICt IlElet that c:J::i.teria. 4 Q. And Itsn 1 is c:xmsist:eIlcy with the City's 5 CCIIpl::ebensive plan? 6 A. Yes; sir. 7 Q. YQ1r staff CXIlCluded that the aaU1cati.al 8 at 7 1/2 units per acJ::e was er was not CXIIlSistent? 9 A. We said that it was CXIIlSistent. 10 Q. NLthin that diS""'"...iOll \IIICler ~t 1, 11 there aJ::e saIe~, aJ::e these itBns that 12 aJ::e taken ftan City ccxle? 13 A. Actually, these aJ::e pol1cies er goals fJ::al\ 14 the City's 1aq range u..a.~ve plan. 15 Q. And these included, fer exatpl.e, I'm 16 lccId1lq at 2.1 at the top of Page 3, "il:) pEalCte 17 j,nfill cIauel.q:mmt that is CXIIlSistent and c=pat1hle 18 with the surrcunding env:i.J:I::mEnt." 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. And was that, in the j~t of your 21 staff, achieIIed by t:h1s request er w:lUld be achieved 22 by this request? 23 A. Yes. It was t:hcught it was exactly OIl 24 point. It bad vacant 1and ~ by fully 25 cleuelcped pl::qlel::'ty, and we see that as an j,nfill 1 81te; and that lot was a geed use of that pI:qlerty as 2 an infill deualcptEnt. 3 Q. 'D1e goalllsted as No. 3 just 1:le1cw that 4 refers to ~.....4.tinq public cIsIBnd and pn2lE)t1JIq 5 Ulfill. Ale those, again, things that your 6 dEpart:lrEnt and the City seeks to ach1eue? 7 A. Yes, sir, that's ale of the 1aIq r.mge 8 goals of the City, and _ felt that it did do that, 9 it did respald to - the ~t.ia1 did respald to 10 cIsIBnd far nme bcuses because _ have pecple m::IIIiJlq 11 into PineJ.J.as Camty all the timl. 12 Q. icdn.t 2 ad:Ires.ses the cxnsistency with the 13 ocuntywi.de plan. And there's a ~.....;....., there, 14 RD, res1.dent1al UI:ban itsns, IlIlder the categcries, 15 Pmpose, IDcab.alal Claracterist1.cs. Ale those 16 itsns that care fJ:an the Camty's plan? 17 A. Yes, sir. 1!lat's exactly the c:Iescrjpt:1a1 18 of that plan category fran the ocuntywide plan. 19 Q. And the Camty's ClIm plan s;qs, far 20 exatpl.e, that xes:l.dentiaJ. UI:ban is IIaIElthinq - I'm 21 lccJdng IlIlder locatialal character:l.st1.cs - that 22 laIl.d be in close proxiJm.ty to UI:ban activity 23 centers. 24 A. 0:Irl:ect. 25 Q. JUst what, U anyth1ng, am activity 1 centers in the Ileigbbamxxls, so to speak? 2 A. As ~ to this case, the activity 3 centers _ were lccJdng at were U.S. 19, gllIIeECIlly; 4 in adr:lit.ia1, the car daa.lers imtediately to the M!St 5 of the site; a fairly large shcpp1ng center to the 6 IlOrth and M!St of the site. And the site of -- 7 -U, all of U.S. 19 is oamarc1a1ly deIIe.lc:ped. And 8 within a mile of the site is IlOrth Camty's ally 9 regialal. 1lBll, Q:unb:ys1de Mall. All of those were 10 activity centers. 11 Q. So it didn't IIBke it at this aertal, tJut 12 Camb:y.SJ.de Mall laIl.d be just all - 13 A. It's cI:lJ:ectly north and just off the 14 aertal, JIl5lS, sir. 15 Q. So with J:eSpeCl: to ~ ar not the 16 mquest fit cxnsistmtly with the ocuntywide plan, 17 your dEpart:lrEnt ClCIlCluded what? 18 A. W:lllelieve that this pI:qlerty was 19 ~te far xes:l.dentiaJ. UI:ban when JI':lU lock at a 20 c:Iescrjpt:1a1 of xes:l.dentiaJ. UI:ban in the ocuntywi.de 21 plan. W:l did llelieve that it was cxnsistmt. 22 Q. And similarly, your staff ~ ad:Ires.ses 23 the issues of cxupatib1l:J.ty with the surrcund1ng 24 ne1.ghboIhoocl? I'm at Pcdnt 3. 25 A. Yes. 57 59 1 Q. Your staff zeckx:rled it to be cxupat1bl.e? 2 A. Yes, _ did. 3 Q. JUst as a genmal prqlOSit.ia1, is it 4 zecognizec1 Dy pXQfess1alal. planners that 1cM dEnsity 5 xes:l.dentiaJ. uses am cxupat1bl.e with each other? 6 A. Yes, U the uses am the sare, of ccw:se, 7 they laIl.d be cxupat:ible. 8 Q. YClUltEIltialed -- I'm now at I1ou1t 4 - 9 that IlIlder the Cllr%eI1t des1gnabal, 46 cNill1ng 10 units could be a::IlSt:zucted. 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And then, let's see, w.l.thcut cNill1ng at 13 it, icdn.t 4 gees th%tlugh CXIICElm abcIlt publ1c 14 facUities. And again, there was no cx:ooem about a 15 negative effect en public fac1l.ities? 16 A. Right. W:l locked at all the publ1c 17 facUities, and. _ could adequately setve them with 18 SB\1er and water, b:ansit, solid waste, woulcIn't be a 19 negative effect at c:pen space. And _ also beli.eued 20 that the mzd:ler of tr.ips that laIl.d J:eSUl.t fran this 21 could be handled Dy !:loth the local and the regialal. 22 %cad net:N::a:lc. 23 Q. JlI\p1ng to Pcdnt 5, Ralan V, Page 8, is 24 CCIlSi.deI:at.ia1 of the mpact at the natural 25 env1J:cmEnt. 58 60 1 A. Yes, sir. 2 Q. YClUltEIltialed there am env1J:cmEntally 3 sensitive lands, wetlands, at the site? 4 A. Yes, there am. 5 Q. And a significant mzd:ler of protected 6 b:ees? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. W::lul.cl. the mquested CIIEIldmnt serve to be 9 beIlefil::ial with J:eSpeCl: to env1J:cmEntally sens1t:J.ve 10 azeas and. b:ees? 11 A. W:l belJ.eve that it laIl.d far a c:cuple of 12 relISalS. 'D1e stated intmt Dy the develqler to do a 13 clusteJ:ed style of deualcptEnt, alt:hcugh higher in 14 density, the clusteJ:ed style allows nme fleldbility 15 in 81te design so that JI':lU can preseI:W nme b:ees 16 at-site; JI':lU can have a greater tJuffer fJ:an Lake 17 ClaI1tauqua and the -uand azeas. And so _ 18 l:leJ.ieIIed that it laIl.d not have a negative Jnpact: at 19 the env1J:cmEnt. 20 Q. P.tl:M:!I:biall:lot:tan line auer at Page 10, 21 your dEpart:lrEnt l:eO.o......d.d ~ of the mquest 22 to go to xes:l.dent1al UI:ban at 7. 5 units per acre? 23 A. Yes, sir, _ did. 24 Q. Included, Dy the way, Just to point ClUt 25 here in the last, I t:hiJllc, ~ five pages of the 61 1 gJ:CIlP am sate p1.Ctures. I an still UIlder i'ab 2. ~! Can yt:U identify that these am pictures porttayiJIg' :'1 sate of the vistas aa:css Olautauqua A1IenUe f%all the , <I subject ~ 5 A. Yes, sir. ~ pz:ovided these pictw:es to 6 the amnmity !:leuelcprent Boanl. and the CalmI.ss1a1 7 so they can get a ground' s~ view looIcinq f%all the El site, looIcinq to the car clealer to the west, and SI l.c:ddnq south. lei Q. If ale was here looIcinq west -- 1] A. standing at the back of the car 12 dealership,:lf'eS, sir. 1::. TIlE~: If I can ~taaupt far just a 14 secc:n:1. Ms. Ta%apani, was ~ CXIISistency U;, analysis d:IIe with zespect to the City plan ar 16 the COIlI1tywide plan or both? 17 TIlE mnas: ~ am requiJ:ed to do both, 18, and we do. BecaIlse as Mr. Healey testified, we 15' am requ1zed to have CXIISistency I:lebIeeD the 20 plans. But of ccurse, thme cculd I::e ume 2] regulatials in the City that are a llttle 22 different euen tballgh they rrFICi I::e CXIISistent, 2.'J, so we do J.cck at both of thcoge and we fCllllld it 24 to I::e caW..stent W1th both. 25 TIlE~: 1:bank ycu. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 E{ Kt. CXlIB: Q. And as part of the pmcess of ~ J:'E!II:I.ew, cI1d yt:U also seelt and obtain the input of the DEparbrEnt of o:mtun1ty Affairs? A. Yes, sir, llecause of the size of the prqx:>sed aIEIldIent, it did requ1%e reIIiew by the , state DEpartment of o:mtun1ty Affairs. Q. I call ycur attent1a1 to Exh1bit 11, if yt:U ~ tum there. Is this a o:py of the J:eSpCIlSEl that caIIEl back fzan DCl'.? A. Yes, sir. 'Jhis is a DEpartment of amnmity Affairs letter dated Oc::tcber 3rd, 2002. Q. And in the SElCXZld paragraph it expresses the DEparbrEnt raises no cbjec:tia1s to the pn:pcsed atE!IldtBlt. A. Yes, sir. Q. LiJcew1se, in the ~ at ycur leI1el, cI1d yt:U seek the input of the Florida DEpartment of T.ranspartat1a1? A. As part of that sate %:e\lieI(, :If'eS, sir, we cI1d. Q. A. Was that obtained? Yes, sir, it was. Q. A. I<Xlk with lIB, please, UIlder Tab 5. 'lbat is - Tab 5 is a letter f%all the 63 1 I!'lon.da OepartIlEnt of 'lranspartat1a1 dated 2 AugUst 23m, 2002, and they szy, I quote, ~ do not 3 expect the pn:pcsed atI!!Illirent to have an adlIerse 4 mpact a1 the Flor.Lda intxastate h1ghNay systan or a 5 significant mpact CI1 the I!'lon.da transportab.a1 6 systan. " 7 Q. ~ ycu. tbi', after the J:'E!II:I.ew and 8 ~ of ~ planIung dEparlzIEnt, the natter 9 euentually went to the ClB, the O:Ilmm1ty 10 Ileue.1q:IIEnt Boanl., and the IIatter euentually went to 11 the City 0:mmss1a1 here in Clea%water, I guess in 12 this wty J:OaIO 13 A. Exact spot here. 14 Q. And was thme - waU, let lIB ask it this 15 way: M1at was the dec1s1c:I1 of the City CalmI.ss1a1? 16 A. Wall, the City 0:mrIiss1c:I1 J:eqUeSted that 17 the appl1cant CCIlsider the plan cate;l=y J:es1dential 18 lcw at 5 units per acm. 'DIe appl1cant requested 19 big weeks to CCIlsider that, and they CiIIB back in 20 oJ\1ly and agreed that, :If'eS, they ~ ~ to 21 residential lcw cate;l=y, wb1cb is 5 units per acm. 22 Q. So, tballgh, the uatter CiIIB to the City 23 0:mrIiss1c:I1 with the .........u.....dat1a1 far ~ at a 24 7 1/2 unit deIIs1ty fzan ~ dEpartnent, the City 25 camIiss1a1 J:eqUeSted that the appl1cant CXIls1der 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 l.c:Iwe1:jng the recplSt, and that was d:IIe? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that was d:IIe at the laier 1eueJ., l.c:Iwe1:jng cIcwn to residential lcw, 5 UI11ts per acm? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the City 0::mniss1a1 cq:prc:Mld it? A. Yes, sir, they c:\1d. Q. And then fzan that point, chEalo'''!P.....''y, fzan ~ dEpartnent the recplSt went foz:wan\ far ~ by Mr. Healey's CXIUJIC1.1? A. Yes, sir, it did. Q. I<Xlk with lIB, please, at Tab 8. And Mr. Healey prev1oos.ly identified this as the agenda IISIDrilnClIm far the fJ.rst tnp to the PPC far this ~t1a1, and it went thme with the J:.......u.....d..t1a1 of Mr. Healey's staff. Do yt:U nlCalJ. that? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. At Page 2 UIlder Tab 8, Mr. Healey's staff at 81, expresses the follc:Ming': "'DIe site is wall suited far lcw deIIs1ty Ila1intells1ve J:es1dential use CXIISistent with the natu%al :resource c:haracte:r1st1cs of the site." Do ycu agree with that statatEnt? A. I do agree. I'm so glad Mr. ,Healey agrees with lIB. 1 Q. Does he not always? 2 A. Not always, no. 3 Q. ~ WJ.lll.eave that at that. 4 !lJ:qpulq tbm further, the oam&lt is llEIda 5 by Mr. Healey's staff - I'm at 6, it 1aIld lle 56 - 6 "'nle aIEIldrEnt is adjacent to anot:ber 7 jur1sd1ct.1.al" - pamnthel:1calJ.y 1lED.t1als P1nellas 8 Camty - "bIt does not adIIersely ;Inpact the 9 adjacent Jurisd1ct1a!. or a plbl1c ecmcatia1 10 facU1ty. " Do JICU agJ:ee with that cr:n::lusial. of Mr. 11 Healey's staff? 12 A. I a:., and we CXlllSidaI:ed that, as the City 13 of Cleal:wateJ:o, euen t:hcugh we am c:bvicus1y adjacent 14 to the Camty in IIBI'IY places in CllIr City, we 15 CX'lIlSlLler O:lunty %eSidents and City %eSidents. No 16 IIEltteJ:o w!lem they live, they am still %eSidents and 17 they am still pecple with rights, so we did 18 CXIISic:ler that in CllIr analysis, and I a:. agJ:ee with 19 his cr:n::lusial. (Xl that. 20 Q. So we ~te P1nellas Camty, we am 21 ne1gIlbcrs and falks in lots of places, and we l1Ial 22 to indulge the t:hcught that all of us, acb.lally, am 23 c1ti.zens of P1nellas Camty? 24 A. Yes, s1.r, we am. 25 Q. 'l'Iu:n CIU'aI: with _, please, to Page 4, 1 still of the agenda I'lBIDt'aIlCIan At the very bottan 2 of the page is the sta1:arEnt: "Alt:hcugh the RL 3 allCMS for 5.0 units per acta uses, a 4 100 percent 1ncl:ease in cIens1ty, the prtpOSed RIo 5 dasignatia1 is still cc:as:l.clerec1lcw cIens1ty and 6 ~te for the natm:al cbaracteI:1st1cs of the 7 site and the SUJ:%tlUIlCI1JI ama.." 00 l/Cl1, again, 8 o::rlCllr with the wi.scbn of Mr. Healey's staff? 9 A. Yes, I a:.. 10 Q. 'nle J:eOOrd is llClW' clear em that point. 11 Mlat are the natm:al c::baI:actez:ist1cs of the site in 12 the BUn'CIUIld1.llq ama. that lead JICU to CXlIlCW: with 13 the PPC staff? 14 A. Jlga1n, it does have wetlands, it's 15 adjacent to Lake Clautauqua. It bas a 1\'etland in 16 the llOrthwest cca:ner of the site, and it does have a 17 tree stand, a fairly s.1gn1ficant tree stand, in the 18 scutlMlst.em quadrant of the prc:perty. 19 Q. And il JICU :Lcclc back at the prtpOSed site 20 plan 1lIIder Tab 34, en the middle _t.em lxlnler of 21 the prc:perty is an area cles1gnated "ex1st.mJ ttee." 22 Is that the significant txee stand that JICU' l:e 23 mfarrinq to? 24 A. Yes, s1.r. 25 Q. So with the requested aIEIldrEnt, it 1aIld 65, 67 1 pemd.t ~t1cn of the tmes? 2 A. Exactly. 3 Q. O:kllyesxugh, for it to lle deI/elqled mto 4 s:Ingle fauUy lots 1aIld SIll:el..y ~ sacr1fic1nq 5 the tmes? 6 A. 'nle pl:eSSUl:e to put hcuses en all of it is 7 1lDrEl cI1ff1c:ult, I think, the 81Ilqle fClllU.y hales, 8 yes. 9 Q. YOll were lime wbm Mr. Healey exp1a1ned 10 that this ~tia1 went fJ:an the PPC in SEptmiler 11 of last year to the O:lunty, and the Camty l:8lBrlded 12 it back to the City. I want to bring l/Cl1 to the 13 paint w!lem, we will ~, in the Oc:tca!r of 2002 14 r.IIlge, a:. l/Cl1 recall that the agU.icatia1 c:ate back 15 to the City for 8alEl further fin:l1Jlg? 16 A. It did, and we ~ with the agll1cant 17 and the City staff to Uy to deue1cp a solutia1 to 18 the xcad isslJe. '1!lat was of 8alEl c;li 'SCl,~~j <:n cIw::inq 19 the hearings. 20 Q. I'm gci%lq to put up a p:i.ctul:e lime for us 21 to J.cx:k at. And this is Just gci%lq to lle a larger 22 picblre of - let _ see - I !:lelleIIe it's 33 -- 23 yes. If JICU :Lcclc 1lIIder Tab 33 - Tab 33 is, in 24 fact, s1IIply a redIJced ccpy of this p:i.ctul:e. iIleJ:e 25 I'm 1nd1cat.mJ is the subject site area. O::=ect? 66 68 1 A. Yes, s1.r. 2 Q. Car clea1ership, car npa1r facU1ty, 3 CJ/pEess Point Sbqp1nq CenteJ:o. Mlat is the J:ed 4 a:.tted llne? 5 A. 'nle a:.tted line is a generallocat1cn of a 6 IlCrthem extens1cn of Clautauqua Driw. '1!lat- 7 acblally, the right-of-way which is the read that 8 l/Cl1're point.mJ to right llClW' is a north/SOllth xcad. 9 And the :1.clea was to 10cIc at a local. road that ccu.I.d 10 car.ty the traffic to the next level of the read 11 systan, either north or scuth. 12 And wbm we evaluated the sau1:bam route, 13 which there am pzcbabl.y other areas that J.llustrate 14 it betteJ:o, blt it's a very IIeaIldeI::lng naJ:rCIoT - 15 withaut curves - read that neandars quite 8alEl 16 distance befOl:e JICU can get Ollt to a road with a 17 light. 18 So the IlCrthem altel:native was explcm:i 19 to exterId the read to the north t1mlugh wbat was 20 City right-of-way, and then t1mlugh a Clty pan:lEll 21 that we had land banIIEld as a pazlt - 22 Q. iIleJ:e I'm J.nd1c:a~ 23 A. iIleJ:e l/Cl1' l:e J.nd1c:at.mJ llClW', yes, s1.r. 24 And the City CWIlS tI1at piece and had it land ban)Qed 25 as a pazk. So the tii......'l's1oo was, did it llBka 69 1 SEIISe, and ccu1d _ exterId that toad not Just for 2 this pI:OJect, I:lut for all the pecple that live in 3 that ~ to detemIiIle thI:cugh a geed bit of 4 anaJ.ys1s with the ~t and cur City EIIgineers 5 that, yes, it physi,cally ccu1d~. :lban_ 6 financ1ally oosted it ClIlt and entel:ed dia,."aai""1S 7 with the daIrelc:per about wculd be part1c:ipate with 8 us. 9 Q. In the sara t.uIe fr.llB that I 1lEDt1a1 fJDiR, 10 be;1nninq of ~ of last year, it was about that 11 tine that PottlUlld, Mr. NiJ.1eIlbacher's carpany, c:am 12 at the sceIl8 - 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. - and expz:essed a desiJ:e to de\Ial.q) the 15 prqlBrty? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. And the zesalut1a1 f:r:an your viewpo1nt of 18 the t%affic issue, it i:lcJ.1ldes all agzeBlIlI1t for the 19 daIrelc:per to share in that mpense? 20 A. Yes, sir, it did. ~ bave his WCJ:d and_ 21 also bave the City Calmissia1' s agenda itan, which 22 ~ in Ma%ch of 2003, in which euen thcugh the 23 de\Ielqler' s share of the IlIElW trips at the toad is 24 all.y IlBJ.tle 15 ar 20 percent of the I'lSW tnps, be 25 agreed to pay half of the cost of that road, so nme 1 than dcIlble his fair share. He also agreed to 2 ccotnl:lute ~ the paz5c cIaIIel.c:plEnt as -a 3 s1nce _ were acoalerab.nq the pmc c:IrNel.q:IIEnt. ~ 4 wo:u1d not lIOJ:lIBlly bave I:lu:U.t it. It was alated for 5 a little later. 6 So _ !:le1.i.EMac1 be wally s~ up to the 7 plate to both prCIIIide a better toad IliBb<<ll:X far his 8 p:oject, I:lut it, ~ lalcw', it's a public toad, so it 9 w.i..ll serve ~ ..me lives in that lleigbbadlccd. 10 Q. If ~ just go bacIc, qllckly, under Tab 13 11 is a <b::lmmt addressing the appmIIiIl of the capital 12 jnprc:Mm!nt project for that extensi.a1. 0:lI:rect? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. And so the City has - to use your 15 expressi.a1 -- and the daIrelc:per both bave s~ up 16 to the plate to adl:ess the CXIlCl!m that was xaised. 17 l7;{ the County about dealing with b:affi.c? 18 A. Exactly. 19 Q. Just to further or:ient us at p%eSE!nt, 20 access to this parcel can be ClIIeJ: - this is, I 21 think, called 1st Aws1ue -- 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. -- off HighWay 19, is it going to be -- 24 and I'm saying' this - I'm hesitating an it becaIIse 25 I dal't raramer persaW.ly ~ it is a fact yet or 71 1 not, and ~ it is not at this IlaIEI1t a fact, is it 2 to be a fact, that ale driving'1IeSt at 1st Sb:eet 3 here w.i..ll not be able to bu:n left to go south CIl1 4 HighWay 19? 5 A. ~t' s oonect. And Jot is also al%eady 6 CCI1Struct:ed there. 'l!lere is a llEldian so that ~ 7 cannot-- 8 Q. It's blcclced? 9 A. It's l:lJ..cx:1aad. YClIl can all.y bu:n north to 10 bu:n an to U.S. 19. 11 Q. So part of the logic of the b:affi.c 12 solutJ.a1 is to aUc:iw folks to go up to Entmprise 13 wham there's a t%affic light? 14 A. 0:lI:rect. And t:ben they can -- not just 15 nme easUy for thEm, I:lut c:bIiousl.y, IlDre safely 16 bu:n SCIllth ar north. But I wo:u1d th1nk that, 17 lillIely, the folks that were going south wo:u1d maIal 18 that m:MIIEll1t and t:ben be able to bu:n safely at the 19 light. ~ J:easa1 far these aeetingB is becaIIse of 20 safety, to pMIIellt that CI:CSSing of a s.1x-1ane 21 higbway. 22 Q. It dcesn I t quite maIal it an this 1IEIp, I:lut 23 bacIc here to the east is - -a, it's an this ale, 24 I thi.nk. Is this M:M1l.len Bcoth? 25 A. ~t' s M:M1l.len Bcoth Read, yes, sir. 70 72 1 Q. So another ~ of the solut1a1 at 2 the t%affic issue is to prCIIIide an artery far folks 3 to get ClIIeJ: going east and totally aII'Cid HighWay 197 4 A. 0:lI:rect. And right at the interse::b.an of 5 Bntmprise and M:M1l.len Bcoth is IleIIm'al. najar ' 6 lIbqpinq oenters at the nart:hNest and southNElst 7 o::=ers that bave %eStal=mts and all sorts of 8 retail activity, so it wo:u1d aid in that access as 9 -a. 10 Q. Sale quite IU.CEl restalmlnts as a natter of 11 fact. 12 A. Yes, sir, there <lEe. 13 Q. Just J.ooIdnq here, this sectian, bar was 14 this pz:cperty devel.qled? 15 A. ~t' s devel.qled partially as tcMnhouses 16 and partially nultiJ:CllliJ.y, I:lut at a residential high 17 clensity - aediun at 15 units per a=e. 18 Q. So it wo:u1d be at the cusp of between 19 lIElChun and high? 20 A. Right. It I s right at 15 units an a=e. 21 Q. On the tcp end of n-edimt? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. And this picture here, those c:IrNel.q:IIEnts 24 <lEe cIepi.cted right here wham I'm indicating. 25 0:lI:rect? 73 1 A. Coc:ect. 2 Q. l'E haw disoJssed, I guess, ld1ld of 3 t:ouche:i a'I nth JItlU a littJ.e bit and also with Mr. 4 Healey, that the IustoJ:y of this ~tial, thsl, 5 after the rEIlBIld for %eCXllSJ.deratial illcl.uded a 6 resolutial of the traffic .issue? 7 A. Coc:ect. 8 Q. And. eventually, it went baCk to prccess1Jlg' 9 I:ly Mr. Healey' s Pl..amwIq CcuIlcU, and JItlU 10 part1,cJpated Ul that p1:QCI!SS, I think. 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And. the l'iIlellas Pl.anninq CcuIlcU, thsl, 13 WJ.th the changes, ~ the ...................:btiall:ly a 14 IIOte of 9 to 3? 15 A. Yes, sir, they chd. 16 Q. And. thsl at this pcnnt Ul -- tiImwise we 17 are at the end of Mm:h ar late ~ of this year 18 of 2003, at that point this ~t bad been 19 rev:l.aied and had the aff.1.mative bless:iJlq of your 20 staff- 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. -- the Cl:mn.IIu.ty DeI/elqm!nt Board of 23 Cleal:water? 24 A. Yes, S1r. 25 Q. ~ City CalIm.ssi.al of C1.eanr.Lter? 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. ~ ProfessiaIaJ. Adl7iscI:y O:ImtI.ttee - 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. - of the PI'C bd.oe, in fact? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. ~ staff of the PI'C? 7 A. TN1ce, JI'ElS, sir. 8 Q. ~ PI'C? 9 A. Yes, S1r. 10 Q. ~ l'iIlellas County staff? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And. with this umEIlbm behind it, it went 13 to the County and alas was -- 14 A. -- denied. 15 Q. -- denied. HelIce we axe hez:e today. 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. L:xkI.Ilq at different ways to de!ue1q) the 18 p1:cperty dalaIstrated I:ly the site plan under Tab 34, 19 and J.f JItlU caltr.lst that with the -- I haw a 20 pic:t:uze of it - WJ.th the site plan of Tab -- next 21 CIle is 35, I beJ.J.eue -- 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. -- so puttinq a'I your ~essialal 24 planner's hat and locl1c1DJ at the site plan far 25 townhares and locl1c1DJ at the 81te plan in a wa>:I to 75 1 ca%W it up Ulto 46 indiv1clual pieces, what 2 c=parisons in the nature of adlIantages ar 3 disadvantages CCI\B to milId that ~ be helpful far 4 oJIxIge Alexander to IcncI(? 5 A. Clearly, Ul a cl.uster1JJq in a tamhcuse 6 J=POS'll, the I:::lUi.lchngs themselves can be clusteJ:ed, 7 they teIld to be a littJ.e SIBll.er, the paII8IEI1t tends 8 to be - ar the right-af-way tends to be =ewer, 9 therefore, ouerall, the iIICllI1t of ~ of the 10 land - the iIICllI1t of pavulq Oller paJ:ad1se, i% JItlU 11 will, that JItlU do in a tamhcuse proJect J.S 12 ~y substant1aJ.J.y less than a sin;le fanUy 13 davel.q:rcent. 14 Also in a sin;le faniJ.y devel.cpIEnt lJloa 15 this CIle, a sin;le famJ.y detacbed, as other pecple 16 haw testified, we':m in FlcricIa, IICSt ~ 17 wants a poal, so IICIf JItlU have got that water dBrand 18 which is incI:eased. You have got that IlBint:ellance 19 which is incI:eased. 20 Also in a sin;le faniJ.y devel.cpIEnt, the 21 lots axe going to be actually platted into the 22 presm:vatia1 cu:ea and they axe gcinq to own - each 23 amer will own tbeir p1:cperty nght up to Lake 24 Clautauqua. 25 l'I1ile I certainly bq:le that ~ 74 76 1 ~ be good stewa%ds of land, unfortunately, 2 that. s not always the case. Pecple CCI\B fzan 3 outsida FlcricIa and they cb1' t understand our 4 sensitive enviJ:am!nt. And. there is not that 5 ouerall IIEIIIagBIEI1t SJ/lItan that JItlU have in a 6 tcwnhcuse pzoject to :mal.ly ensw:e that that is 7 p:eserved far future ger1eratiClls. 8 SaIEl pecple are !:letter stewaJ:ds than 9 others, bIt the pn:pens1ty or the ~ that 10 fNerY single famJ.y haIecomer will take as good ca:m 11 as the next persa1 is less oart:a1n. 12 Again, Ul the sin;le fardJ.y subd1v1ma1, 13 :imla:hately south of the wetlands wbeI:e the 14 tcwnhcuse pzoject retaiIled the b:ees, they have get 15 a cul-<le-sac with six bales in the1:e. You shculd be 16 able to retain SCIIe b:ees, sw:e. But tllose that axe 17 in the ~ of that b1Uding pad, tllose in the wa>:I of 18 the %aid, ..o1l.d care clam. So again, JItlU are gcinq 19 to destroy that span of b:ees, that group of b:ees. 20 'Blat group is :mal.ly quite extraominaJ:y. 21 So auerall, the Urpact to the site as a 22 s1n:fte faniJ.y hare, even thcugh there IIBY be fE!l>'et' 23 units, the Urpact a'I the E!I1VUCnIBlt is mx:h 24 stralger than in a tamhcuse project. 25 Q. It's not a 1IpteJ:y, I'm sw:e it was 77 ,1 all~ to in sare cI1scussims l:let:ween Mr. SacbIsky 2 and Mr. NU..1eIIbacher, that ecx:n:mi.cs are a CXIlCElI:J1 3 to amers and c:Ieue1cpers even U, fJ:an OlystplS, that 4 IIBl/' not be an a;parent CXIIlCElm. 91t oddly ErlCUgh, 5 whlle _ J:eCCl9ll1Ze that t:har:e ~ be, generally 6 speaId.nq, an e:xrlaIIic b5I1efU to hav:1ng a higher 7 deIlsity, is it accurate to &aJ as a pI:Ofessialal. 8 planner f:z:an t:be viewpcw1t of t:be C1.ty of 9 Cl.eaJ:water, p1 ~ ac1ax:1id.edge t:har:e can be and 10 t:har:e are beDefits to deuelc:pIEnt pursuant to a 11 higher deIlsity? 12 A. 'Dlat was ale of t:be I'lEI.Jor reasaIS that 13 dz:o\Ie cur cpin1.a1 to 1...............d far t:be higher 14 deIlsity was t:be ability to cluster t:be units euen 15 t:hcugh t:har:e IIBl/' be m:u:e units, cluster than em t:be 16 site to be IIDre seDS1.tive to that adstinq 17 E!I1IIizam!I1t. 'Dlat was ale of t:be _jor causes that 18 _ ..~w....dl,.;1 for ~ in this case. 19 Q. At th1s paint, at t:be risk of being 20 recimdant, m1ch _ ~ c:b too mx:h pEd:lably, 21 IIBl/' I o::u:rec:t1y a.sBIZID that as a professicnal 22 planner, p1 parsamlly have an cpin1.a1 as to 23 whether or not t:be zequested llIIEllICbent shcW.d be 24 ~? 25 A. I haw an cpin1.a1, yes, sir. 1 Q. Alld your cpin1.a1 is? 2 A. I thIllk that it shcW.cl have been ~. 3 I t:h:lnk it was ocnsistent with t:be J:eSidentiaJ. area. 4 I t:h:lnk that it was the satEl type of use. It was 5 pe:ple llvinq .in hcuses just liJl:e t:be pe:ple to t:be 6 north and SClI.Ith. I thIllk _ need to pmIIide a 7 vadety of hcus1nq types. 8 In arty geooral area .in a naighbcl%bcod, 9 thexe needs to be sare varj.ety of types and styles 10 and cost factors. It, again, as _ talked abcut it 11 in great detail, it ~ preserve t:be E!I1IIizam!I1ta1 12 featm:es of t:be site to a mx:h higher degree at t:be 13 ~ intensity than t:be sillg1.e famJ.y cI1d. 14 ' Alld _ l:lEllieva that _ had a viable -- 15 a:mnI.tted to lloth I:ly t:be C1.ty and t:be cleI/e1qler -- 16 tzaffic salut.:Lc::rl to ClCIICElmS raised I:ly t:be CQmty, 17 so _ felt liJl:e _ had salved all t:be qIiElsti.als, and 18 _ didn't ~te understand Wny it was denied. 19 Q. So t:be CPA bas an q::port:unity far a 20 w:l.n"'llJJ1? 21 A. I thIllk so. I IlElan, I thIllk _ told t:be 22 CQmty 0:mIII.ssla1 this, I thIllk _ as policy II'Elkars 23 have to recognize that pe:ple are cx:millq to P1neUas 24 CQmty, Were are p1 goiJIq to put them? 1lI:e you 25 go1Jlq to put than SCIIBI!lm:e in their bale or in ...,,1'V ~ 79 1 their office that bas a IIDre negative :Illpact em t:be 2 EmTJ.J:amlnt, or c:b _ haw a chance to c:b the least 3 intrusive effect en t:be E!I1IIizam!I1t. O:Nious1y, 4 deualc:prEnt bas sare :Illpact, but can _ c:b the least 5 an::amt to ......-.o;ldate those pec:ple, and I t:h:lnk this 6 pxcject l<<lUl.d haw cDIe that. 7 MI.. OJIB: 'Dlank you. 'Dlat's all I have 8 at this t:iJIB. 9 'DIE ClXlRl': Mr. Sad::lwsky. 10 CROSS-El\AMINATION 11 m' MI.. SllDCHlIC{: 12 Q. Geed aft.m:ncca. 13 A. Hello, Mr. Sad::lwsky. 14 Q. Ms. Tal:apan:i, at t:be KIrch 19, 2003, PPC 15 uee1:ulg, that was t:be llEIElti.nq that this plan 16 llIIEllICbent caIB back for a seccIld tine? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. Did p1 &aJ that the incI:ease of deIlsity 19 fJ:an t:be J:eSidential su1:lw:ban, 2.5 units per acre, 20 to J:eSidential low, necessitated t:be b:aff1.c 21 m1.tigat.:Lc::rl of exterld1D] the %Clad of Entmprise - 22 c:reatiIlq a read that lOl1d go to Entmprise to 23 relieIIe that? 24 A. N:l, I ceuer said that it was J:eqUiI:ed. 25 ltlat I l:lEllieva I said in the fiJ:st cI1"'''naai~ I:ly 78 80 1 the ~ bca%ds was, lIClI:JIEIlJ.y, tzaffic mLtigat.:Lc::rl is 2 salved at the site plan leuel., lloth in cur C1.ty and 3 in the other cities and in the CQmty as-U. 4 'lhE!re ware such ClCIlICE!CIS abcut that issue that _ 5 a:mnI.tted to the Board of CQmty CaImissicIlers that 6 _ lOl1d go back and b:y to resolve the soluti.als. 7 'lhE!re was really ally ~ soluti.als: NClrth or 8 SClI.Ith. So _ a:mnI.tted that _ lOl1d go back and 9 talk abc:ut it. 10 Q. If I cxW.d - I left it CIIIer hm:e, but I U just wanted to have p1 mad what I t:hcught was .in 12 xespcII5e to a quest.:Lc::rl f:z:an 0::mrI1.ssialer -- 13 CcuncilmIn Hac1olorth was: Was the read to mLtigate 14 the t%affic that is generated I:ly the increased 15 deIlsity, yes or no? Was t:be tzaffic m1.tigatial. 16 proIIis.ia1 of exterld1D] t:be %Clad to Entmprise cDIe 17 to mitigate the :Illpact of the increased tzaffic? 18 Your ansI'ler was, sum. 19 A. Uh-hlih. 20 Q. So p1 accepted -- Coullc1ln'an Hac10lcrth 21 &aJS, so aa:lE!pt that t:har:e' s an :increase in t%affic 22 based em the incl:eased deIlsity and took a stEp to 23 m1.tigate. cocect? 24 A. 'Dlat' s true. 25 Q. So the extensia1 through the wcoc:I1ands, 1 t:h%cugh ~ paz:k, was a direct result of the 2 :Increased der1aity? 3 A.~, not exactly. I maan, cartainly, I 4 agree -- I'm not charlg1nq I'lV tesb.m::r1y, there is an S :Increase in der1aity in this project. Certa1nly, ale 6 solutialis to go to the n=t:h. R1at I was t:%yjnq 7 to dist1ngu1sh for :,'OU is that the cIe\Ielqler's sham 8 of the mmber of net{ trj;ps at that mad is about 15 9 or 20 percent at best. Best guess. He agreed to 10 p;q nucb IlCl:e than his fair sham. other pec:ple U would be I1S1I1q the mad, but he agreed to do that. 12 But I guess what I'm saying' is, the mad is kind of 13 an CNerld.ll in temIs of wbat its mpact would be, 14 but he agreed to do that. 15 Q. So this is J:eall.y an ElCCIlaIIi.c c:Iac1s1a1 at 16 the City of Clea%water? If:,'OU get the m:oay, :,'OU 17 plt a mad t:1=ugh the paxk; it's not J:eall.y fzan 18 the in:::reased der1aity? 0I1e side, :,'OU ~ Jot's fran 19 :Increased der1aity; the other side is, well, we have 20 got the m:oay, we will plt the mad t:1=ugh? 21 A. No, sir. I d:n't think I said that at 22 all. I think what I said was, we 1e:e asload by the 23 Ccunty - by the Ccunty -- to find a v1ahle 24 solutial. 'I!lete's cnl.y two ways cut of the site, 2S either north or lla1th. 1 To the lla1th -- and there's not a gcod 2 am:ial CIl the boa%d to shelf -- but to the lla1th, 3 it's ~y two miles, and I would ~ lWt or 4 eight tw:ns t:1=ugh Ccunty %cads that have neuer 5 J:eall.y been jnpraued to get out to a light to be 6 able to go lla1th. 7 If :,'OU go the narthem solutial, which we 8 devel.qled with the develcper, I think ~ 9 agI:eElS it's a direct rcute' it's a nucb easier and 10 safe solutial. U Q. But if I cxlUl.d intec:upt:,'OU. Wa all 12 agree that this J.S a solutial that's pmffered, but 13 it seeIIB to 00 the solutial that was pmffered when 14 the traffic questial care up. 'I!lete's IlCl:e traffic, 15 :,'OU' %e increasing' the der1aity, and:,'OU' %e increasing' 16 the der1aity of the site. Wa have IlCl:e traffic, 17 what's the salutial? So this seeIIB to be - =ec:t 18 IIEl if I'm w.ta1q, I:lecause I think that's what ~ 19 testim::lly said -- was IIl:lte traffic. Here is the 20 solutial. Put the xcad n=t:h? 21 A. '1ha.t' s ale solutial. Wa tried to have a 22 d1..~l'Sj al with the c::cunty to help us and cxntribute 23 the Ccunty's sham of .1JIpact fees to ~ the 24 Ccunty roads to the BClUth, and they didn't want to 25 entertain that d1Gr'O'....i,..,.. So we said, dcay, can we 81 83 1 salw Jot at our own as a C1.ty thxough ~ that 2 we own -- ~, we can. 3 Q. So again, back to the questial, so the 4 mad is I:lecause of the in:::reased der1aity CIl the 5 site? 6 A. 'DIe J:oad is partially for it to salve the 7 1Ix%eased den81.ty. It is also to get a better 8 access fran go1nq north and BClUth for pec:ple Who 9 llve in that axea. It would be a publ.ic mad, 10 anJ.bxIlr cxlUl.d dl::l.w CIl that zoad. U Q. And :,'OU stated that :,'OU think that the 12 mclIx:ti.CIl of the paving in the axea of the subject 13 site J.S helped by the %esidential l.cM? 14 A. I'm sorry? Are:,'OU talJd.ng about the site 15 plans? 16 Q. Right. You 1e:e talJd.ng about the 17 %esidentiall.ow and the cl.ust.enng, :,'OU oculd have 18 env1.I:am!ntal l::lenefits? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Do :,'OU think there's alr:/ trade-off fran 21 sav1nq trees? For:lnstance, when :,'OU save the trees 22 cbm. bete, but I:lecause :,'OU' %e having gmater 23 der1aity,:,'OU ki.IId of blaf aIAal:I all the trees there. 24 Dal't:,'OU think there's a trade-off there that:,'OU 2S save the trees bete, taka aIAal:I trees there? 82 84 1 A. 'D1ere IIEY 00 sam trees that c:xml out in 2 that axea, but we IcIlcw that we can - alt:bcu3h we 3 d:n' t have a cIetalled design of the zoad, we IcIlcw 4 that we can design it so it doesn't go t:1=ugh the 5 wetland in the City's portial, so it tiCUldn' t haw 6 that effect. 7 Q. Isn't this heavtiy treed? 8 A. 'I!lete' s trees there, suze. 'I!lete' s also 9 wetland, but we wculcIn' t 00 affec:t1nq the wetland. 10 Q. I understand that, but :,'OU would 00 taIanq U aIAal:Itrees, a substantial an::Ilmt of trees, to get 12 out to Entez:pr1se Road. 13 A. Right. As would -- anyt.iIIe - ~ 14 that paxk would be devel.qled, :,'OU are going to haw 15 an 1IIpact:. ftlen:,'OU go to :r:enovate a pI.eCe of 16 pxq:>erty, sate daI/elcpIEnt, even as a paz:k, :,'OU have 17 an 1IIpact: at that ~. 18 Q. You also 1lEnb.aled that :,'OU t:bcu3ht that a 19 group, lJJcie a haIElcwners assoc:iatial, is a better 20 stew.m1 of the land than a Bingle fanl.J.y cwner? 21 A. I think that generally !:erlds to 00. In I'lV 22 experience, yes. 23 Q. Is there a study that :,'OU haw seen tmem 24 a group of p;qlle that - sam organizatial takes 2S care of a piece of ~ better than samane Who 85 actually cwns the ptqlerty? ~' A. No, I d1dn' t base it en a st:ud!r, I based 3, it en 22 ~ ofaxpenellCS of watch1ng' what 4 happens. And wbs1 a single famJ.y CM1er who is not S f%all Florida. or who clcesn' t Ulldatstand the 6 ;inportaIlce of it, cwns that land, they feel they 7 baIIe an absalute right to do whatever they want euen a in a presarvaticn area. 'Blat has ha;peDed over and 9 over, not just in PinaUas O::mI.ty. 10 Q. So you am assIZlI1ng that _ am gcing' to 11 baIIe 51DIJle fimily CMIISI:S f%all New YOlX oanlJIq c:latIn 12 heI:e just taIdnq apart the -uand, euen toough it's 13 a p:resmvati.al land area? 14 A. I said that I think the lilcal.ihoccl. that 15 you w.ill baIIe ncn-FJm::l.c:l1.an CMIISI:S, wbetber it's 16 single fimilyor tcwnb::use. It's b:ue that what's 17 ~ in our O::mI.ty - but with the ba'lElclNners 18 asscx::1ati.al, and since that bC1I1llOW11er clcesn' t am 19 the p:resmvati.al area., they d:n' t baIIe aw:/ :!nheln!nt 20 right that they 1lel.1eue they can do whatever they 21 want. I1lel.1eue that a baI~ associati.al is a 22 better laIq-tel:m sUw.u:d of the ~. 23 Q. Do you think tbete' s a diffez:ence I::lebIeen 24 a lIUltifan1l.y and single fimily bcus1Jlg? 25 A. Yes, I do. 1 Q. ~ distinct types of bcus1Jlg? 2 A. Yes, I do. 3 Q. And u it fa.1r to saI:I that in this area 4 that the square -- this square area what _' m 5 baaical.ly talldJlq abcut heI:e, Qli.al. street, 6 Entel:pr.Lse Read, U.s. 19, the predr:ml.nant use is 7 single fimily bcus1Jlg? a A. 'Dle prec:lcmlJIant use is single fimily. 9 'D1e%e is lIUlb.fimily and tcwnb::use styl.e in that 10 area that you descrihed. 11 Q. But what is it? A ccuple of places nght 12 heI:e, but the %eSt is - 13 A. Hall, Regency Oaks is in the bottan 14 left-hand c:x:=er of the~. It is a senior 15 area that is quite intense, seuen or eight 1:lulld:l.ngs 16 at five stories each, in additi.al to a nursing hare. 17 Q. 'Blat's right heI:e. Right? 18 A. 'Blat's c:latIn in that a%&L. 19 Q. So it's right -- 20 A. It's quite a ~ site. It actually is 21 IIIlCh ~ than you s!lcM. It's a pretty intense 22 deI/elc:plIant. Acblally, I think it's off ~ 1IEIp, 23 south of -- 24 Q. 'Blat's what I IIB3Ilt, it's off the 1IEIp. 2S I'm talldJlq about - _ can talk about things off ~ 't"~.... " ).- 0'" , 'r (" _ < ~' _...~.....~ a7 1 the 1IEIp, J::ut _ am txylng to get a fl.aI/Qr for the 2 area., so I was just w::oder1ng what you toought was 3 the prec:lcmlJIant use of the deualqm!nt in that a%&L. 4 A. Hall, I looIaecl at it baaical.ly fran SUnset S Fa1nt to Entel:pr.Lse, ~ is the point - M:M1llen 6, Booth to 19, ~ is en sam IlEIpS that I had fJ:an 7 ~ staff, both the 0EIlBtmy and Regency Oaks ~ a is the senior center hcwIing that I taJlled about am 9 in that st:ud!r area. And so IIY feeling is tIIme is a 10 variety of land uses and J:eSidential in that area. 11 Q. You said you had taken the naigbbcrs' 12 CCIIsideratials into effect in this. Ycu li.st.eDed to 13 the na:i.gblxlrs. 'ltlat did they tell you 14 predr:ml.nantly; llEI1nl.y, the naigbbcrs that am IIOrth 15 of the p:cperty? Am they for or aga:inst the 16 p1:Oject? 17 A. 'D1e%e's a ccuple of questials .in tIIme. 18 If I can go back, the prafess1aIal staff cp1nicI1 19 does not 0CIlSider neigIlbodIoccl cp1nicI1 because _ 20 d:n' t baIIe aw:/ w;q to evaluate that prior to gcing' 21 to a plbl.1.c heaJ:jng. 22 Certainly, duri.DrJ the plbl.1.c bearing, the 23 naigbbcrs did CXIlEl out. 'Dle naigbbcrs that cane 24 cut, to IIY mcollecti.a1, were ally to the 1IOrth. I 25 d:n' t zecall anyaI8 fJ:an the south~. And a6 aa 1 genmally, the na:i.gblxlrs to the 1IOrth, a1toough sam 2 started cut in qpositi.al, sam .imtecliatelyadjacent 3 am _ not c:pposing it. 4 'Dle na:i.gblxlrs that am left that am 5 ClCIICI5lJ:%led about it am to the 1IOrth, and they am - 6 tIIme' s six or seven balElS, I guess, that qp:lSe the 7 p1:Oject. a Q. And wol1l.d they - in ~ r1h,....ui......., 9 were they for the spur road that gees up to 10 Entel:pr.Lse, the na:i.gblxlrs to the 1IOrth, the aleS 11 that would actually be mpact:ed? 12 A. 'D1e%e am a ccuple of naigbbcrs to the 13 IIOrth that d1.d CXIlEl to the C1ty 0::IIm:I..ssia1 14 di ~lll!'iro en the road and they stated that they 15 didn't want a road gcing'.in, in thau: area.. 'Blat's 16 not sutprising. 17 Q. Ibi' wol1l.d you cha%ac:terize that area to 18 the 1IOrth? Is it """"",..n".. to the IIOrth of - 19 A. 'ltlat area? 'Dle single fimily area - 20 Q. Right. 'Dle single fimily area. that is in 21 wham _ am start:lnq to go cut, the 51DIJle famJ.y 22 houses. 23 A. ~'s not a lot. I ~ saI:I thete's 24 six or seven. Prd::lably not a lot, in IIY cp1IWXI. I 2S guess, total, tbete's prd:lably ten houses, and six 89 , 1 or seuen of the amers am still in qpos.1tia1. 1 2 'n1ey am s1ng:le faml.ly !laIes aI fairly laJ:ge lots 2 3 IJebieen ten and 15 tllcusand square feet. 3 4 Q. YCIU talked abcut the water and lleOler in 4 S the area. If this pn:perty wasil' t aIlIlIBlCI3d, am ycu 5 6 tel.l1ng lie that the C1.ty of ~ter w::ulcln' t 6 7 S1J!:Ply tbsn with water or IlElliIE!r? 7 8 A. 'DIe C1.ty policy that we have Jitigated to 8 9 the SUpJ:me Court is that if the ~t des1zes 9 10 lleOler SElI:V1OB, they !lUSt annelt; if they cIesil:e water 10 11 SElI:V1OB, we will provide that wit:bcl.1t aIlIleXatia1. 11 12 It's 0CII1Sl.dealcl a basic right. But lleOler servJ.CEl we 12 13 request, and zequi.re they be aIlIlIBlCI3d Ulto the C1.ty 13 14 of Cl.ea%water. 14 15 Q. ~ they were aIlIlIBlCI3d into the C1.ty of 15 16 Cl.eaJ:water, were they pl:QlIised denser clevel.c:pIEnt? 16 17 A. No, they were !lOt pl:QlIised anyt:hiJIq. 17 18 Q. So IlCOI that they am in the C1. ty of 18 19 Cl.ea%water, they ~ get lleOler, water, 46 units 19 20 per acr:e, 90 units - 46 at res:l.dential sutw:bm or 20 21 res:l.dentiallat land use ...'''....iFi=t:1al., it doesn't 21 22 IlBtter . Right? 22 23 A. It doesn't IlBtter what the density is, the 23 24 City will serve sewer and water. Let IIEl just 24 25 clarify, we didn't annex tbsn just, ycu ]cna.(, to go 2S 1 C1Ut and IIBke tbsn care in, they asIaed for it. 'DIe 2 a;pl1cant said we ~ lll<e to care in I:lecause we 3 want to get lleOler~. i1ley had a real z:easa:I 4 why they wanted to care into the C1.ty. 5 Q. YCIU nEnt1alecl that P.I.neUas County is a 6 very dense area, aIEl of thsn. Do ycu t:bink this 7 area that we see aI the IIElp wculd be CXIISidered a 8 dense area? 9 A. AU of P.I.neUas County is a dense area. I 10 d:m' t ]cna.( 1lOW' ycu cannot call this a dense area 11 wheI:e the very edge of the m.te is U.S. 19. It's 12 the l:lusiest %cad in P.I.neUas County, ~ ale of 13 the I:lusiest in F1arlda. It's six lanes of c:hV1ded 14 highway. 15 Q. Qlce ytllI put in a spur %cad, cb ytllI think 16 that area I:lecares very ",...,.,....n..'.. to pecple c::utt:1ng 17 t:]u:Q]gh? 18 A. No, I den' t think ~, ~t sarec:IIe 19 goiJ1q hale to their bouse, who Jives in the existing 20 hcuses or Jives in the vic:lni.ty is gc:lng to use that 21 spur read. 22 Q. YCIU just told IIEl it was an :I.ncred:lhly 23 dense area. U. S. 19 is a barri.fic IICllSter hate fran 24 what I have been bearinq. 2S A. Uh-huh. 90 91 Q. And then ycu're tellmg IIEl that u it backs up, no ale is goiJ1q to be cutting t:hrCIUgh to this area? I nean, we all ]cna.( U.S. 19 is, as ycu ~bed, samt:h1ng' that is inc::tedilU.y I::lusy, backed up, d:m' t ycu t:bink there will be cut-t:hrCIUgh traffic? A. 'Dlere m1ght be a feN, I::Iut ha1estly, it's not going to be very easy to see. At the paint wheI:e ycu wculd have to t:um to the right aI 1st and then go up to CIautaIIqua - and the %cad :L9 ext.eIIcIecl -- JItlU're within three blocks of the Entez:prise light, so why ~ ycu cb that? It cIcesn' t IIBke SElIlSe. Q. If it was backed up, ycu~. A. I 1IElan, I'm !lOt goiJ1q to speculate <Xl what satElCIle m1ght cb, I::Iut I den' t really t:bink it 'gains ycu IIIlCh in tem& of t.i!Ie or anyt:hiJIq else. And goIllq to the step, frankly, there's absolutely no reasa1 to taka that - if ycu were o::m1nq an Entez:prise, tom SCIUt:h <Xl the %cad and then neandar dcIm. t:]u:Q]gh the County mads three mUes at SEMlIl or eights tmns to SUnset - Q. ~t wasn't the questia1, of oalrSe. But if JItlU' re o::m1nq up there, I wculdn' t EllIpElCt JICU to go dcIm. there. If ycu' re goiJ1q up to this area 92 1 hete, IlCOI that ycu have qlEIIEld up this area that has 2 been relatively secluded with s1ng:le faml.ly bcuses 3 aI the road. 4 'Dlere' s a pazX up hate. 'Dlere am a S cx:qlla of parks. 'Dlere is aIEl hate. Right here, a 6 C1.ty pazX? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. Is it usual wheI:e pazXs cut t:hrCIUgh to 9 ot:ber ou:eas? 10 A. I'm sorry? I d:m't 1lIIdarstand the 11 questia1. 12 Q. I will scrat:ch that questian. 13 Is it usual in ycur 21 :years of ""ll"""""'~ 14 for a prcperty comer to be """'l'hini'lg abcut an 15 adjacent prcperty comer that is h1mge1f -- in other 16 wm:ds- 17 A. I'm not fol.law:1ng ycu. 18 Q. - in this case, we have the SCIIe pn:perty 19 comer, we have the Dimll:i.tt famI.ly, who is an 20 adjacent prcperty owner - the Dimll:i.tt faml.ly who 21 owns this - is this usual for sarec:IIe to be 22 catplaininq about 1lOW' bad they am? 23 A. I really da1't quite 1lIIdarstand what the 24 questia1 is. 2S Q. Fl:an what I understand, this right here is 93 an offEllS1ve use. And a 0CIIIIIll:C1al use is an 2 offelw.ve use, and that 3/CU Deed to have a buffer. 3 I th1nk 3/CU said nBIl;Y t:1IIes in ygur testinaly that 4 3/CU need a buffer between a 0CIIIIIll:C1al aJ:ea and - 5 is it UlIUSIlal. When a 0CIIIIIll:C1al aJ:ea is actually the 6 0NIleI: of both pieces of pn::perty and the 0CIIIImCial 7 aJ:ea hasn't attalpted to buffer their p%qlerl:y? 8 A. I guess I'm DOt sw:e I understand the 9 questia1. I 1lEBIl, jz 3/CU' re ask1nq o::W.d that 10 0CIIIIIll:C1al deualcper expand into the other site, be 11 can't do that. So is be gci.nq to sell that p%qlerty 12 and do scmat:hinq else w.l.th it, dces it really natter 13 that be hag;lenB to own adjacent CXIIIIEIrC1al use? I'm 14 DOt sw:e that it IIBtters. 15 Q. Is t:hm:e any buffer en this p%qlerl:y? 16 A. It's pretty slim. 17 Q. Does OeanIater usually rEq11re I::lufferiDg' 18 as part of their land cIEluel.c:plE!nt? 19 A. OUr Dli!f# ocxIe that was dcne fClllr years ago 20 is IIUCh nme ex1:msive, bit that project paldates 21 the axisbnq, 3/CU kneW', the am:ent ocxIe that we 22 have, just as the sbq:p1nq centers to the ncrth 23 paldates it as well. 24 Q. 'Ibis CIle here? 25 A. Yes, air. 1 Q. So these am both 0CIIIIIll:C1al? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Is that UIIIIBUal., then, that we have single 4 fanLly bcuses I:la:lnq l::Ju1.l.t right up to the 5 0CIIIIIll:C1al? 6 A. ~artunately, in OeanIater, it's not 7 UlIUSIlal.. ~ to Bay is a great exaIple. 1I!l haw 8 str:lps en ~ to Bay and other parts of 0. S. 19 9 that have that. I th1nk the adlIantage of bcuses 10 that 3/CU're po.1nt1nq cut is they am a little lime 11 secluded l:lecause 3/CU have to bm1 en lst and then 12 bm1 up to Olautauqua, and then IraIal another bm1 13 into the aJ:ea, so they have a little lime space 14 between tllsn. 15 Q. art: 3/CU said it's not UlIUSIlal. to have that 16 c:1=Imltance? 17 A. YClU do have it in OeanIater, yes. 18 ~. Sl\DCII&(l(: No further questicll.s. 19 TIlE cnm: lllad1%ect. 20 ~. c:xlm: Ccuple of things, please, air. 21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 22 B'L~. c:xlm: 23 Q. C1lldy, on the disr'I'....i CIIB xegardi1lq the 24 traffic, take a lock at this again, at the picture 25 shcMillq the pzqlOSE!d mad. And this is also -- , .....\. ~ Jt.~, 95 1 which CIle -- UlIcIer Tab 33. ~ that I've galS to 2 the atluble of putt1nq it up, I wal1ze - I'm DOt 3 sw:e jz we really Deed to fCCUB on the picture 4 part1.c::ul.ady as ~ to the o::IlCept, bit the 5 subject p%qlerty is effectively vacant at the 6 IID'lE!I1t? 7 A. Ccaecl:. 8 Q. So jz we wmen' t here baviJlq this exercise 9 and J.L it was demacl feasjbl.e by SCIlEbxIy to b.Iy 10 that prcperty and put 46 1Icm3s en it toclay -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. - 1Q]],d t:hm:e be an mpact en traffic:? 13 A. SUI:e. It 1Q]],d be 46 1Icm3s t:1IIes aI:lcut 14 ten tr:Ips a day far a single fcmlJ.y aJ:ea, so 460 - 15 Q. Qu1ck aside. I bet llti'Jert I?etgclizzi is 16 chaIpiJIq at the bit to say this, bit I'm gaIng' to 17 take this ticlnt of his thunder. 'l'ell JUdge 18 ALexander as a prafessialal. planner jz t:hm:e's an 19 accepted xelat.iclls!Up of traffic mpact of single 20 fcmlJ.y 1Icm3s versus townhalEls. 21 A. 'Dlete is. Tc:lImb:mls am aI:lcut 60 pmcent 22 of the traffic of single fanLly 1Icm3s. Far exatple, 23 the single fmd.ly hale gBlQr<ltes aI:lcut ten tr:Ips a 24 day; a t.cImlDlse genmates about rcughly 6 - just 25 to average it cut - a day. 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 Q. L1ttle mxe than haU? A. Right. Q. And in the scbaIe of ycur prafess:!.ala1 1<<%ld, 3/CU 1Q]],d %ecl<a1 that the site c:leIIel.qled w.l.th 46 townhalEls wtW.cl haw a traffic mpact that's not t.eI:2:ibly far off d1ffexent than the sam site dauelc:ped w.l.th 90 townhalEls? A. I th1nk the 46 single fcmlJ.y 1Q]],d be carparahle to the 90 townhalEls in traffic. Q. Is it l.iJlIaly - fares "'e,~, is a better weEd to use - that jz, as I suggested a IID'lE!I1t ago, we had aaIEbxIy Who famd it cIes1J:able and feasjbl.e to put 46 single fmd.ly 1Icm3s en t:ho!Ie 22 acres right new, that ycur ~t 1Q]],d be baviJlq a CXIlCIl!C1 and a d1.....,....i""1 w.l.th the de\ralq:ler about what to do to deal w.l.th traffic, and that CXIllIidaratia1 o::W.d include Elld:eIId1Jlg' Clautauqua .AlIeme? A. ~t IlBY be CIle of the soluticll.s. 1I!l 1'iCUld oerta1Jlly lock at the issue. Q. As a natter of fact, 3/CU CXIlCl.uded that the other brand of solutia1 includes, cq:pazently, begg1nq far the Camty's cxx:pe1:atia1 to deal gaIng' south? A. Ccaecl:. 1 Q. AIXl the County ch.dn't want to play that so 2 far? 3 A. Right. So far what we want to cb is get 4 than to take their i%lpac:t fees and use than to 5 iIIpxoue that spec1fic zoad, so what the cIave.1.qler 6 pays, he saw a dil:ect benefit. Of CXlUrSe, it lO:lUld 7 benefit the other pec:ple who llve :in the area. ~ 8 just d1cIn't make any heaI:Say en that issue. 9 Q. So the C1ty took the ~ b.1ll by 10 the b:m1s and crafted a solutia1 that CXlUld well be 11 the solutial 1% what was at issue was I:Juild1nq 46 12 sirlqle family hales? 13 A. Ccc:ect. 14 Q. N:iw', en the subject of the neighboI:bccd 15 and sara derla1ties, look w.ith lIEl, please, at ale of 16 the am:lal.s that we have. I den't have a large ale 17 of it, :but it J.B under Tab 26. And:in mine, I'm not 18 sw:e 1% it get as--b'~ JJl exact.l.y the SiIIB 19 fashial, blt the theoJ:y was that they were, and 20 mine - it shcu1d be the first page. 21 A. Yes, sir. 22 Q. AIXl this also gives, and this is just 23 saIEiI:xxI!t' else's cpin1cn, I guess, of what 24 oalStitutes an area, :but this sb:Ms an area, 1% ycu 25 will, that is essentially fran Sunset I1\::dnt Read - 1 it says SUnset I1\::dnt Drive or Road. Is it drive or 2 road? 3 ~ rom: Read. 4 ~ W[~: Road. 5 ~. CXlIB: I t:lunk of it as zoad. 'Dlank 6 ycu. 7 ~~. CXlIB: 8 Q.~, saldxx1y IIElde this picture and 9 called it drive, blt I think we all agme it's zoad 10 fran Sunset I1\::dnt en the south to Ent:el:pnBe en the 11 narth. 12 AIXl perhaps just to help ad.ent JUdge 13 AlexancIer en the subject of densities and the 14 vadet1es of derla1ties, where I'm.1ndicatlJlq right 15 here, just to the 1I'eSt, left -- as ycu look at it - 16 of Soule Read, is Regency Oaks? 17 A. Yes, sir. 'nlat's the IlE!Ili.or center. 18 Q. AIXl there's what, like six b1i.lclings, five 19 stories high - 20 A. Ccc:ect. 21 Q. -- of older folks staclcEd en tcp of each 22 other. 'nlat' s effectively apartmmts? 23 A. Yes, sir. 24 Q. J\I:x11t as high a density as ycu can get? 25 A. PJ:et:ty :intense. 97 99 1 Q. Right ac:oss the zoad is another high 2 delw.ty azrangarent, aqain, pted:m1nantlyolder 3 folks,:but they axe UIlder the gtamd there. 'nlat's 4 a cemateJ:y? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 Q. 'nlat' s prc:i)ably COB of the best deals 7 gc.1ng :in tem& of dens1.ty. And I think we alreadJr 8 :indicated up here where I'm .1ndicating axe a a:uple 9 of OClIldanlniun projects. 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. Indeed, it doesn't ll1lcw hare, blt just 12 across the zoad en Entez:prise -- ycur C1ty 13 pz:cperty -- axe IIDJ:e and m::a:e OClIldanlnians. 14 Correct? 15 A. Yes, sir. 'Dlete's also en 19 - it's hard 16 to tell lICIlEltines -- :but there's Idnd of old m:i:lile 17 b::IIe pal:lcs c:bm en the east side and 1I'eSt side. 18 Q. tIIeze I'm :indicat1nq here? 19 A. Yes, sir. YCIU can tell by ~ SIEIlJ. - 20 ~ mgular the patt.em is :in that %eCtangular 21 shape. 22 Q. ~ density? 23 A. PJ:et:ty :intense. 24 Q. 'nlat' s not an artful WCI:d. Intense 25 density. 'Dlank ycu. And I realize it's gc.1ng 98 100 1 across the 1lEIp, blt see these X's Oller there, that's 2 'l'cp of the tobrld? 3 A. 'nlat's 'l'cp of the tobrld, another IlE!Ili.or 4 center, very :intense project. 5 Q. PJ:et:ty significant, large derla1ty. So 6 fran ycur viB4po1n.t weadnq ycur planner's bat, the 7 ~ area is, :lndeed, a cx:ns:l.c:leIab mI.x of 8 uses- 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. - and en the resiclB:Itial side of 11 derla1ties? 12 A. Yes, sir. I I:lelleIIe 1t sb:Ms a variety of 13 uses and Ix:lusiJlq styles and Ix:lusiJlq types. 14 ~. CDLE: 'nlat' s all I have. 15 'DIE rom: Anyt:h:ing else? 16 ~. SIlDCHl!<:{: No. 17 'DIE rom: RIy den' t we take a ten- or 18 f1%teeIl-minute bteak. 19 (Proceed1ngs recessed at 3:00 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 I -- 65/7 74/23 , 80 ' s 41/17 '89 28/13 28/23 '90's 41/17 -- 2/22 9/13 9/15 15/25 17/15 17/19 17/21 22/12 22/14 26/14 29/16 31/7 31/9 33/15 36/10 36/12 39/16 39/18 40/3 40/5 40/24 42/25 44/5 44/7 50/24 51/1 53/20 55/5 58/12 61/10 68/21 69/12 69/14 70/21 70/23 73/20 73/22 74/2 74/4 74/13 74/14 74/15 74/21 86/12 86/23 88/18 92/18 95/10 95/12 95/14 98/19 98/21 100/8 100/10 ----------- 2/11 o 00 1/17 100/19 03-1500 1/2 4/2 1, 1-36 9/20 10 1/17 2/22 29/18 60/20 100 29/19 47/18 100 percent increase 66/4 11 62/8 112 1/19 12-0 19/25 21/2 13 12/18 70/10 13-0 22/23 14 3/5 11/6 11/16 22/6 22/6 22/16 27/14 39/3 39/10 15 23/14 25/15 25/16 69/24 72/17 72/20 81/8 89/3 150 47/19 163 13/3 17 18/12 18/14 49/5 1700's 47/9 47/10 19 14/8 40/16 43/3 44/19 44/23 53/10 58/3 58/7 70/23 71/4 71/10 72/3 86/6 87/6 90/11 90/23 91/3 94/8 19 -- 99/15 1900's 47/12 1926 47/16 1970's 6/19 1980's 6/23 7/6 7/9 1988 11/24 1989 11/19 28/6 1990's 7/9 31/9 1999 39/6 1st 43/18 70/21 71/2 91/9 94/11 2: 2.1 56/16 2.5 6/1 6/12 7/3 7/13 41/3 41/4 41/10 79/19 20 49/7 20 percent 69/24 81/9 20-year 49/8 200 2/3 34/19 2002 15/4 19/13 19/21 20/15 20/21 21/17 52/20 53/22 55/2 62/12 63/2 67/13 2002 -- 21/10 2003 1/17 19/2 21/21 22/8 23/21 69/22 73/18 79/14 21 92/13 46/7 85/3 96/14 14/8 13/16 43/23 13/18 29/5 45/21 22 24/13 22-acres 24 12/17 25 11/12 26 97/17 3 30-35 34/18 31 2/22 315 2/7 33 2/23 67/23 95/1 33 -- 67/22 67/23 33756 2/3 2/8 34 35/11 35/20 35/25 36/4 36/7 41/25 66/20 74/18 35 11/3 36/18 36/21 39/16 40/18 40/18 41/6 74/21 36 3/4 9/6 9/18 36/23 38 2/23 39 3/5 4 4 -- 59/8 40 1/17 38/15 42 2/23 45 2/24 46 24/14 24/17 36/17 38/10 52/12 59/9 75/1 89/19 89/20 95/10 95/13 96/5 96/8 96/13 97/11 460 95/14 5 5 feet 37/19 5 feet -- 37/16 5.0 66/3 6 6 -- 95/24 6-5 21/4 60 29/19 95/21 625 2/3 7 7-0 32/6 32/7 7.5 6/22 55/5 60/22 727-441-2404 1/24 727-441-8966 2/4 727-464-3354 2/8 79 2/24 8 85 38/12 88.464 12/15 9 90 24/21 36/1 36/6 89/20 96/7 96/9 94 2/24 95 50/5 A ability 36/15 77/14 able 36/3 71/3 71/18 76/16 82/6 about 5/13 11/5 12/1 12/3 13/17 14/16 15/23 38/12 38/15 46/8 46/9 49/18 50/11 51/8 52/3 55/13 59/13 59/14 69/7 69/10 70/17 78/10 80/4 80/9 81/8 83/14 83/16 86/5 86/25 87/8 88/5 89/4 92/14 92/22 95/13 95/21 95/23 95/24 96/16 98/24 about -- 86/25 above 25/16 absent 52/8 absolute 85/7 absolutely 30/2 91/18 abstained 20/7 abstaining 20/2 accelerating 70/3 accept 80/21 accepted 47/22 95/19 accepted -- 80/20 access 6/6 70/20 72/8 83/8 accessible 88/18 90/16 accommodate 30/14 37/20 79/5 accommodated 30/18 accommodating 57/4 according 17/1 accurate 19/14 19/15 21/6 51/13 77/7 achieve 57/6 achieved 56/21 56/21 achieving 50/9 acknowledge 77/9 acquainted 14/4 50/18 50/20 acquisition 33/20 acre 6/1 6/2 6/5 6/12 6/22 7/4 7/7 7/13 7/20 15/15 25/13 41/3 41/4 51/5 51/6 51/11 55/5 56/8 60/22 63/18 63/21 64/4 66/3 72/17 72/20 79/19 89/20 acres 24/13 96/14 across 61/3 99/1 99/12 100/1 act 11/21 12/14 12/22 13/3 acted 26/10 acting 5/21 action 8/9 22/18 22/22 28/11 actively 50/4 activities 47/3 activity 29/14 30/22 30/23 57/22 57/25 58/2 58/10 72/8 actually 15/18 37/19 37/23 46/10 51/4 54/7 56/13 65/22 68/7 75/21 85/1 86/20 86/22 88/11 93/5 addition 21/12 49/12 58/4 86/16 additional 21/23 30/16 46/16 address 70/16 addressed 23/7 24/7 addresses 57/12 58/22 addressing 21/24 70/11 adequately 59/17 adjacent 65/6 65/9 65/13 66/15 88/2 92/15 92/20 93/13 administering 12/25 ADMINISTRATIVE 1/1 admissibility 9/11 adopted 6/24 advanced 47/20 advantage 94/9 advantages 37/3 75/2 adverse 63/3 adversely 65/8 advises 17/19 advisory 5/2 12/20 17/12 17/17 17/25 18/15 19/12 22/8 74/2 aerial 39/6 52/9 58/11 58/14 82/2 aerials 97/16 Affairs 62/4 62/7 62/12 affect -- 32/8 affected 5/10 31/13 A affecting 84/9 affirm 20/12 20/19 22/6 35/12 45/25 50/18 affirmat1ve 73/19 after 21/17 31/20 32/18 54/21 63/7 73/5 afternoon 10/4 79/12 again 22/2 22/17 23/11 23/15 24/5 33/9 41/8 57/5 59/14 66/7 66/14 76/12 76/18 78/10 83/3 94/24 99/2 against 87/15 agenda 20/14 20/20 23/15 64/13 66/1 69/21 ago 14/23 15/6 33/18 50/23 93/19 96/12 agree 20/3 41/22 41/23 51/14 63/20 64/23 64/24 65/10 65/18 82/12 98/9 agree -- 81/4 agreed 63/20 69/25 70/1 81/9 81/11 81/14 agreement 9/11 24/7 69/18 agrees 64/24 82/9 ahead 39/1 55/18 aid 72/8 aided 49/25 53/4 air 37/20 akin 42/21 alas 5/4 74/13 albeit 23/16 ALEXANDER 1/15 12/10 33/24 75/4 95/18 98/13 all 9/12 11/25 12/17 13/1 14/4 14/12 14/15 16/5 20/7 21/22 24/4 25/20 29/4 29/5 30/25 32/21 34/23 35/22 35/23 36/18 37/15 37/21 38/4 38/8 38/19 39/22 40/8 40/25 41/1 41/3 41/7 44/18 45/5 46/3 47/3 53/12 53/15 53/16 53/18 54/8 57/11 58/7 58/9 58/12 59/16 65/22 67/6 69/2 72/7 78/17 79/7 81/22 82/11 83/23 90/9 91/3 98/9 100/14 all -- 40/25 allow 15/16 16/18 24/13 24/16 71/12 allowed 16/21 allows 6/1 6/2 6/12 7/3 15/15 60/14 66/3 alluded 77/1 along 15/25 alphabet 17/22 already 33/8 71/5 99/7 also 16/7 16/8 17/17 25/24 31/22 34/17 37/11 46/15 49/10 49/16 51/7 51/21 51/25 59/19 62/3 69/21 70/1 71/5 73/3 75/14 75/20 83/7 84/8 84/18 97/22 99/15 also -- 94/25 alter 30/15 alternate 18/23 54/11 alternates 19/1 alternative 52/14 68/1B alternatives 48/18 although 20/12 60/13 66/2 84/2 88/1 altogether 49/5 always 29/23 65/1 65/2 76/2 am 10/18 14/11 26/11 40/9 61/1 amend 15/13 amended 7/2 28/14 amendment 5/8 11/21 11/23 15/11 16/6 16/17 16/17 16/19 16/20 16/22 17/1 17/3 17/7 19/25 20/8 21/19 22/23 22/24 23/23 24/3 24/21 26/2 26/7 26/14 30/15 30/24 31/12 31/15 36/3 60/8 62/6 62/15 63/3 65/6 66/25 77/23 79/16 amendments 8/4 27/18 29/7 29/12 29/18 29/19 30/5 30/9 31/7 31/20 47/2 amendments -- 29/13 among 13/4 amount 75/9 75/10 79/5 84/11 ample 7/1B analysis 15/9 16/15 17/8 48/11 48/12 52/22 53/23 54/21 56/2 61/15 65/18 69/4 and -- 93/4 annex 52/2 89/10 89/25 annexation 52/1 52/3 52/8 52/18 89/11 annexed 14/20 52/11 89/5 89/13 89/15 annual 28/19 another 5/6 26/3 33/16 51/17 65/6 72/1 94/12 99/1 100/3 answer 80/18 any 4/10 17/6 28/24 31/14 37/2 42/25 45/6 78/8 83/20 85/19 87/20 93/15 97/8 anybody 83/10 90/18 anyone 87/25 anything 12/3 32/23 57/25 89/17 91/17 100/15 anytime -- 84/13 anywhere 34/18 apart 85/12 apartments 34/22 98/22 apparent 77/4 apparently 96/22 appearance 2/20 appearances 2/1 4/3 appearing 87/25 applicant 63/17 63/18 63/25 67/16 69/4 89/9 90/2 application 15/7 15/11 16/11 50/23 52/23 53/2 53/17 55/1 55/18 55/22 56/7 57/9 64/15 67/10 67/14 73/4 applied 14/23 58/2 appreciate 5/15 33/1 65/20 approach 48/16 48/17 approaching 13/10 30/20 appropriate 58/19 66/6 approval 8/9 8/18 19/24 21/2 23/1 23/22 26/8 26/15 27/17 60/21 63/8 63/23 70/11 77/18 approve 19/25 20/8 22/22 22/24 26/21 approved 5/7 49/14 52/19 73/13 77/24 78/2 approximately 24/17 April 1st 11/19 arborist 53/13 architect 54/12 architects 48/8 are -- 42/23 88/5 area 6/6 7/8 7/17 7/23 33/12 34/8 34/9 37/20 39/7 40/8 40/11 40/25 41/1 44/18 46/16 I ~/16 53/7 53/8 53/8 66/7 /12 66/21 67/25 69/3 75/22 78/3 78/8 83/9 83/12 84/2 85/8 85/13 85/19 86/3 86/4 86/10 86/15 86/18 87/2 87/3 87/9 87/10 88/15 88/17 88/19 88/20 89/5 90/6 90/7 90/8 90/9 90/10 90/16 90/23 91/3 91/25 92/1 93/4 93/5 93/7 94/13 95/14 97/7 97/24 97/24 100/7 area -- 88/19 areas 37/15 37/21 40/15 60/10 60/17 68/13 92/9 aren't 20/23 54/16 around 40/15 arrangement 28/14 99/2 artery 72/2 artful 99/24 arts 48/6 ascribed 25/12 aside 17/16 54/3 95/15 ask 10/20 33/9 35/11 42/22 52/24 63/14 asked 30/15 42/16 44/16 51/4 81/22 90/1 asking 4/17 20/19 51/16 aspect 49/15 aspects 53/16 assembled 97/18 assistance 5/15 assistant 2/6 46/12 Associates 1/24 47/1 association 84/19 85/18 85/21 assume 41/18 77/21 assuming 85/10 at 1/23 5/14 7/7 7/20 11/19 14/25 17/5 17/24 19/2 21/9 21/11 21/22 22/17 23/4 23/8 23/17 23/19 31/1 31/17 32/13 35/13 35/25 38/19 40/8 41/2 41/12 45/18 51/1 51/5 51/6 52/23 52/24 53/6 53/16 54/22 55/14 56/8 56/16 56/16 58/3 58/19 58/24 59/8 59/16 60/22 61/11 61/23 62/17 63/18 63/23 64/3 64/12 64/19 64/20 65/3 65/5 66/1 66/19 67/21 68/9 70/19 71/1 71/18 72/4 72/16 72/17 72/20 73/16 73/17 73/18 74/17 74/24 74/25 77/19 77/19 78/12 79/8 79/14 80/2 81/9 81/21 86/16 87/4 89/20 91/8 91/21 94/24 94/24 95/5 95/16 96/20 97/11 97/15 98/15 100/19 attach 48/3 attached 24/21 34/20 34/22 37/5 42/6 48/21 attached -- 20/13 34/14 attachments 20/22 23/16 attempted 93/7 attention 5/15 30/12 35/10 64/6 55/13 62/8 Attorney 2/6 4/9 attorneys 54/11 August 23rd 63/2 AUTHORITY 1/11 4/20 12/23 13/23 21/9 26/22 Authority -- 26/11 27/20 Authority's 5/22 available 6/21 47/21 52/14 52/17 Avenue 1/19 24/9 61/3 70/21 76/8 83/7 84/19 84/25 8: 96/11 between 14/8 29/18 29/19 3~/18 61/19 72/18 77/1 85/23 45/19 72/3 89/3 93/4 94/14 big 43/7 bit 10/21 30/21 34/1 69/3 73/3 95/16 blessing 73/19 B1 64/20 blocked 71/8 71/9 B6 -- 65/5 blocks 91/11 back 15/4 20/2 20/15 21/3 blow 83/23 23/12 28/4 35/11 37/13 44/24 board 1/10 4/18 4/25 5/4 5/20 50/23 52/23 55/2 61/11 62/10 7/5 8/2 12/18 12/20 13/23 63/19 66/19 67/12 67/14 70/10 18/16 21/7 26/9 27/11 32/5 71/23 73/8 79/16 80/6 80/8 32/10 32/14 53/25 54/4 54/5 83/3 87/18 54/6 54/10 54/15 61/6 63/10 backed 91/4 91/14 73/22 80/5 82/2 background 10/23 33/14 Board's 6/13 8/14 backing 44/22 boards 80/1 backs 91/2 body 15/1 15/20 21/14 22/22 backwards 37/17 26/8 26/19 bad 92/22 bold 55/15 banked 68/21 68/24 bold-numbered 55/24 Baron 47/9 Booth 71/24 71/25 72/5 87/6 base 20/13 85/2 border 66/20 based 16/19 22/24 27/13 34/3 both 18/25 25/22 47/14 49/6 37/1 37/12 53/18 53/22 80/22 50/21 52/4 53/8 59/21 61/16 85/2 61/17 61/23 61/24 70/7 70/15 bashful 10/16 78/15 80/2 87/7 93/6 94/1 basic 89/12 bottom 60/20 66/1 86/13 basically 41/6 86/5 87/4 brand 96/22 basis 27/15 28/19'29/20 break 100/18 BoilY 46/16 94/7 94/8 Brian 18/23 D4:i -- 42/1 70/23 75/8 82/17 bring 67/12 Beardsley 18/21 18/22 18/25 broad 49/15 52/25 19/3 22/12 broad-brush 29/21 29/23 bl!lautiful 47/11 broader 25/19 because 16/24 24/5 32/9 52/15 brought 21/23 !57/10 61/18 62/5 70/24 71/19 buffer 60/16 93/2 93/4 93/7 82/18 83/4 83/22 87/19 90/2 93/15 94/11 buffering 93/17 becomes 90/16 build 6/6 34/5 38/13 39/21 bl!en 4/22 7/11 11/3 11/15 build-out 30/20 11/20 14/20 21/23 24/20 27/15 builder 33/17 34/3 34/6 ~!7 /22 28/2 28/14 33/15 46/11 building 76/17 97/11 47/6 52/11 52/11 73/18 78/2 buildings 34/12 36/7 75/6 ,82/5 90/24 92/2 86/15 98/18 b~!fore 1/15 14/25 22/2 23/20 built 41/4 49/12 70/4 94/4 31/20 32/14 32/20 35/19 46/24 built-out 41/17 50/5 68/16 built-up 13/9 b~!gging 96/23 bull 97/9 buginning 4/3 11/17 69/10 busiest 43/5 90/12 90/13 b~!gins -- 45/22 business 34/16 34/21 bohalf 2/5 2/9 busy. 43/4 91/4 buhind 37/16 37/19 74/12 but 5/3 10/15 13/24 17/24 buing 44/19 77/19 94/4 18/7 20/13 20/21 23/4 23/5 bolabor1ng 46/3 24/6 28/10 33/9 33/23 34/22 bolieve 18/14 18/23 21/20 34/24 35/2 35/8 42/22 44/17 31/16 32/5 36/7 37/11 42/1 48/9 49/24 50/5 52/25 58/11 44/17 44/20 49/24 50/24 58/18 61/20 65/8 68/14 69/2 70/8 58/21 60/11 67/22 74/21 78/14 71/15 71/16 71/22 72/16 76/9 79/25 85/20 85/21 100/12 76/16 77/4 79/4 80/10 81/11 bolieved 59/19 60/18 70/6 81/12 81/14 82/2 82/11 82/12 b~!low 57/3 83/22 84/2 84/9 84/10 85/17 b~meficial 60/9 86/11 86/12 87/1 89/12 91/7 bEmefit 1/6 18/6 37/24 77/6 91/16 91/23 93/20 94/15 95/4 97/6 97/7 95/16 97/17 97/19 97/24 98/9 benefits 37/3 77/10 83/18 99/3 99/11 99/16 100/1 BElsides 37/21 buy 35/5 95/9 bEISt 48/19 81/9 81/9 99/6 bElstowed 4/23 bElt 95/15 Cadillac 44/10 bEltter 12/12 30/6 68/14 70/7 calculate '50/15 A average 95/25 average -- 38/12 a~oid 17/22 17/24 aware 4/12 away 83/23 83/25 84/11 B c call 8/20 32/18 33/4 45/9 53/11 55/12 62/8 '90/10 called 16/7 29/13 45/23 54/6 70/21 98/9 calls 45/17 came 15/6 15/12 62/10 63/19 63/22 67/14 69/11 79/16 82/14 87/23 can 9/16 10/12 11/12 12/1 20/11 20/19 22/6 27/14 28/17 30/3 32/19 35/11 37/7 37/11 38/14 38/24 39/7 40/1 41/14 60/15 60/16 61/2 61/7 61/13 68/16 70/20 71/9 75/6 77/9 79/4 82/25 83/2 84/4 85/20 86/25 87/18 98/24 99/19 can -- 71/14 84/2 can't 30/13 30/17 93/11 cannot 90/10 cannot -- 71/7 capacity 5/21 12/20 12/21 26/10 capital 70/11 car 14/9 43/12 43/20 58/4 61/8 61/11 68/2 68/2 care 54/13 76/10 84/25 career 11/5 carry 68/10 carve 75/1 case 1/2 4/2 8/11 19/17 19/18 21/1 27/3 32/1 41/3 41/9 52/6 53/4 54/1 54/25 56/2 58/2 76/2 77/18 92/18 Cassel 18/25 categories 25/12 25/13 25/18 30/3 57/14 category 15/14 25/25 26/5 29/12 30/8 57/18 63/17 63/21 causes 77/17 CDB 54/22 63/9 cemetery 87/7 99/4' center 43/25 58/5 68/3 87/8 98/17 100/4 centers 57/23 58/1 58/3 58/10 72/6 93/22 century 47/13 certain 19/5 48/12 76/11 certainly 13/11 30/4 42/24 47/13 49/23 75/25 81/3 81/5 87/22 96/20 chair 19/3 22/12 chairman 32/12. chance 79/2 change 5/23 14/24 15/24 16/7 16/12 51/4 change -- 55/3 ' changed 5/10 27/19 28/15 31/17 changes 29/22 30/6 73/13 changing 81/4 Chapter 12/15 13/2 character 7/22 characteristics 57/15 64/22 66/6 66/11 characteristics -- 57/21 characterization 51/13 characterize 21/13 27/14 28/20 88/17 characterized 50/12 charged 12/24 charter 11/23 Chautauqua 7/23 14/7 14/10 24/9 39/7 42/17 60/17 61/3 66/15 68/6 75/24 94/12 96/17 52/23 57/16 75/3 76/2 76/18 _____ 84/1 87/23 88/13 90/1 90/2 Chautauqua -- 91/10 90/4 Chelsea 40/14 40/14 40/20 comes 16/5 16/13 44/23 Chevrolet 43/11 43/16 coming 10/11 15/1 46/24 78/23 chomping 95/16 85/11 91/19 91/24 choose 18/4 comment 41/14 65/4 chronologically 23/11 28/12 commented 50/11 64/8 commercial 40/16 43/10 44/19 chronology 21/16 44/22 49/13 49/16 93/1 93/4 Cindy 45/15 94/23 93/5 93/6 93/10 93/13 94/1 c1rcumstance 94/16 94/5 cities 12/17 13/16 17/15 54/6 commercially 58/7 80/3 Commission 5/1 27/3 49/25 cit1zens 49/2 49/25 54/8 50/3 54/2 54/23 61/6 63/11 54/17 65/23 63/15 63/16 63/23 63/25 64/6 citizens -- 54/16 73/25 78/22 88/13 city 1/6 1/18 1/18 4/24 4/25 Commission's 69/21 5/1 5/1 10/7 11/2 11/3 11/4 Commissioner -- 80/12 14/20 14/25 15/3 15/5 23/1 COMMISSIONERS 1/11 4/19 5/4 23/25 24/2 24/7 24/23 46/7 5/21 12/21 13/24 21/8 26/10 46/11 46/13 46/20 47/11 47/15 32/6 32/11 80/5 48/14 49/1 49/7 49/17 49/20 committed 78/15 80/5 80/8 49/21 49/24 49/25 50/1 50/3 Committee 5/2 17/12 17/17 50/5 52/5 52/16 52/23 53/12 17/25 18/15 19/13 53/12 74/2 53/13 53/13 53/15 54/2 54/9 common 34/24 37/21 54/11 54/22 56/12 57/6 57/8 commonality 13/4 61/15 61/21 63/11 63/15 63/16 communities 33/21 35/22 63/22 63/24 64/6 65/12 65/14 Community 4/24 53/25 54/3 65/15 67/12 67/15 67/17 68/20 54/5 61/6 62/4 62/7 62/12 68/20 68/24 69/4 69/21 70/14 63/9 73/22 73/25 77/8 78/15 80/2 81/16 company 34/4 69/11 83/1 88/13 89/6 89/8 89/13 comparable 96/9 89/15 89/18 89/24 90/4 92/6 comparisons 75/2 97/9 99/12 compatibility 58/23 City in 49/18 compatible 56/17 59/1 59/5 City's 56/4 56/14 84/5 59/7 clarify 89/25 complaining 92/14 92/22 classification 5/24 6/11 6/15 completely 55/19 7/1 7/15 8/16 25/21 26/3 26/4 comprehensive 5/24 7/25 8/4 30/13 30/18 41/25 51/17 51/18 8/13 56/5 56/14 51/21 89/21 concept 95/4 classifications 6/25 25/10 conceptually 16/13 25/11 25/19 51/8 concern 59/13 59/14 70/16 classifications at 6/22 77/2 77/4 96/15 classified 16/2 31/16 concerned 14/16 88/5 Clayton 53/5 concerns 23/7 78/16 80/4 clear 27/11 50/2 50/3 51/15 concluded 56/7 58/17 96/21 66/10 conclusion 65/10 65/19 Clearly 75/5 concur 66/8 66/12 Clearwater 1/6 1/18 2/3 2/8 conditioner 37/20 4/24 4/25 5/1 11/5 14/21 15/3 condominium 99/9 23/2 24/1 24/2 24/24 46/12 condominiums 99/13 46/13 46/25 47/16 49/1 49/3 conduct 17/8 49/13 50/2 52/5 54/10 63/11 confir.m 11/12 19/9 65/13 73/23 73/25 77/9 81/16 consciously 48/4 89/6 89/14 89/16 89/19 93/17 consequence 72/1 94/6 94/17 consider 63/17 63/19 63/25 clients 47/4 47/4 65/15 65/18 87/19 close proximity 57/22 considerable 100/7 closings 34/7 Considerably 38/4 38/7 CLUP 28/9 consideration 23/19 24/6 cluster 37/5 77/14 77/15 59/24 96/17 clustered 24/21 60/13 60/14 considerations 17/4 17/6 75/6 87/12 clustering 37/8 37/9 37/15 considered 25/6 25/13 25/15 38/2 75/5 83/17 25/16 55/3 65/12 66/5 89/12 code 54/20 55/21 56/12 93/19 90/7 93/21 consistency 13/1 13/4 29/2 COLE 2/2 4/5 4/13 8/20 29/9 29/13 31/7 31/12 31/20 Cole.......................... 56/4 57/12 61/14 61/19 2/15 consistent 6/17 23/23 29/1 Colgate 11/1 56/8 56/9 56/17 58/21 61/22 come 27/16 32/8 32/8 33/23 61/24 64/22 78/3 c , ,sistently 7/11 58/16 .stitute 19/12 22/7 constitutes 97/24 constructed 59/10 71/6 construction 24/14 24/16 consultant 11/6 36/23 54/13 Consultants 36/24 continuance 21/11 continuation 41/12 41/16 42/21 44/21 continue 50/6 contracted 35/5 contrast 12/4 38/10 43/1 74/19 contribute 70/2 82/22 controversy 5/20 conveyed 35/2 cooperation 96/23 copies 19/11 copy 9/4 9/6 9/8 11/10 20/12 20/20 45/20 46/1 55/8 62/9 67/24 corner 66/16 86/14 corners 72/7 corporate 35/23 54/12 correct 9/14 12/8 12/9 14/3 14/22 15/10 16/9 17/22 18/19 19/7 19/8 19/19 19/20 20/1 20/9 21/10 21/15 21/19 22/1 22/9 22/17 22/20 23/12 24/10 24/11 24/15 24/19 26/1 27/5 31/10 31/25 35/1 35/4 35/9 36/2 36/8 36/13 36/22 39/14 41/19 42/3 42/6 42/9 42/17 43/19 44/1 44/25 45/3 50/17 51/24 53/22 55/4 55/9 56/2 57/24 67/25 70/12 71/5 71/14 72/4 72/25 73/1 73/7 80/23 82/17 95/7 96/25 97/13 98/20 99/14 correct -- 27/23 correctly 77/21 corresponds 9/24 corridor 44/22 cost 69/25 78/10 costed 69/6 could 8/10 36/20 37/22 39/21 52/11 59/10 59/17 59/21 61/20 68/9 69/1 69/5 82/11 83/10 83/17 93/9 96/17 97/10 could -- 80/10 council 5/3 6/24 8/2 10/10 11/8 11/17 11/18 11/20 11/22 12/7 12/13 12/19 13/20 18/5 18/6 20/25 21/14 21/19 23/12 23/20 23/22 26/9 26/24 28/6 28/22 32/15 64/10 73/9 73/12 Councilman 80/13 80/20 counsel 4/11 count 29/12 36/7 counties 12/4 13/12 34/10 counting 29/11 country 34/13 Countryside 58/9 58/12 county 1/10 1/10 2/6 2/7 4/9 4/19 4/20 5/3 5/20 5/21 10/10 11/7 11/23 12/4 12/17 12/20 13/6 13/7 13/9 13/17 13/23 17/15 18/8 18/17 20/5 22/12 26/9 27/3 30/21 32/5 32/10 33/17 33/21 33/22 34/6 34/8 43/6 46/17 46/18 50/11 50/14 52/12 52/15 57/11 65/14 65/15 65/20 65/23 67/11 67/11 70/17 21/3 23/21 31/23 32/10 6 81/15 County -- 65/8 81/23 81/23 decisions 6/18 8/1 49/18 85/17 49/24 County's 12/2 27/21 57/16 deemed 95/9 57/19 58/8 82/23 96/23 deferential 8/8 countywide 1/11 4/19 5/9 5/22 define 25/18 5/24 7/25 8/13 12/16 12/22 definitely 37/25 51/14 12/24 12/25 13/5 13/22 15/8 degree 10/25 11/1 13/4 28/24 16/12 17/2 17/5 21/8 24/17 47/23 78/12 25/4 26/11 26/22 27/19 28/1 degrees 47/20 28/9 28/21 29/1 29/6 51/15 degrees -- 47/20 .52/9 57/13 57/18 58/16 58/20 deliberations 19/6 61/16 demand 57/4 57/10 75/17 couple 11/11 11/25 27/23 28/3 demonstrated 74/18 36/19 42/23 55/13 60/11 86/11 denial 5/22 87/17 88/12 92/5 94/20 99/8 denied 74/14 74/15 78/18 course 39/4 53/14 59/6 61/20 dense 50/14 90/6 90/8 90/9 91/23 97/6 90/10 90/23 Court 2/3 2/7 89/9 densely 13/12 cover 51/10 denser 89/16 coverage 75/9 dens1ties 51/10 97/15 98/13 covered 55/19 98/14 100/11 CPA 14/2 17/21 21/9 21/17 density 6/7 16/25 25/15 25/16 27/16 31/23 78/19 26/6 51/9 51/16 51/17 51/18 crafted 97/10 51/21 59/4 60/14 63/24 64/21 created 11/22 12/16 41/6 66/4 66/5 77/7 77/11 77/14 creating 79/22 79/18 80/15 80/22 81/2 81/5 creation 13/20, 81/18 81/19 82/15 82/16 83/4 creature 12/14 83/7 83/23 89/23 98/24 99/2 criteria 17/2 29/2 56/3 99/7 99/22 99/25 100/5 Cross 2/21 density -- 72/17 CROSS-EXAMINATION 31/3 38/21 density-wise 13/7 79/10 deny 21/4 26/21 crossing 71/20 department 49/4 49/15 53/1 cul-de-sac 76/15 55/9 55/9 55/25 57/6 58/17 cul-de-sacs 40/21 60/21 62/4 62/7 62/11 62/14 current 10/8 23/25 24/12 28/6 62/18 63/1 63/8 63/24 64/9 28/13 30/11 30/13 30/18 36/15 96/14 46/4 59/9 93/21 depending 50/14 currently 34/13 depicted 36/4 37/7 72/24 curves -- 68/15 depicting 35/13 cusp 72/18 depth 30/13 cut 92/8 DESC 3/3 cut-through 91/5 describe 12/6 16/10 cutting 90/16 91/2 described 86/10 91/4 CW-02-39 19/18 describes 20/22 Cynthia 2/24 45/11 45/16 descript10n 57/17 58/20 45/17 45/23 design 36/24 48/11 60/15 84/3 Cvr>ress 68/3 ....~.,,>..Vi":. 84/4 designated 15/18 15/21 18/24 19/1 66/21 designation 5/11 15/24 19/18 24/12 36/16 59/9 66/5 designations 25/5 designed 35/23 38/2 desirable 96/12 desire 6/3 36/2 69/14 89/10 desires 89/9 destroy 76/19 detached 75/15 detail 52/25 78/11 detailed 84/3 determination 16/16 29/9 determine 69/3 determined 39/21 43/12 43/16 develop 6/4 7/20 36/3 36/15 67/17 69/14 74/17 developed 7/12 36/20 52/12 56/25 58/7 67/3 72/14 72/15 82/8 84/14 96/4 96/7 developed -- 50/12 developer 24/8 52/2 60/12 69/7 69/19 70/15 82/8 93/10 c: II daily 49/15 data 50/21 date 11/17 28/7 dated 62/12 63/1 dates 11/19 dating 15/3 28/4 DAVID 2/6 2/22 4/8 8/23 9/2 10/5 day 43/23 95/14 95/24 95/25 day-to-day 49/10 DCA 62/10 deal 96/16 96/23 dsaler 44/8 44/10 61/8 dealers 58/4 dealership 14/9 61/12 68/2 dealing 70/17 deals 99/6 debatable 8/6 8/7 8/16 Debra 1/24 decades 6/18 8/3 27/23 28/3 decision 6/14 8/5 8/12 8/14 96/15 97/5 developer -- 78/15 developer's 69/23 81/7 developers 77/3 developing 48/19 development 4/25 6/16 7/6 7/22 13/8 24/20'33/19 37/4 39/18 39/22 40/19 40/20 41/21 42/20 42/22 53/7 53/11 53/25 54/4 54/5 56/17 57/2 60/13 61/6 63/10 70/2 70/3 73/22 75/13 75/14 75/20 77/10 79/4 84/16 86/22 87/3 89/16 93/18 development -- 33/20 developments 40/22 72/23 did 4/13 22/4 28/7 57/8 57/9 57/9 58/21 59/2 60/23 62/3 62/6 62/18 62/21 64/7 64/11 65/17 67/16 68/25 69/20 73/15 78/13 79/18 87/13 87/23 88/13 didn't 20/16 32/7 32/8 40/7 58/11 78/18 82/24 85/2 88/15 89/25 97/1 97/8 differ 8/10 difference 48/7 48/10 85/23 differences 42/25 different 12/3 ,13/24 28/10 28/11 40/15 53/19 61/22 74/17 96/6 difficul t 67/7 DIMMITT 1/6 1/7 14/6 14/14 43/10 50/19 92/19 92/20 direct 2/21 10/2 33/6 35/10 45/12 50/1 81/1 82/9 97/6 directly 58/13 director 10/9 11/4 11/7 1~/16 18/23 46/11 46/13 49/1 directors 17/13 disadvantages 75/3 disagrees 26/22 discipline 47/7 47/21 discussed 73/2 discussion 19/17 22/18 23/8 32/13 51/7 55/25 56/10 57/13 67/18 68/25 82/22 82/25 88/14 96/15 discussions 9/10 69/6 77/1 79/25 88/8 94/23 disposition 21/11 dispute 14/5 distance 68/16 distinct 26/5 47/6 48/10 86/1 distinction 48/20 distinguish 81/7 distinguishing 18/9 district 20/6 dive 5/14 divided 90/13 DIVISION 1/1 1/4 do 13/14 17/20 19/3 20/3 28/21 30/5 32/4 33/10 34/11 34/17 35/13 37/2 37/15 38/14 39/13 42/16 43/18 44/13 48/1 48/3 48/7 48/9 49/19 53/5 57/8 60/12 61/17' 61/18 61/23 63/2 64/16,64/18 64/23 64/24 65/10 65/12 65/18 66/7 66/9 67/14 75/11 77/20 79/2 79/2 79/4 81/11 81/14 83/20 85/7 85/20 85/23 85/25 86/2 90/6 90/15 91/12 91/16 93/11 93/12 94/17 96/16 97/3 document 70/11 documents 9/5 D does 11/17 13/7 27/10 34/21 35/16 56/2 56/3 65/1 65/8 66/14 66/16 87/19 93/12 93/17 doesn't 52/15 71/22 84/4 85/5 85/18 89/21 89/23 91/13 99/11 doing 47/2 domain 47/3 don't 10/14 10/16 22/9 27/9 31/14 44/17 44/20 70/25 76/3 81/21 83/24 84/3 85/19 87/20 87/25 90/10 90/18 91/5 91/16 92/10 92/23 97/16 100/17 don't -- 41/9 DONALD 1/15 done 34/23 36/21 36/23 41/13 47/16 53/24 61/15 64/1 64/3 79/6 80/16 93/19 dotted 68/4 68/5 double 70/1 down 7/5 16/5 19/22 41/7 41/13 44/3 64/4 65/4 76/18 83/22 85/11 86/18 91/21 91/25 99/17 Downtown 49/8 draft 17/11 drainage 15/21 drew 40/18 47/9 drive 53/6 53/6 68/6 83/10 98/1 98/1 98/9 driving 71/2 dropping 19/22 65/4 drove 77/13 during 67/18 87/22 dwell 23/3 dwelling 15/15 24/17 59/9 59/12 dwell1nQs 7/12 36/17 E each 9/12 25/17 28/25 29/9 42/1 52/13 55/22 55/23 59/5 75/22 86/16 98/21 earlier 23/23 52/10 early 31/9 55/2 easel 38/23 easier 82/9 easily 71/15 east 14/10 42/17 71/23 72/3 99/17 easy 91/8 ecological 37/24 economic 77/6 81/15 economics 40/1 40/3 77/2 edge 90/11 educate 12/1 education 10/23 65/9 effect 4/21 13/23 27/22 28/2 30/8 32/2 32/7 44/19 59/15 59/19 79/3 84/6 87/12 effectively 95/5 98/22 eight 82/4 86/15 eights 91/22 either 9/23 14/13 15/24 18/9 26/20 68/11 81/25 elderly 54/13 else 91/17 93/12 100/15 else's 97/23 Elysium 40/11 40/20 40/24 44/18 embraced embraces eminent 25/21 4/21 47/3 I ~ertise 35/21 39/13 39/20 .Jlain 54/4 explained 67/9 explored 68/18 expound. 40/1 expressed 69/14 expresses 62/13 64/20 expression 27/6 34/20 expression -- 70/15 extend 24/8 25/24 68/19 69/1 extended 28/18 45/1 extended -- 91/11 extending 79/21 80/16 96/17 extension 68/6 70/12 80/25 extensive 93/20 extra-majority 32/16 extraordinarv 76/20 en 9/16 17/21 end 29/8 72/21 73/17 endorsed 20/7 endorses 4/21 endorsing 18/9 engineer 54/12 engineers 53/14 53/15 69/4 Englehardt 47/1 enough 67/3 77/4 ensure 76/6 enter 4/2 4/17 entered 69/6 Enterprise 24/9 71/12 72/5 79/22 80/16 84/12 86/6 87/5 88/10 91/12 91/20 98/10 Enterprise -- 79/21 99/12 entertain 82/25 entire 27/11 entirely 33/24 environment 56/18 59/25 60/19 facilities 59/14 59/15 59/17 76/4 76/23 77/17 79/2 79/3 facility 14/9 43/20 65/10 environmental 78/11 83/18 68/2 environmentally 60/2 60/9 fact 19/2 26/20 41/5 41/9 environs 53/6 47/16 51/16 52/5 67/24 70/25 especially 37/25 71/1 71/2 72/11 74/4 96/21 ESQUIRE 2/2 2/6 factors 78/10 essence 24/6 fair 48/22 70/1 81/10 86/3 essentially 17/13 97/25 fairly 8/6 8/7 8/16 29/3 established 7/21 30/16 49/4 58/5 66/17 89/2 Europe 47/8 fairness 51/19 evaluate 17/6 53/7 55/22 familiar 40/8 40/11 40/23 87/20 family 6/8 6/15 7/12 7/22 evaluated 68/12 24/14 34/17 36/17 36/20 37/6 evaluation 16/11 37/12 38/16 39/18 39/22 40/18 even 7/5 21/1 28/18 29/21 42/6 44/21 52/12 67/4 67/7 61/22 65/13 69/22 76/22 77/3 75/12 75/14 75/15 75/20 76/10 77/14 84/16 85/7 85/12 76/12 76/22 78/13 84/20 85/4 event 26/20 85/11 85/16 85/24 86/7 86/8 eventually 63/9 63/10 73/8 88/19 88/20 88/21 89/2 92/2 ever 10/14 92/19 92/20 94/4 95/14 95/20 ever -- 10/13 95/22 95/23 96/8 96/13 97/12 every 20/4 29/25 52/3 55/18 family -- 38/11 76/10 far 13/8 34/6 96/6 97/2 97/3 everybody 70/9 75/16 75/25 fare 13/7 13/14 everyone 82/8 fashion 37/10 44/15 97/19 evidence 7/18 9/20 fast 30/20 ex 18/16 feasible 95/9 96/13 Exact 63/13 feature 15/21 exactly 56/23 57/17 67/2 features 55/13 78/12 70/18 81/3 97/18 February 15/4 50/24 EXAMINATION 10/2 33/6 42/13 fee 34/22 35/3 45/12 94/21 feel 85/6 example 43/1 43/23 49/21 feeling 87/9 56/15 57/20 94/7 95/22 fees 82/23 97/4 except 50/6 90/18 feet 89/3 exception 20/6 20/24 felt 57/8 78/17 executive 10/9 11/7 11/15 Ferguson 2/2 4/6 exercise 95/8 few 91/7 exhibit 3/5 9/5 9/24 20/3 fewer 38/4 38/7 76/22 20/11 22/6 22/16 35/25 36/4 field 47/6 50/21 53/5 53/23 38/24 39/3 39/10 55/7 62/8 fifteen-minute 100/18 exhibits 3/1 9/12 9/17 9/20 filed 50/23 51/2 53/2 20/13 20/22 23/16 Finally 8/4 exist 28/8 financially 69/6 existing 53/6 66/21 77/16 find 81/23 90/19 93/21 finding 50/7 67/15 exists 7/19 fi~ 4/6 46/21 46/25 47/2 expand 93/10 first 8/20 10/20 13/21 16/15 expansion 30/14 30/17 20/3 22/11 28/24 29/7 46/19 expect 63/3 91/24 50/13 55/11 55/14 64/14 79/25 expense 24/8 69/19 97/20 experience 10/24 27/13 37/1 fit 58/16 46/5 46/8 46/15 51/11 54/15 five 29/18 34/13 46/20 60/25 84/22 85/3 92/13 86/16 98/18 F E' flavor 87/1 flex1b11ity 60/14 flip , 19/16 20/11 Flipping 22/21 FLORIDA 1/1 1/19 1/23 2/3 2/8 12/15 36/24 48/1 50/14 62/18 63/1 63/4,63/5 75/16 76/3 85/5 90/13 flurry 29/14 f,:)cus 95/3 folks 53/15 65/21 71/12 71/17 '72/2 98/21 99/3 folks -- 48/8 follow 20/16 fOllow-up 42/12 f,:>llowing 64/20 92/17 Ford 44/8 foreseeable 96/10 form 28/4 28/7 fc:>rmal 18/14 formulate 17/10 forward 21/24 23/6 64/9 fc:>rwarded 54/2 fc)und 29/22 61/23 96/12 fc)ur 30/3 42/2 42/7 46/14 93/19 fc)ur-plexes 36/9 Fc)urs 36/11 fl~ame 55/2 69/9 fl~ankly 91/18 free 18/3 fl~equency 28/17 frequently 30/15 30/23 fringe 15/19 fl~om -- 21/3 front 15/19 fully 56/24 function 31/18 furnished 11/9 further 21/18 24/5 42/10 65/4 H 67/15 70/19 94/18 future 5/9 5/23 16/12 27/21 28/1 49/17 76/7 G gains 91/16 general 16/10 25/5 52/21 59/3 68/5 78/8 gEmerally 25/7 58/3 75/12 77/5 84/21 88/1 gEmerated 80/14 gEmerates 95/23 95/24 generations 76/7 gE!t 30/5 49/12 52/3 52/4 52/6 61/7 68/16 72/3 81/16 82/5 83/7 84/11 87/1 89/19 90/3 517/3 98/24 gE!tting 26/11 Gi.na 53/5 gi.st 15/12 gi.ve 14/7 15/6 28/17 33/13 ;13/25 38/14 46/4 gi.ven 30/10 30/19 gi.ves 97/22 g).ad 64/24 gel 16/21 20/2 25/1 26/3 37/16 309/1 55/18 60/22 70/10 71/3 71/12 79/22 80/6 80/8 81/6 82/6 82/7 84/4 84/15 87/18 88/21 89/25 91/10 91/25 gelal 49/19 50/4 57/3 goals 7/24 56/13 57/8 goes 10/22 18/5 26/9 26/ 54/22 59/13 88/9 going 9/4 23/3 33/25 35/10 41/8 42/1 42/2 50/1 52/24 67/20 67/21 70/23 71/17 72/3 75/21 75/22 76/18 78/24 78/25 83/8 84/14 85/10 87/20 88/15 90/19 90/20 91/2 91/8 91/15 91/18 91/25 93/11 95/16 96/23 99/7 99/25 gold 39/8 gone 95/1 good 10/4 29/23 29/25 30/21 48/12 57/1 69/3 76/1 76/10 79/12 82/1 good-sized 49/4 goodness 27/22 Gordan 18/20 Gosh 47/8 got 10/14 46/19 75/17 75/18 76/14 81/20 97/18 government 13/2 13/19 46/10 governmental 54/14 governments 17/14 graduate 47/20 grant 21/11 grassroots 46/22 great 78/11 94/7 greater 60/16 83/22 grew 47/11 ground 30/7 99/3 ground's-eye 61/7 group 9/4 46/22 61/1 76/19 76/20 84/19 84/24 grow 50/5 growth 7/22 13/3 50/9 guess 29/24 30/2 30/19 63/11 73/2 81/9 81/12 88/6 88/25 93/8 97/23 guide 49/17 49/21 49/23 Gulf 94/7 94/8 Hackworth 80/13 80/20 had 6/20 11/9 11/20 21/22 24/2 30/7 31/5 39/12 42/16 51/12 52/11 53/24 56/24 68/21 68/24 73/18 73/19 78/14 78/17 87/6 87/11 90/3 96/12 half 11/5'69/25 96/1 Hall 1/18 Hammer 47/1 hand 9/4 handled 53/3 59/21 hands 20/10 happen 69/5 happened 69/22 85/8 happening 48/13 48/14 85/17 happens 16/14 53/1 85/4 93/13 hard 17/24 99/15 has 5/6 7/11 14/20 17/25 26/7 27/15 28/1 28/14 28/18 35/5 41/4 44/18 47/5 50/3 52/16 66/15 78/19 79/1 79/4 85/8 92/1 has -- 70/14 hasn't 93/7 hat 13/24 44/12 74/24 100/6 have -- 22/9 having 47/12 77/6 83/22 95/8 96/15 he 12/11 19/5 32/19 42/19 65/1 69/7 69/24 70/1 70/6 81/9 81/11 81/14 93/10 93/11 93/13 97/6 headway 97/8. Healey 2/22 8/25, 9/2 10/5 14/18 31/5 32/18 32/25 50/10 61/18 64/13 64/24.67/9 73/4 Healey's 51/7 64/10 64/16 64/19 65/5 65/11 66/8 73/9 Healy 8/24 hear 10/12 heard 51/7 hearing 1/15 10/17 87/21 87/22 90/24 hearings 1/1 67/19 hears 54/1 heavily 84/7 held 53/17 Hello 79/13 help 12/10 42/22 82/22 98/12 helped 83/13 helpful 75/3 helping 49/11 49/17 Hence 74/15 here 4/1 4/7 9/1 10/12 14/16 17/16 21/9 33/2 33/11 33/17 33/18 33/21 34/16 34/23 35/19 36/4 40/3 40/12 40/15 41/4 41/7 41/13 43/25 44/3 44/23 50/10 54/25 60/25 61/10 63/11 63/13 67/9 67/20 71/3 71/23 72/13 72/23 72/24 74/15 80/10 82/19 83/22 83/25 85/12 86/5 86/12 86/17 90/23 92/1 92/4 92/5 92/5 92/25 93/24 95/8 98/15 99/8 99/11 99/18 hesitating 70/24 high 25/6 25/16 51/8 72/16 72/19 98/19 98/24 99/1 higher 25/25 60/13 77/6 77/11 77 /13 78/12 highly 8/8 highway 14/8 44/23 63/4 70/23 71/4 71/21 72/3 90/14 Hillsborough 33/21 34/5 34/9 him 34/2 himself -- 92/15 his 65/19 69/20 70/1 70/7 81/10 95/17 historically that 4/22 history 73/4 Hoffman' 47/9 home 40/22 76/22 78/25 86/16 90/19 95/23 99/17 homeowner 76/10 85/18 homeowners 84/19 85/17 85/21 homes 24/14 33/12 33/19 33/25 36/21 38/12 44/13 67/7 76/15 88/6 89/2 95/10 95/13 95/20 95/22 96/13 97/12 honestly 91/7 Honor 4/17 5/19 9/7 12/13 25/9 32/17 32/24 45/7 HONORABLE 1/15 hope 75/25 hopefully 14/15 horn 34/1 horns 97/10 horrific 90/23 hours 43/23 house 49/12 90/19 housekeeping 9/3 9/16 houses 37/13 57/10 67/6 78/5 88/22 88/25 90/20 92/2 94/4 94/9 housing 6/5 7/7 7/20 42/5 - increchbly 90/22 91/4 indeed 11/13 99/11 100/7 independent 18/4 indicated 99/8 indicates 22/21 36/1 indicating 67/25 68/22 68/23 72/24 98/14 99/8 99/18 individual 17/15 25/12 25/12 25/18 75/1 indulge 22/5 65/22 industry 33/14 inf1l1 34/11 56/17 56/25 57/2 57/5 inf1l1s 34/17 34/18 infor.mation 21/23 49/11 53/23 inherent 85/19 initial 29/14 input 53/19 54/22 62/3 62/18 insight 46/5 1ns1qnificant 30/16 instance 83/21 instances 34/24 54/18 intense 86/15 86/21 98/25 99/23 99/24 100/4 intensely 50/12 intensity 13/8 78/13 intensive 6/21 intent 60/12 interrupt 61/13 82/11 intersect 24/9 intersection 72/4 into 5/14 32/2 32/9 37/13 46/5 57/11 67/3 75/1 75/21 87/12 89/13 89/15 90/4 93/10 94/13 intrastate 63/4 introduce 38/24 introduction 9/17 intrusive 79/3 involved 17/7 involves 5/20 8/11 30/23 involving 33/19 is -- 36/7 55/14 62/25 71/23 Isn't 84/7 issue 15/23 67/18 69/18 72/2 46/24 58/4 76/13 73/6 80/4 96/20 97/8 97/11 issues 21/24 23/5 55/17 58/23 it -- 74/20 98/15 it's 11/10 12/7 12/24 13/11 14/6 16/16 17/24 18/2 27/7 27/22 29/25 33/23 36/6 40/5 40/21 41/11 44/20 48/4 48/22 50/13 50/17 51/19 54/6 54/7 54/14 58/13 66/14 67/22 68/14 70/8 71/8 71/9 71/23 72/20 76/25 81/17 81/18 82/3 82/9 82/9 85/12 ~5/15 85/16 86/19 86/20 86/21 86/22 86/24 89/12 90/11 90/13 91/7 93/16 94/6 94/15 98/9 99/15 99/25 it's -- 39/15 item 56/4 69/21 items 56/11 57/14 57/16 its 8/10 15/5 15/9 16/19 16/24 19/13 26/10 28/4 28/5 28/6 35/16 49/18 81/13 itself 37/14 H how 6/13 13/7 13/14 40/6 40/24 47/5 50/1 50/5 50/6 50/15 56/2 72/13 88/17 90/10 92/22 99/19 99/20 hundreds 29/7 I I'm 4/12 9/3 9/9 10/7 10/12 19/5 20/19 26/25 27/25 33/11 33/25 35/10 40/23 40/24 43/15 46/7 46/10 50/17 50/20 52/9 52/24 56/15 57/20 58/24 59/8 64/24 65/5 67/20 67/25 68/22 70/24 70/24 72/24 76/25 81/4 81/12 82/18 83/14 86/25 91/15 92/10 92/17 93/8 93/13 95/2 95/16 97/17 98/14 99/8 99/18 I've 95/1 idea 28/17 68/9 ident1cal 44/14 identif1cation 39/10 identified 9/5 64/13 identifies 22/12 identify 42/23 61/2 identifying 48/18 if 4/4 8/25 10/12 10/20 12/1 12/2 12/11 18/4 19/9 19/16 20/2 20/11 20/19 22/5 23/14 24/19 26/7 26/14 26/21 27/14 32/12 32/14 33/3 35/11 35/12 36/18 37/14 38/14 39/1 39/15 40/1 41/1 41/3 41/4 41/9 41/12 41/20 42/23 43/15 45/1 45/19 45/20 45/21 48/4 52/10 55/13 57/25 59/6 61/10 61/13 62/8 66/19 67/23 70/10 70/25 71/1 74/19 75/10 77/3 80/10 81/16 82/7 82/11 82/18 87/18 89/5 89/9 89/10 91/1 91/14 91/19 91/24 91/25 93/9 95/3 95/8 95/9 95/18 96/11 97/11 97/18 97/24 III 1/7 iJllll\ediately 88/2 impact 6/7 59/24 60/18 63/4 63/5 65/8 76/21 76/23 79/1 79/4 80/17 81/13 82/23 84/15 84/17 95/12 95/19 96/5 97/4 impacted 88/11 impacts 53/8 importance 85/6 improve 82/23 97/5 improved 82/5 improvement 70/12 improvements 23/1 24/1 in -- 73/16 in-depth 17/8 in-house 35/21 39/13 39/20 include 96/17 included 11/11 20/23 40/1 51/25 56/15 60/24 73/5 1ncludes 46/15 53/13 69/18 96/22 incompatible 7/21 inconsistent 7/24 8/1 incorporated 13/16 increase 79/18 80/21 81/5 increased 6/7 16/25 75/18 75/19 80/14 80/17 80/22 81/2 81/18 81/19 83/4 83/7 increasing 82/15 82/15 J job 46/4 48/25 John 47/17 JR 1/7 judge 4/12 5/16 12/10 14/12 33/24 39/5 42/22 45/9 75/4 . "iI17 98/12 19ment 56/20 July 1/17 63/20 Jump1ng 50/16 59/23 June 52/19 jurisdiction 65/7 65/9 jurisdictions 13/19 just 4/16 9/16 10/21 11/10 12/6 16/13 19/9 19/22 20/10 20/19 29/21 30/19 33/13 34/1 40/9 44/23 45/25 46/5 48/3 49/13 52/3 52/25 54/17 55/12 57/3 57/25 58/12 58/13 59/3 60/24 61/13 67/21 69/1 70/10 70/19 72/13 78/5 80/11 85/9 85/12 87/2 89/24 89/25 90/22 93/22 95/24 97/8 97/22 98/12 98/15 99/11 just 71/14 ;ust desiqn 48/11 K kind 16/13 21/16 24/25 29/12 47/10 54/3 73/2 81/12 83/23 99/16 kindly 19/11 know 24/19 27/9 32/4 70/8 75/4 84/2 84/3 89/25 90/10 91/3 93/21 knowledge 31/18 31/19 known 12/8 47/17 Kurtz 1/24 L labeled 31/7 laid 40/21 44/16 44/16 lake 7/23 14/7 14/10 15/19 15/25 37/13 39/7 42/17 60/16 66/15 75/23 land 5/9 5/19 5/23 6/11 6/15 6/17 6/22 6/24 6/25 7/14 8/1 8/5 8/15 12/2 15/14 16/12 25/4 27/18 27/21 28/1 28/9 28/14 28/25 33/19 33/20 35/2 41/1 41/2 50/8 56/24 68/21 68/24 76/1 84/20 85/6 85/13 87/10 89/21 93/18 land -- 75/10 land-use 14/24 lands 60/3 landscaping 30/11 lanes 90/13 large 1/23 40/24 58/5 86/20 89/2 97/16 100/5 largely 13/9 larger 67/21 86/21 largest 13/6 34/6 34/14 last 6/18 8/3 11/6 15/7 19/23 33/19 46/7 60/25 67/11 69/10 late 7/9 73/17 later 24/5 70/5 law 26/16 26/25 46/21 LAWRENCE 1/6 1/7 Laws 12/15 lawyers 77/20 lead 66/12 leapfrogging 51/20 least 6/20 79/2 79/4 leave 33/2 65/3 Lee 33/17 left 41/12 71/3 80/10 88/4 left -- 98/15 left-hand 86/14 legend 36/1 L legislation 28/11 28/23 legislative 8/5 8/11 Legislature 12/14 Legislature -- 11/22 less 16/22 44/24 75/12 76/11 let 37/16 42/22 63/14 67/22 89/24 let's 11/25 28/13 55/7 59/12 letter 62/12 62/25 level 14/25 52/23 62/17 64/3 68/10 80/2 l,evel -- 21/9 liaison 54/14 light 68/17 71/13 71/19 82/5 91/12 l:ights 43/22 Like 10/20 32/17 34/5 37/22 38/22 55/12 65/21 75/14 78/5 78/17 84/19 90/2 98/18 likelihood 38/10 76/9 85/14 likely 38/5 38/7 71/17 likely -- 96/10 Likewise 62/17 limitation 7/13 line 19/23 37/14 45/1 60/20 68/4 68/5 line -- 38/1 listed 20/4 55/20 57/3 listened 87/12 literally 29/6 litigated 89/8 little 10/11 10/21 12/11 14/8 34/1 42/12 46/5 46/14 50/7 54/7 61/21 70/5 73/3 75/7 94/10 94/13 96/1 live 65/16 69/2 83/9 97/7 lives 70/9 90/19 90/20 lJ.ving 78/5 lClcal 13/1 13/18 17/14 28/25 29/4 29/5 29/9 46/10 53/8 59/21 68/9 located 14/19 38/9 40/9 location 43/1 43/2 68/5 locational 57/15 57/21 logJ.c 71/11 long 47/5 56/14 57/7 long-range 49/6 53/3 long-term 85/22 lc.nger 54/7 look 23/14 36/18 39/15 45/21 52/24 53/6 53/16 55/14 58/19 61/23 62/24 64/12 66/19 67/21 67/23 68/9 94/24 96/20 97/15 98/15 1eloked 17/5 59/16 87/4 looking 19/10 22/5 35/25 48/18 49/7 49/16 56/16 57/21 58/3 61/7 61/8 61/9 61/10 72/13 74/17 74/24 74/25 lot 34/11 37/8 43/14 43/15 48/7 48/8 88/23 88/24 lot -- 41/10 lots 40/23 65/21 67/4 75/21 89/2 low 5/12 6/2 15/16 16/3 16/8 25/2 25/6 25/14 25/14 25/21 25/22 26/3 26/3 26/6 41/25 51/8 51/9 51/16 51/17 51/17 51/21 51/21 59/4 63/18 63/21 64/4 64/21 66/5 79/20 83/13 83/17 89/21 lower 64/3 lowerinq 64/1 64/4 M _ 72/19 72/21 meet 56/3 meeting 19/13 20/21 21/17 22/8 23/17 32/13 53/17 79/15 79/15 meetings 71/19 meets 8/16 member 12/18 18/16 members 12/18 18/11 18/14 18/15 27/4 members -- 54/9 memorandum 20/14 20/20 23/16 64/14 66/1 mention 69/9 mentioned 11/15 13/22 20/21 24/25 31/5 31/22 39/12 44/2 60/2 84/18 90/5 mentioned -- 59/8 mentions 65/7, merits 8/17 M1chael 2/23 33/5 35/8 mid 47/12 middle 51/20 66/20 midsummer 15/7 might 12/5 29/14 48/9 91/7 91/16 mile 58/8 miles 82/3 91/21 million 13/11 mind 48/19 75/3 mine 97/17 mine -- 97/20 minimum 47/23 M1nneapolis 34/4 minutes 12/1 19/7 19/12 19/23 22/7 mistaken 43/15 mitigate 6/7 80/13 80/17 80/23 mitigation 79/21 80/1 80/15 mix 36/10 100/7 mobile 99/16 moment 19/2 71/1 95/6 96/12 momentum 74/12 money 40/6 81/16 81/20 monster 90/23 Monstrous 99/22 month 29/19 46/11 Monthly 28/18 more 6/24 14/8 14/23 17/8 28/3 32/23 37/8 44/18 44/24 47/18 48/10 52/25 57/10 60/14 60/15 61/20 67/7 69/25 71/15 71/15 77/15 77/16 79/1 81/10 82/14 82/16 82/19 93/20 94/10 94/13 96/1 99/13 99/13 more -- 27/23 most 12/15 13/11 13/12 47/17 50/12 50/13 75/16 mother 45/17 move 9/16 moved 19/24 33/17 movement 71/18 moving 23/6 57/10 Mr 2/15 2/16 4/13 5/17 8/20 8/25 9/7 9/10 12/11 14/18 18/20 18/22 18/25 18/25 19/2 20/2 20/6 22/12 31/2 31/5 32/18 32/25 33/4 38/18 38/20 42/15 50/10 51/7 52/10 61/18 64/10 64/12 64/16 64/19 64/24 65/5 65/10 66/8 67/9 69/11 73/3 73/9 77/1 77/2 79/9 51/8 72/17 79/13 MacFarlane 2/2 4/6 mad 45/18 made 6/18 15/5 17/12 29/7 50/2 50/3 54/7 54/10 65/4 98/8 mainly 87/14 maintain 6/14 8/12 8/14 maintenance 75/18 major 17/4 25/10 53/9 72/5 77/12 77/17 maJority 26/17 27/1 27/10 31/23 32/9 make 24/4 27/10 40/6 42/20 55/19 58/11 68/25 71/17 71/22 90/1 91/13 94/12 97/8 makers 78/22 makes 51/15 making 49/24 mall 49/13 58/9 58/9 58/12 management 13/3 23/25 76/5 manager 53/4 manner 36/4 many 65/14 93/3 map 71/22 86/22 86/24 87/1 90/7 100/1 maps 87/6 March 21/20 23/9 53/17 53/22 69/22 73/17 73/17 March 10 22/8 March 19 23/21 79/14 March 2002 53/21 March 2003 23/9 Mariano 53/4 mark 39/2 53/4 marked 3/3 39/10 marketplace 48/13 masse 9/16 master 38/8 master's 11/1 47/23 47/25 48/2 48/5 48/5 44/19 material 44/14 math 38/14 matter 4/1 9/3 9/15 18/5 21/12 22/2 23/11 23/20 63/8 63/10 63/22 65/16 72/10 89/22 89/23 93/12 96/21 matters 4/10 27/16 93/14 may 12/3 18/22 19/5 27/10 30/2 33/23 61/22 76/22 77/4 77/15 77/21 84/1 96/19 maybe 60/25 69/24 90/12 96/10 MCCor.mick 40/10 44/2 44/6 MCMullen 2/2 4/6 71/24 71/25 72/5 87/5 me 10/12 10/17 11/9 19/11 20/4 22/5 23/14 37/16 38/6 42/22 45/17 45/18 45/20 45/21 62/24 63/14 64/12 64/25 65/25 67/22 82/18 89/6 89/24 90/22 91/1 97/15 mean 34/21 40/7 40/21 47/9 78/21 81/3 91/3 91/15 93/9 meander 91/20 meandering 68/14 meanders 68/15 meaning 16/20 means 13/6 42/19 meant 86/24 measure 29/2 median 71/6 medium 25/6 25/15 81/25 82/20 83/8 87/14 87/24 88/1 88/5 88/10 88/13 88/18 88/18 93/22 98/11 northern 68/6 68/18 82/7 northwest 66/16 72/6 not 5/4 10/12 17/6 18/6 19/5 42/5 20/13 23/3 24/4 27/12 31/12 31/17 33/24 34/22 35/8 40/1 40/3 40/5 40/5 40/23 40/24 43/15 52/11 56/3 56/8 58/15 60/18 63/2 65/1 65/2 65/8 69/1 70/4 71/1 71/1 71/3 71/14 76/2 76/4 76/25 77/4 77/23 81/3 81/4 81/17 82/1 85/4 85/9 87/19 88/3 88/16 88/23 88/24 89/17 91/8 91/15 92/17 93/8 93/14 94/6 94/15 95/2 96/5 97/17 99/24 Notary 1/23 notebook 41/8 noted 19/17 22/18 November 11/24 now 10/11 17/24 19/6 21/1 22/5 23/8 27/4 27/13 27/22 30/21 33/8 34/4 36/14 38/24 45/14 46/10 59/8 63/7 66/10 68/8 68/23 69/9 75/17 88/3 89/18 92/1 95/1 96/14 97/14 number 9/23 9/25 13/14 27/23 28/2 29/11 34/13 37/12 59/20 60/5 81/8 16/4 16/10 16/19 numbers 9/22 13/10 55/15 nursinq 86/16 M MS 45/9 61/14 79/14 much 40/6 40/19 76/23 77/20 78/12 81/10 82/9 86/21 91/17 93/20 multifamily 6/5 7/6 7/20 72/16 85/24 86/9 multihous1ng -- 42/4 multiple 20/13 20/22 munic1pal 14/25 municipalities 13/15 18/13 munic1pality 14/19 20/5 must 26/24 89/10 my 10/5 11/5 14/22 15/2 26/11 31/18 32/18 37/18 40/9 45/15 45/17 46/2 46/8 48/19 48/24 81/4 84/21 87/9 87/24 88/24 myself 12/10 mysterv 24/4 76/25 N name 10/4 10/5 13/25 33/9 45/14 45/15 54/7 names 26/12 narrat1ve 55/11 55/23 narrow -- 68/14 narrower 75/8 national 33/16 34/3 47/14 natural 37/8 59/24 64/22 66/6 66/11 nature 15/13 16/24 75/2 near 44/17 _ necessitated 79/20 need 28/20 52/4 78/6 93/2 93/4 95/3 needed 32/1 needed -- 31/22 needs 12/11 31/23 78/9 negative 59/15 59/19 60/18 79/1 neglected 5/5 neighborhood 44/7 58/24 70/9 78/8 87/19 97/14 neighborhoods 6/8 58/1 neighbors 65/21 87/13 87/14 87/23 87/23 88/1 88/4 88/10 88/12 neighbors' 87/11 network 59/22 70/7 never 79/24 82/4 new 28/23 69/23 69/24 81/8 85/11 93/19 next 19/23 25/25 33/4 68/10 74/20 76/11 nice 72/10 nine 33/17 33/19 no 1/2 4/2 13/6 15/23 16/1 19/17 32/24 35/11 42/10 44/15 44/15 45/7 57/3 59/14 62/14 65/2 65/15 79/24 80/15 81/21 85/2 89/17 90/18 91/2 91/18 94/18 100/16 NoddJ.ng 26/13 Nolan 47/17 non-Florid1an 85/15 nonconfor.mance 30/7 None 4/12 nonintensive 64/21 normally 70/4 80/1 north 6/10 24/9 45/1 58/6 58/8 58/13 68/8 68/11 68/19 71/9 71/16 78/6 80/7 81/6 o Oaks 86/13 87/7 98/16 objections 62/14 observations 37/2 observe 51/19 obtain 62/3 obtained 62/22 obviously 65/13 71/15 79/3 occupation 10/8 occurred 28/18 52/18 October 67/13 69/10 October 15 21/10 21/17 October 3rd 62/12 oddly 67/3 77/4 of -- 20/12 55/14 58/6 67/22 off 44/6 58/13 70/23 86/22 86/24 86/25 96/6 offensive 93/1 93/2 offered 24/2 24/7 office 4/9 35/23 40/9 44/2 79/1 offices 44/5 officio 18/16 often 12/8 Oh 28/16 Ohio 11/2 okay 10/1 10/12 10/17 20/18 39/17 51/19 82/25 old 99/16 older 98/21 99/2 Olympus 77/3 on-site 30/12 60/16 once 22/2 53/2 90/15 one 5/6 7/15 7/21 13/11 27/1 27/10 29/12 30/3 30/8 31/23 36/21 37/3 38/8 38/8 42/19 47/17 51/17 51/20 53/3 54/11 57/7 61/10 71/2 71/23 74/21 75/15 77/12 77/17 81/5 81/18 82/21 90/6 90/12 91/2 92/5 1/24 96/19 97/15 97/16 99/6 a -- 32/9 95/1 ones 54/18 88/10 only 18/6 52/14 52/16 58/8 69/24 71/9 80/7 81/24 87/24 open 59/19 opened 92/1 opening 2/14 4/14 4/15 5/18 operation 33/18 operations 33/11 43/22 opinion 48/24 77/13 77/22 77/25 78/1 87/18 87/19 88/24 97/23 opportunity 34/1 78/19 oppose 88/6 opposed 37/6 95/4 opposing 88/3 opposition 88/2 89/1 or 4/21 13/17 14/7 14/7 14/14 14/25 15/6 15/25 16/17 16/19 17/6 17/7 18/9 20/22 21/3 21/18 23/16 23/21 24/21 25/18 26/21 27/19 27/23 28/3 28/9 28/14 28/18 30/2 30/14 30/17 31/12 35/24 37/3 37/3 37/14 38/1 38/14 38/24 40/5 44/24 48/9 49/8 49/12 50/13 52/2 52/4 52/4 54/9 56/3 56/8 56/13 56/21 58/15 61/15 61/16 63/4 65/9 68/11 69/24 70/25 71/16 73/17 75/2 75/8 76/9 77/23 78/25 79/2 80/7 80/15 81/9 81/25 82/3 85/5 85/16 86/15 87/15 88/6 88/24 89/1 89/7 89/20 90/20 91/17 91/22 98/1 98/1 100/17 order 2/20 4/18 26/18 26/23 28/3 organization 84/24 orient 70/19 98/12 Osceola 1/19 other 9/13 11/11 12/4 23/4 26/17 32/14 37/4 45/6 54/6 59/5 68/13 75/15 80/3 81/10 81/19 92/9 92/15 93/10 94/8 96/22 97/7 98/22 others 42/8 76/9 our 9/9 15/8 17/2 18/2 27/3 33/20 34/12 34/16 35/22 35/23 35/24 37/12 49/14 50/17 54/20 65/14 65/18 69/4 76/3 77/13 80/2 83/1 85/17 93/19 out 40/21 44/16 44/16 46/19 47/11 49/7 60/24 68/16 69/6 81/24 82/5 84/1 84/12 87/23 87/24 88/2 88/21 90/1 94/10 out -- 95/25 outside 76/3 over 8/2 11/3 19/16 20/11 22/21 27/14 29/4 35/25 46/14 51/20 60/20 65/25 72/3 75/10 80/10 85/8 85/9 100/1 over -- 36/6 70/20 overall 26/6 75/9 76/5 76/21 overkill 81/13 overturn 26/18 26/23 31/23 32/4 overturned 27/19 own 18/6 35/16 37/1 37/19 57/19 75/23 83/1 85/18 93/13 own -- 75/22 83/2 owner 14/23 52/2 75/23 84/20 85/4 92/14 92/15 92/19 93/6 owner -- 92/20 photograph 39/6 physically 69/5 37/19 77/3 B~/ll 85/15 pick 28/12 28/13 picked 22/14 picture 67/20 67/22 67/24 72/23 74/20 94/24 95/3 98/8 pictures 61/1 61/2 61/5 piece 31/15 68/24 84/15 84/25 pieces 7/16 75/1 93/6 PINELLAS 1/10 2/7 4/20 5/3 5/20 6/23 8/2 10/10 11/7 11/16 12/1 12/4 12/6 13/6 23/20 26/8 30/20 33/21 34/5 34/6 34/7 34/9 43/6 46/17 46/18 57/11 65/7 65/20 65/23 73/12 74/10 78/23 85/9 90/5 90/9 90/12 place 13/21 30/3 places 65/14 65/21 86/11 70/20 plan 5/9 5/25 7/25 8/13 12/16 12/25 12/25 15/14 16/12 17/2 25/4 25/12 25/18 26/5 27/18 27/22 2B/1 28/9 28/14 28/22 28/25 29/1 29/6 30/5 30/6 30/8 30/15 30/24 35/12 35/19 37/12 38/3 40/17 47/2 47/16 49/9 49/11 51/15 52/9 56/5 56/14 57/13 57/16 57/18 57/18 57/19 58/16 58/21 61/15 61/16 63/17 66/20 74/18 74/20 74/24 74/25 79/15 80/2 plan -- 49/14 planner 10/7 11/3 46/7 46/20 47/23 48/25 51/12 54/12 54/13 77/8 77/22 95/18 37/3 planner's 74/24 100/6 planners 17/12 17/16 17/25 18/15 19/12 22/7 29/4 35/17 36/21 47/14 47/14 47/15 47/17 48/8 49/5'53/3 53/14 59/4 planning 1/11 4/20 4/23 5/3 5/22 6/23 8/2 8/9 8/11 10/10 11/2 11/4 11/8 11/16 11/20 11/22 12/6 12/13 12/23 13/22 17/13 17/14 18/5 18/7 18/23 20/25 21/8 21/14 21/19 23/12 23/20 23/22 25/11 26/8 26/11 26/22 27/20 28/5 28/22 29/16 32/15 46/9 46/11 46/13 46/25 47/3 47/5 47/24 48/2 48/9 49/1 49/6 49/7 49/8 49/22 53/24 54/6 54/19 55/9 63/8 73/9 73/12 plans 8/5 13/2 13/5 29/5 29/8 29/10 35/24 39/13 47/9 61/20 83/15 plat 37/18 plate 70/7 70/16 platted 75/21 play 97/1 play -- 32/9 plaza 43/10 please 9/1 18/1 19/9 33/3 35/11 45/21 50/18 52/21 54/4 55/7 55/16 62/24 64/12 65/25 94/20 97/15 plot 35/2 plus 18/15 27/1 27/10 31/23 32/9 54/11 pockets 50/7 point 11/20 12/5 21/11 22/17 23/4 23/8 56/10 56/24 57/12 58/24 59/8 59/13 59/23 60/24 1/8 4/4 4/17 6/3 64/8 66/10 67/13 68/3 73/16 o owners 89/1 ownership 35/3 owns 68/24 85/1 85/6 92/21 p p.m 1/17 1/17 100/19 PAC 17/17 17/19 17/25 18/11 19/3 19/6 19/24 21/2 22/3 pad 76/17 page 19/16 20/3 22/11 22/16 22/21 45/22 55/14 56/16 59/23 60/20 64/19 65/25 66/2 97/20 pages 19/10 19/11 19/16 20/11 22/7 55/11 60/25 paradise 75/10 paragraph 62/13 parcel 5/13 42/20 68/20 Pardon 38/6 parenthetically 65/7 P.ilris 47/9 park 37/22 44/2 68/21 68/25 70/2 70/3 81/1 81/17 84/14 84/16 92/4 92/6 pa,rking 43/15 parks 92/5 92/8 99/17 pclrlance 27/8 pclrt 5/12 13/19 16/3 28/23 31/11 39/9 43/16 48/12 48/12 62/2 62/20 71/11 93/18 pclrtially 72/15 72/16 83/6 participate 69/7 participated 73/10 pclrticular 31/15 33/14 46/17 pClrticularly 95/4 pClrties 4/2 pClrts 94/8 PeLS co 34/10 pattern 7/23 99/20 pcltterns 53/7 Pclul 18/25 pcLvement 75/7 pclving 75/10 83/12 pcLY 69/25 81/10 paLYs 97/6' people 13/10 13/11 49/12 57/10 65/17 69/2 75/15 76/2 16/8 78/5 78/5 78/23 79/5 81/10 83/8 84/24 90/16 97/7 pElr 6/1 6/2 6/5 6/12 6/22 7/4 1/7 7/13 7/20 15/15 41/3 41/4 51/5 51/11 55/5 56/8 60/22 63/18 63/21 64/4 66/3 72/17 79/19 89/20 perceive 37/2 37/23 44/13 percent 38/12 50/5 95/21 percentage 27/15 Pergolizzi 95/15 perhaps 9/15 9/23 11/12 15/7 18/24 45/2 50/8 51/19 98/12 period 29/5 permit 7/6 67/1 permi ts 34/7 person 76/11 personally 70/25 77/22 persons 8/10 pertinent 56/1 Petitioner 2/5 4/7 4/15 Petitioner's 3/4 7/14 7/19 9/17 9/20 Petitioners 73/18 77/19 87/5 91/8 97/25 98/1 98/10 point -- 87/5 pointing 68/8 94/10 policies 7/24 56/13 , policy 49/18 78/22 89/8 pool 38/8 75/17 pools 38/4 38/7 38/10 38/13 38/15 populated 13/12 portion 15/17 15/18 15/25 84/5 portraying 61/2 possible 33/24 PPC 5/6 12/7 12/8 '12/12 15/8 15/12 16/13 17/19 20/15 20/21 21/3 26/15 27/17 31/6 31/24 64/14 66/13 67/10 74/4 74/6 74/8 79/14 practice 46/9 preceded ' 28/9 predates 93/20 93/23 predictable 38/15 predominant 86/6 86/8 87/3 predominantly 87/14 99/2 prefer 45/19 preliminary 4/10 prepare 53/18 53/19 53/24 prepared 13/2 preparing 12/24 present 7/10 27/12 28/4 52/8 70/19 presentation 20/14 32/19 presently 23/6 preservation 15/19 15/24 46/22 67/1 75/22 85/8 85/13 85/19 preserve 60/15 78/11 preserved 76/7 president 33/11 33/15 44/12 pressure 67/6 pretrial 9/9 pretty 40/19 50/2 54/14 86/21 93/16 98/25 99/23 100/5 prevent 71/20 previously 11/3 11/9 36/24 64/13 principal 47/2 prior 28/8 46/12 87/20 private 11/6 34/4 46/9 46/21 47/4 probably 14/13 43/5 47/8 50/13 68/13 77/20 82/3 88/24 88/25 99/6 problem 48/18 problems 47/12 48/17 PROCEEDINGS 2/12 100/19 proceeds 50/1 process 15/5 16/11 16/23 29/4 29/20 31/12 52/22 55/1 55/2 62/2 73/10 processed 15/3 processing 14/25 21/18 62/17 64/10 73/8 product 35/20 products 35/24 profession 10/6 10/24 46/6 47/5 professional 5/2 10/23 35/17 49/20 51/12 53/12 54/8 59/4 74/2 74/23 77/7 77/21 87/18 95/18 96/3 professionals 18/8 proffered 82/12 82/13 p raises 62/14 random 54/17 range 25/14 25/16 25/17 26/6 49/15 56/14 57/7 67/14 ranges 25/5 25/17 ranked 34/13 rarely 27/20 rate 27/16 rather 48/5 rationale 52/1 re-adopted 28/22 re-adoption 28/5 re-validation 28/5 react 30/7 read 46/3 80/11 ready 5/14 8/20 real 38/14 40/23 48/17 90/3 realize 99/25 realize -- 95/2 really 28/4 47/22 70/6 76/6 76/20 80/7 81/15 81/17 82/5 91/16 92/23 93/12 95/3 reason 13/20 30/1 52/6 71/19 90/3 91/19 reasonable 8/9 reasons 29/22 29/24 60/12 99/13 77/12 recall 19/4 32/13 64/16 67/14 87/25 received 3/3 9/19 9/20 recently 12/15 recessed 100/19 reckon 96/4 reckoned 59/1 recognize 77/5 78/23 recognize -- 43/18 recognized 47/6 59/4 recollection 31/14 87/24 recommend 77/13 recommendation 8/18 17/10 61/5 17/11 18/3 18/4 18/7 18/10 19/24 20/7 21/3 22/25 23/24 26/15 26/18 26/21 26/23 54/1 63/23 64/16 73/13 recommendations 4/22 recommended 4/18 23/22 32/15 60/21 77/18 reconcile 29/5 29/8 29/16 30/4 reconsideration 21/13 30/23 73/5 reconstituted 11/20 28/6 28/23 31/6 reconstruction 30/14 record 4/3 45/14 50/17 66/10 recorded 19/7 rectangular 99/20 red 68/3 redeveloped 49/14 redeveloping 50/7 50/8 redevelopment 30/22 30/22 50/4 Redirect 2/21 42/11 42/13 94/19 94/21 reduced 67/24 reduction 83/12 redundant 77/20 refer 9/23 12/7 14/13 27/9 76/20 34/11 34/18 reference 9/8 9/22 11/10 referred 14/2 14/6 16/8 17/17 23/15 27/7 28/8 referring 52/9 66/23 refers 57/4 project 69/2 70/8 70/12 75/11 76/6 76/14 76/24 79/6 81/5 87/16 88/7 93/20 100/4 proJects 99/9 promised 89/16 89/17 promote 56/16 promoting 57/4 propensity 76/9 property 5/10 5/25 6/4 6/9 6/10 6/16 6/19 6/20 7/2 7/8 7/11 7/14 14/5 14/6 14/7 14/14 14/14 14/18 14/23 16/1 16/3 19/19 22/19 30/12 31/11 31/16 35/6 35/14 36/3 36/15 36/20 37/13 37/14 37/18 39/8 39/22 39/25 40/10 40/16 44/13 44/14 44/23 50/17 50/19 50/19 51/1 52/2 52/10 56/25 57/1 58/18 61/4 66/18 66/21 69/15 72/14 74/18 75/23 83/1 84/16 84/17 84/25 85/1 85/22 86/14 87/15 89/5 92/14 92/15 92/18 92/20 93/6 93/7 93/11 93/15 95/5 95/10 property -- 15/17 15/18 proponent 29/25 proposal 7/19 75/6 propose 30/5 proposed 24/20 62/6 62/14 63/3 66/4 66/19 78/13 94/25 proposition 59/3 propriety 8/10 16/6 protected 60/5 protracted 29/3 prove 7/19 8/14 proverbial 10/22 60/20 97/9 provide 18/3 30/16 70/7 72/2 78/6 89/11 provided 9/6 19/11 45/20 provides 26/16 26/25 provision 26/16 80/16 provisions 23/25 public 1/23 47/4 57/4 59/13 59/15 59/16 65/9 70/8 83/9 87/21 87/22 pulled 34/7 Purpose 57/15 purposes 9/22 pursuant 77/10 put 32/2 32/20 41/20 52/10 67/6 67/20 78/24 78/25 81/17 81/20 82/20 90/15 95/10 96/13 'Duttina 74/23 95/2 Q quadrant 66/18 quads 36/12 qual1f1cations 54/17 54/19 qual1tative 48/10 48/16 question 44/15 80/12 82/14 83/3 91/23 92/11 92/12 92/24 93/9 questions 42/10 42/15 45/6 78/17 87/17 94/18 Quick 17/16 54/3 95/15 quickly 38/14 70/10 qu1te 68/15 71/22 72/10 78/18 86/15 86/20 92/23 quo 8/12 8/15 quorum 27/12 auote 63/2 R raised 70/16 78/16 ':ine 25/18 ilect 19/23 30/6 regarding 5/9 19/17 27/21 51/1 94/23 Regency 86/13 87/7 98/16 regional 48/2 58/9 59/21 regular 16/17 16/25 17/2 99/20 regulation 12/2 regulations 61/21 rejection 27/16 related 23/17 54/19 relates 51/9 relating 19/19 21/18 22/19 relationship 95/19 relative 55/25 relatively 92/2 relevant 17/5 relief 51/2 relieve 79/23 relocation 30/17 remainder 16/1 remained 31/19 remaining 7/16 remains 13/17 remand 21/12 73/5 remanded 67/11 remember 70/25 reminded 32/13 renderings 37/7 renovate 84/15 repa1r 14/9 43/20 68/2 report 52/24 53/20 53/25 55/8 55/20 55/24 58/22 REPORTED 1/22 representation 12/16 24/23 35/12 representations 36/19 representative 18/17 18/20 18/24 representatives 18/12 20/4 request 4/23 5/7 5/8 5/23 15/12 15/13 16/4 16/25 20/15 21/4 25/1 26/7 26/14 51/23 51/25 51/25 52/3 52/6 56/21 56/22 58/16 60/21 64/1 64/9 73/18 89/13 requested 16/6 19/25 20/8 24/20 26/2 36/2 51/3 52/18 60/8 63/16 63/18 63/25 66/25 77/23 requests 7/5 require 13/1 27/5 62/6 67/4 89/13 93/17 required 26/18 28/24 54/20 61/17 61/19 79/24 required -- 32/16 requirement 30/11 requirements 55/17 55/21 requires 8/8 resemble 41/21 resembles 41/6 reserve 32/18 residences 36/6 42/16 51/9 52/13 residential 5/11 5/12 5/25 6/2 6/11 6/14 6/20 6/21 6/24 7/2 7/3 7/7 7/10 7/15 8/15 15/14 15/16 16/2 16/3 16/7 16/8 24/12 25/2 25/2 25/5 25/10 25/14 25/14 25/15 25/17 25/21 25/22 25/22 25/25 31/16 36/16 41/2 41/12 41/25 49/16 51/5 51/6 51/21 55/3 57/14 R residents 37/22 54/9' 65/15 65/15 65/16 resolution 69/17 73/6 resolve 80/6 resource 64/22 respect 18/9 58/15 60/9 61/15 S respected 48/23 r~lspects 44/14 r~lspond 32/19 55/20 57/9 57/9 Respondent 1/12 2/9 4/9 5/18 6/13 7/18 8/13 response 62/10 80/12 responsibility 49/2 49/20 responsible 49/6 49/10 49/22 49/24 rest 34/16 37/21 86/12 r~lstaurants 72/7 72/10 r~!submi tted 21/20 result 23/21 59/20 81/1 rE!tail 72/8 r~!tain 76/16 retained 76/14 return 4/18 review 8/7 8/8 15/9 16/11 16/23 17/12 18/2 18/7 21/18 49/11 52/22 53/12 54/21 55/18 62/2 62/6 62/20 63/7 review of 8/17 reviewed 5/6 17/1 73/19 rezoning 49/11 right 11/25 14/4 14/12 21/22 24/4 25/20 26/12 32/21 34/4 35/25 36/18 38/4 39/19 40/11 42/18 44/6 59/16 68/8 72/4 72/20 72/20 72/22 72/24 75/23 83/16 84/13 85/7 85/20 86/11 86/17 86/17 88/20 89/12 89/22 91/9 92/5 92/7 92/25 94/4 96/2 96/14 97/3 98/14 99/1 right -- 86/19 right-of-way 68/7 68/20 75/8 rJ"ghts 65/17 rigorous 16/22 risk 77/19 Rl:' 16/8 25/1 66/2 66/4 road 6/6 24/10 43/4 43/5 43/7 53/9 59/22 67/18 68/7 68/8 68/9 68/10 68/15 68/16 68/19 69/1 69/23 69/25 70/7 70/8 71/25 76/18 79/21 79/22 80/13 80/16 81/8 81/11 81/12 81/17 81/20 82/20 83/4 83/6 83/9 83/10 84/3 84/12 86/6 88/9 88/14 88/15 90/12 90/15 90/21 91/10 91/20 92/3 94/25 97/5 98/1 98/2 98/3 98/4 98/5 98/9 98/16 99/1 99/12 Rc)ad -- 97/25 roads 82/4 82/24 91/21 Rc)bert 95/15 role 12/22 17/25 Roman 59/23 rC)om 30/17 63/12 Rc)ttlund 33/12 33/18 33/25 35/5 35/8 35/13 35/16 44/13 69/11 Rc)ttlund's 35/21 roughly 95/24 route 17/21 68/12 82/9 rc)Utine 29/20 routinely ,30/5 RS 16/7 25/1 51/23 September 2002 21/4 September 9 19/13 septic 52/13 52/15 series 6/17 16/18 serve 10/9 12/19 59/17 60/8 70/9 89/24 served 11/4 11/5 46/20 service 52/4 52/7 52/17 89/10 89/11 89/12 90/3 sacrific1ng 67/4 set 12/19 28/10 29/1 SADOWSKY 2/6 4/8 5/17 9/7 set-back 30/11 9/10 12/11 31/2 38/20 42/15 set-backs -- 39/23 52/10 77/1 79/9 79/13 seven 27/4 54/10 55/15 55/16 Sadowsky...................... 55/17 55/17'86/15 88/6 88/24 2/16 89/1 91/21 safe 82/10 several 54/18 72/5 safely 71/15 71/18 sewer 52/4 52/7 52/16 53/14 safety 71/20 59/18 89/4 89/7 89/10 89/12 said 34/5 41/24 44/20 56/9 89/19 89/24 90/3 79/24 79/25 81/21 81/22 82/25 Shall 33/2 85/14 87/11 90/2 93/3 94/15 shape 99/21 said -- 82/19 share 10/21 24/8 69/19 69/23 same 25/24 31/19 41/2 41/9 70/1 81/7 81/10 82/23 41/20 44/16 44/17 44/18 51/11 shared 9/12 59/6 62/20 69/9 78/4 92/18 sharing 34/24 96/6 97/18 she's 45/18 sanitary 52/7 52/16 Shevlon 20/2 20/6 sanitation 47/11 shock 33/23 save 83/21 83/25 shopping 43/25 58/5 68/3 72/6 saved 37/9 38/1 93/22 saving 37/25 38/3 83/21 short 33/13 saw 97/6 should 38/25 76/15 77/23 78/2 say 23/6 29/15 40/17 40/19 97/20 41/5 47/18 63/2 67/13 77/7 show 6/13 7/18 86/21 99/11 79/18 81/18 82/3 86/3 88/23 show -- 82/2 95/16 showing 94/25 say -- 27/15 shows 97/24 100/12 saying 10/21 70/24 81/12 side 81/18 81/19 99/17 99/17 says 45/16 57/19 80/21 98/1 100/10 scene 69/12 sides 6/10 scheme 96/3 significance school 12/18 18/16 20/5 46/19 significance science 47/6 48/2 48/5 48/23 significant scientific 48/17 66/22 100/5 SCOTT 1/22 similar 40/20 41/11 scratch 92/12 similarly 58/22 seat 9/1 simple 26/17 34/23 35/3 secluded 92/2 94/11 simply 18/2 67/24 second 13/12 30/10 45/22 since 28/7 29/20 47/8 50/4 50/13 55/14 61/14 62/13 79/16 70/3 85/18 section 56/1 72/13 SINCLAIR 1/22 sections 55/24 single 6/8 6/15 7/12 7/22 sector 11/6 24/14 34/17 36/17 36/20 37/6 see 37/7 37/11 39/7 42/23 37/12 38/11 38/15 39/18 39/21 55/12 56/25 59/12 90/7 91/8 40/18 40/22 42/6 44/21 52/12 100/1 67/4 67/7 75/12 75/14 75/15 see -- 67/22 75/20 76/10 76/12 76/22 78/13 seeing 30/21 84/20 85/4 85/11 85/16 85/24 seek 22/22 50/4 62/3 62/18 86/7 86/8 88/19 88/20 88/21 seeking 15/23 89/2 92/2 94/3 95/14 95/19 seeks 35/13 57/6 95/22 95/23 96/8 96/13 97/12 seems 82/13 82/17 sir 4/4 4/5 4/14 4/16 8/19 seen 84/23 8/21 8/22 9/1 10/4 11/14 14/4 seldom 27/19 14/12 16/1 17/18 19/22 20/17 sell 93/11 20/25 21/22 23/18 24/4 24/24 senior 2/6 86/14 87/8 98/17 25/8 25/23 27/6 30/25 31/8 100/3 31/21 32/12 32/23 35/15 36/18 sense 16/5 26/2 69/1 91/13 45/8 45/24 46/2 46/18 50/25 sensitive 60/3 60/9 76/4 51/22 52/19 54/20 55/6 55/10 77/16 56/6 56/19 57/7 57/17 58/14 separate 13/16 13/18 28/21 59/11 60/1 60/7 60/23 61/5 29/16 61/12 62/5 62/11 62/16 62/20 September 19/21 67/10 62/23 64/2 64/5 64/7 64/11 september 18 20/15 20/21 64/18 65/24 66/24 68/1 68/23 RU 51/23 57/14 rule 32/2 rules 15/8 24/17 28/10 run 37/13 resume 11/10 11/13 45/16 45/20 45/22 46/1 46/2 resumes 11/11 48/20 -- 48/3 60/5 63/5 66/17 S site 15/21 35/12 35/19 35/24 37/4 37/5 37/12 38/2 38/9 45/2 49/11 50/8 50/20 50/22 52/7 53/6 57/1 58/5 58/6 58/6 58/8 60/3 60/15 61/8 64/20 64/23 66/7 66/11 66/16 66/19 67/25 74/18 74/20 74/24 74/25 76/21 77/16 78/12 80/2 81/24 82/16 83/5 83/13 83/14 86/20 90/11 93/10 96/4 96/6 sitting 4/19 12/21 21/8 50/10 situat10n 30/8 six 17/4 17/9 36/19 76/15 82/3 88/6 88/24 88/25 90/13 98/18 six-lane 71/20 size 16/19 16/24 30/12 40/23 41/10 62/5 \ sketch 10/22 33/13 slated 70/4 slim 93/16 small 15/17 15/20 small -- 99/19 smaller 75/7 Smi. th 18/24 so 9/15 9/22 12/5 12/25 13/3 13/18 15/25 16/5 17/16 17/19 18/5 25/20 26/2 27/5 28/6 29/11 30/8 30/14 32/7 32/19 33/9 33/25 36/1 37/23 39/20 40/11 41/3 41/4 41/11 41/20 42/4 42/7 44/12 44/20 47/18 48/24 49/8 51/23 52/8 52/18 54/14 55/18 55/21 58/1 58/11 58/15 60/15 60/17 61/7 61/23 63/22 64/24 65/17 65/20 66/25 68/18 68/25 69/25 70/6 70/8 70/14 71/6 71/11 72/1 72/8 72/18 74/23 75/17 76/18 76/21 78/17 78/19 78/21 80/8 80/20 80/21 80/25 81/15 82/17 82/25 83/3 83/3 84/4 84/5 85/10 86/19 87/2 87/9 89/18 91/12 93/11 94/1 94/13 95/8 95/14 97/1 97/3 97/5 97/9 100/5 so-called 16/16 17/5 solid 59/18 solution 48/19 67/17 71/12 72/1 78/16 81/6 81/24 82/7 82/10 82/12 82/13 82/17 82/20 82/21 96/22 97/10 97/11 solutions 80/6 80/7 96/19 solve 83/1 83/6 solved 78/17 80/2 solving 48/16 some 14/24 16/5 17/4 21/18 21/23 23/5 23/7 24/14 26/2 27/22 27/23 28/2 34/24 36/1 36/8 36/9 42/2 42/7 42/15 48/9 56/11 61/1 61/3 67/15 67/18 68/15 72/10 76/8 76/16 77/1 78/9 79/4 84/1 84/16 84/24 87/6 88/1 88/2 97/15 somebody 95/9 96/12 97/23 98/8 someone 84/25 90/18 91/16 92/21 something 26/17 35/20 42/21 91/4 93/12 something -- 57/20 sometimes 14/2 14/6 sometimes -- 99/16 somewhere 29/18 44/3 44/7 78/25 sorry 27/25 83/14 92/10 sort 15/19 sorts 47/3 72/7 Soule 98/16 soup 17/23 south 6/10 40/10 42/16 44/23 61/9 68/8 68/11 71/3 71/16 71/17 76/13 78/6 80/8 81/25 82/2 82/6 82/24 83/8 86/23 87/25 91/20 96/24 98/10 south -- 82/1 southern 68/12 southwest 72/6 southwestern 66/18 space 59/19 94/13 span 76/19 speak 10/16 23/5 24/5 58/1 speaking 77/6 special 11/21 12/14 12/21 12/22 specialty 34/12 specific 6/24 54/18 97/5 specifically 34/15 specificity 28/25 speculate 91/15 spot 63/13 spread 36/6 spur 88/9 90/15 90/21 square 86/4 89/3 square -- 86/4 stacked 98/21 staff 4/23 5/5 17/10 17/11 17/14 18/2 18/7 19/24 20/7 20/8 35/17 40/18 41/6 49/5 52/24 53/13 53/19 53/19 53/24 54/8 54/22 55/8 55/20 56/7 56/21 58/22 59/1 64/16 64/19 65/11 66/8 66/13 67/17 73/20 74/6 74/10 87/7 87/18 staff -- 65/5 staff's 22/25 stand 66/17 66/17 66/22 standard 8/6 8/7 8/17 Standing 61/11 start 33/18 started 33/16 52/7 88/2 starting 12/5 88/21 state 1/1 1/23 11/2 11/21 12/5 12/14 13/7 13/13 48/1 50/14 62/7 stated 6/3 60/12 83/11 88/14 statement 4/14 4/15 5/18 64/23 66/2 Statements 2/14 States 47/10 47/15 47/18 status 8/12 8/15 statute 27/11 28/7 steadily 7/11 step 80/22 STEPHEN 2/2 4/5 stepped 70/6 70/15 steward 84/20 85/22 stewards 76/1 76/8 still 61/1 65/16 65/17 66/1 66/5 89/1 stipulate 9/11 39/4 stop 5/13 91/18 stories 86/16 98/19 strategic 49/7 Street 2/3 2/7 43/18 71/2 86/5 strips 94/8 -onqer 76/24 .~cture 42/1 49/13 structures 42/2 42/8 study 84/23 85/2 87/9 style 42/21 60/13 60/14 86/9 sty1es 78/9 100/13 subdivision 76/12 subject 5/25 6/4 6/9 6/16 6/19 7/1 8/6 14/5 14/14 14/18 16/22 19/19 22/19 22/25 23/24 31/11 32/1 35/5 35/13 37/5 39/8 42/20 45/2 50/16 50/19 51/1 52/22 61/4 67/25 83/12 95/5 97/14 98/13 submitted 17/11 19/20 51/23 subparagraphs 56/11 subsequent 11/23 29/17 substantial 84/11 substantially 75/12 subthreshold 16/17 16/22 suburban 5/11 6/1 6/11 6/14 7/3 7/15 8/15 15/14 16/2 16/7 24/13 25/2 25/22 31/17 36/16 41/2 41/13 51/5 79/19 89/20 succeed 50/6 such 37/4 80/4 suffice 23/5 suggest 29/17 suggested 42/19 96/11 Sui te 2/3 sui ted 64/21 Sunset 87/4 97/25 98/1 98/10 Sunset -- 91/22 super-majority 26/24 27/7 32/8 supply 89/7 support 24/2 49/5 supposed 16/20 Supreme 89/9 sure 10/12 29/25 40/24 50/17 55/19 76/16 76/25 80/18 84/8 93/8 93/14 95/3 95/13 97/18 surely 67/4 surprising 88/16 surrounded 6/9 56/24 surrounding 6/8 6/20 7/2 7/8 7/10 50/21 56/18 58/23 66/7 66/12 100/7 suspect 13/20 swimming 38/7 38/13 SWORN 9/2 33/5 45/11 system 12/2 12/3 63/4 63/6 68/11 76/5 T tab 9/24 11/11 19/10 20/11 20/17 20/18 22/6 23/14 35/11 35/20 40/18 41/6 41/25 45/21 55/7 61/1 62/24 62/25 64/12 64/19 66/20 67/23 67/23 70/10 74/18 95/1 97/17 Tab -- 39/15 74/20 tabbed 9/21 Tabs 36/18 take 11/25 14/7 15/6 38/15 45/2 52/21 76/10 83/25 91/19 94/24 95/17 97/4 100/17 taken 56/12 87/11 takes 84/24 taking 84/10 85/12 talk 5/13 80/9 86/25 talked 78/10 87/8 89/4 talking 25/7 83/14 83/16 86/5 86/25 T Tallahassee 46/22 Tampa 1/19 33/12 46/16 46/20 46/25 tanks 52/13 52/15 Tarapani 2/24 45/10 45/11 45/15 61/14 79/14 t,echnical 50/21 53/16 Technically 24/25 tell 10/4 33/9 34/2 45/14 46/4 52/25 87/13 95/17 99/16 99/19 t,a1ling 89/6 91/1 t,an 34/8 55/11 88/25 89/3 95/14 95/23 t'!ln- 100/17 tend 75/7 t'!lnds 75/7 75/8 84/21 terms 13/10 16/10 18/8 29/11 29/21 52/21 52/25 81/13 91/17 99/7 t,arribly 96/6 t'!lstified 61/18 75/16 testimony 2/19 81/4 82/19 93/3 than 14/8 14/23 26/17 32/14 47/18 48/5 48/11 70/1 75/12 76/8 76/24_78/13 81/10 84/20 84/25 86/21 96/1 96/6 Thank 8/18 8/19 23/3 30/25 32/22 32/25 38/18 45/8 61/25 63/7 79/7 98/5 99/25 that 57/21 that -- 50/2 68/6 84/24 91/19 that illustrate 68/13 that's 12/9 13/23 14/2 14/15 15/2 15/10 16/9 19/18 19/20 21/6 22/1 22/14 22/17 22/20 26/1 27/9 30/8 30/25 35/9 35/20 36/8 36/22 38/2 38/19 40/19 41/3 41/5 41/9 43/10 43/12 44/7 44/10 44/20 45/5 45/17 45/25 51/13 51/22 54/20 57/7 57/17 71/5 71/25 72/15 76/2 79/7 80/24 82/12 82/18 82/21 86/17 86/18 86/24 88/15 96/5 98/17 98/22 99/3 99/6 99/24 100/1 100/3 100/14 ~~e ~~, 23/19 27/15 32/20 37/11 74/19 their 4/3 12/21 18/6 49/12 50/3 53/5 75/23 78/25 79/1 88/15 90/19 93/7 93/18 97/4 ~1em 9/23 29/13 30/3 31/7 52/14 59/17 71/15 77/15 78/24 78/25 89/7 89/25 90/1 90/6 94/14 97/4 97/4 themselves 75/6 then 10/16 15/6 15/8 17/8 17/10 20/3 21/7 21/21 26/9 26/14 28/12 36/2 46/4 48/16 53/11 53/18 53/22 53/25 54/1 54/21 55/20 55/23 59/12 64/8 68/20 69/5 71/14 71/18 73/4 73/12 73/16 91/1 91/10 91/20 94/3 94/11 94/12 ~~eory 52/11 97/19 there 12/18 13/3 13/16 14/9 15/6 16/18 17/4 17/9 18/14 19/17 21/i 21/17 21/22 22/17 22/18 25/5 25/9 25/9 25/11 25/21 26/16 28/7 29/6 30/2 30/4 31/6 31/14 37/2 37/23 42/2 42/23 43/14 44/24 4 : 45/23 47/14 47/16 47/22 4Q/19 48/20 50/7 53/9 55/14 55/21 56/11 57/13 59/14 60/2 60/4 61/20 62/9 64/15 68/13 71/6 71/6 72/12 76/4 76/15 76/22 77/5 77/9 77/10 77/15 78/9 80/4 80/7 81/4 83/23 83/24 83/25 84/1 84/8 84/23 86/9 87/9 87/17 88/12 91/5 91/7 91/24 91/25 92/4 92/5 93/15 95/12 95/21 99/3 100/1 there -- 63/14 there's 15/20 15/23 16/15 19/17 29/18 36/19 48/7 48/9 48/12 57/13 71/13 80/21 81/24 82/1 82/14 83/20 83/24 84/8 84/8 85/23 87/17 88/6 88/23 88/23 88/25 91/18 92/4 95/18 98/18 99/15 99/16 therefore 8/17 75/9 these 19/10 19/16 20/10 22/6 24/13 31/6 31/20 39/13 40/25 43/22 61/2 61/5 71/19 94/1 100/1 they 6/3 9/19 17/20 18/3 18/4 18/6 21/13 29/23 42/1 48/15 51/4 51/16 53/5 54/8 54/16 54/17 59/7 61/7 61/22 63/2 63/19 63/20 64/7 65/16 65/16 65/17 71/14 73/15 75/7 75/22 76/3 76/14 82/24 85/6 85/6 85/7 85/19 85/20 85/20 85/20 87/13 87/15 88/5 88/9 88/14 88/14 89/2 89/10 89/10 89/13 89/15 89/16 89/17 89/18 89/19 90/1 90/3 90/4 92/22 94/10 94/13 97/19 99/3 they -- 88/8 they're 9/21 things 42/23 48/14 55/16 57/5 86/25 94/20 think 8/22 10/14 13/12 15/3 18/12 18/22 19/3 21/13 21/25 22/14 32/12 36/23 39/15 43/12 45/16 48/7 48/9 48/22 48/24 ' 50/11 60/25 67/7 70/21 71/16 71/24 73/10 78/2 78/3 78/4 78/6 78/21 78/21 78/22 79/5 81/21 81/22'82/8 82/18 83/11 83/20 83/24 84/21 85/14 85/23 86/22 90/6 90/15 90/18 91/5 91/16 93/3 94/9 96/8 98/5 98/9 99/7 thinking 26/25 third 13/17 30/19 46/8 this -- 48/4 70/24 92/21 those 9/21 17/7 20/23 25/17 25/18 29/8 29/1~ 40/24 55/16 56/11 56/13 56/15 57/5 57/15 58/9 61/23 72/23 76/16 76/17 79/5 96/13 those -- 17/9 though 21/1 54/16 61/22 63/22 65/13 69/22 76/22 77/15 85/12 thought 48/4 56/23 65/22 80/11 84/18 87/2 thousand 89/3 three 6/18 6/21 7/25 8/3 25/9 25/10 30/2 46/21 46/23 91/11 91/21 three-year 29/5 29/7 thresholds 16/18 through 6/6 9/6 9/17 ,10/11 14/24 15/5 29/3 39/20 49/14 52/21 55/1 59/13,68/19 68/20 69/3 80/25 81/1 81/17 81/20 82/4 83/1 84/4 90/17 91/2 91/21 92/8 through that 41/8 throughout 12/5 18/8 47/15 thumbnail 10/22 thunder 95/17 tidbit 22/15 95/17 Tim 35/23 time 14/13 14/13 15/6 21/22 23/8 28/15 28/15 28/24 29/20 31/1 31/17 38/19 51/2 55/2 57/11 69/9 69/11 79/8 79/16 91/17 times 93/3 95/13 timewise -21/16 73/16 titles 55/15 to -- 10/20 57/9 today 47/22 54/10 74/15 95/10 told 33/8 41/1 78/21 90/22 too 37/22 77/20 took 80/22 97/9 toot 34/1 top 34/8 34/14 56/16 72/21 98/21 100/2 100/3 topic 23/7 50/16' total 55/15 88/25 totally 72/3 i touched 73/3 towards 49/16 70/2 townhome 34/14 37/18 37/19 townhomes 34/23 36/1 37/5 37/15 37/16 74/25 95/20 95/21 96/5 96/7 96/9 townhouse 75/5 75/11 76/6 76/14 76/24 85/16' 86/9 95/24 townhouses 24/22 34/12 72/15 towns 13/17 trade-off 83/20 83/24 traffic 21/24 23/1 23/5 23/6 24/1 24/6 53/8 68/10 69/18 70/17 71/11 71/13 72/2 73/6 78/16 79/20 80/1 80/14 80/15 80/17 80/21 82/14 82/14 82/16 82/19 91/6 94/24 95/12 95/19 95/22 96/5 96/9 96/16 training 10/23 51/~1 transi,t 59/18 transportation 62/19 63/1 63/5 travel 54/13 treated 16/21 48/23 tree 38/1 66/17 66/17 66/21 66/22 treed 84/7 trees 38/1 38/3 60/6 60/10 60/15 67/1 67/5 76/14 76/16 76/19 76/19 83/21 83/21 83/23 83/25 83/25 84/1 84/8 84/11 84/11 trends 48/14 tri-county 34/8 tried 82/21 triggered 17/7 trip 64/14 trips 59/20 69/23 69/24 81/8 95/14 95/23 trouble 95/2 true 20/20 41/5 45/25 51/22 80/24 85/16 Trustee 1/7 try 17/22 28/20 67/17 80/6 T trying 81/6 87/1 tuned-in 33/25 turn 11/12 45/21 47/13 55/7 62/9 65/25 71/3 71/9 71/10 71/16 71/18 91/9 91/20 94/11 94/12 94/12 turned 7/5 turning 22/16 turns 82/4 91/22 twice 74/4 74/7 two 7/23 28/21 42/8 46/10 54/11 63/19 80/1 80/7 81/24 82/3 86/1 two-plexes ,36/9 two-thirds 45/2 46/9 twos 36/11 36/12 type 41/20 48/10 78/4 tVDes 78/7 78/9 86/1 100/13 U u.s 14/8 40/16 43/3 53/9 58/3 58/7 71/10 86/6 90/11 90/23 91/3 94/8 uh-huh 19/15 80/19 90/25 ultimate 21/2 umbrella 25/20 25/24 51/10 unanimous 32/6 32/10 under 11/11 11/21 12/22 13/2 15/8 19/10 20/17 22/6 23/14 24/16 25/20 28/7 28/10 28/13 30/18 35/20 36/15 36/18 39/15 41/24 41/25 51/9 52/8 55/23 56/10 57/14 57/21 59/9 61/1 62/24 64/19 66/20 67/23 70/10 74/18 95/1 97/17 99/3 undergraduate 10/25 understand 8/23 12/11 14/15 40/4 49/19 76/3 78/18 84/10 85/5 92/10 92/23 92/25 93/8 understanding 9/9 14/22 15/2 36/14 undeveloped 7/16 unfortunately 76/1 94/6 unincorporated 12/17 13/18 Union 86/5 unit 63/24 United 47/10 47/15 47/18 units 6/1 6/2 6/5 6/12 6/22 7/3 7/7 7/13 7/20 15/15 15/16 24/17 24/21 25113 34/19 37/8 41/3 41/4 41/24 42/2 42/7 42/8 51/5 51/6 51/10 51/16 55/5 56/8 59/10 60/22 63/18 63/21 64/4 66/3 72/17 72/20 76/23 77/14 77/15 79/19 89/19 units -- 89/20 University 11/1 11/2 48/1 until 32/18 unusual 93/5 94/3 94/7 94/15 up 9/1 10/17 12/19 17/12 21/10 22/14 23/8 25/13 25/25 28/12 28/13 29/1 29/8 33/17 33/18 37/14 44/19 51/10 51/15 52/10 54/7 54/10 67/20 70/6 70/15 71/12 75/1 75/23 82/14 88/9 91/2 91/5 91/10 91/14 91/24 91/25 92/1 92/4 94/4 94/12 95/2 99/8 upland 16/2 upon 26/10 upwards 18/12 urban 25/25 48/2 51/6 55/3 57/22 58/19 58/20 I "1/16 64/20 70/2 71/23 72/9 /3 81/3 81/19 86/13 87/4 ~3/23 97/10 98/8 went 14/24 15/8 20/24 21/7 22/2 23/11 29/3 55/1 63/10 64/9 64/15 67/10 73/8 74/12 went to 63/9 were 23/7 23/7 29/6 31/6 37/14 47/12 47/14 50/10 58/3 58/3 58/9 67/9 70/3 71/17 80/4 81/22 83/16 87/24 88/9 89/15 89/16 89/17 91/19 97/19 weren't 95/8 west 14/10 40/14 58/4 58/6 61/8 61/10 71/2 98/15 99/17 western 66/20 wetland 15/25 60/17 66/15 84/5 84/9 84/9 85/12 wetlands 60/3 66/14 76/13 what 5/13 10/6 12/2 12/6 12/12 14/15 15/12 16/5 16/14 16/20 18/1 21/13 23/15 23/21 27/4 27/15 28/8 29/21 32/14 32/19 33/10 34/2 34/11 34/20 78/9 87/10 35/13 36/14 38/11 39/8 41/5 41/13 43/2 45/17 46/4 48/13 49/1 49/19 49/19 50/7 51/2 52/1 52/13 53/1 53/11 54/4 55/15 57/25 58/17 63/15 66/11 68/3 68/19 75/1 79/25 80/11 81/6 81/12 81/13 81/22 82/18 85/3 86/4 86/11 86/24 87/2 87/13 88/19 89/23 90/24 91/15 92/23 92/25 96/16 97/3 97/5 97/11 97/23 98/18 what -- 16/20 what's 15/25 24/19 30/4 30/6 43/9 43/14 48/13 48/25 82/17 85/16 whatever 55/25 85/7 85/20 when 15/7 15/11 16/13 18/5 28/5 28/21 31/5 34/17 37/18 39/13 45/18 46/19 50/10 58/19 67/9 68/12 82/13 83/21 84/15 85/4 89/15 93/5 whenever 84/13 where 22/14 30/10 44/19 44/24 48/11 65/16 67/13 67/24 68/22 68/23 71/13 72/24 76/13 78/24 84/23 88/21 90/11 91/9 92/8 98/14 99/8 99/18 whereas 37/14 whether 16/16 17/6 26/16 40/5 58/15 77/23 85/15 which 6/1 6/2 7/3 11/19 14/5 15/15 15/16 19/10 19/11 22/18 22/25 25/11 28/18 29/2 34/9 34/17 37/20 39/18 40/18 53/9 53/12 63/21 68/7 68/13 69/21 69/22 75/18 75/19 77/20 82/7 87/5 87/6 87/7 95/1 while 20/10 47/1 75/25 77/5 who 20/6 53/25 54/17 54/18 70/9 83/8 84/25 85/4 85/5 90/19 92/19 92/20 96/12 97/7 who -- 47/14 why 44/20 48/14 78/18 90/4 91/12 100/17 wide 54/14 will 4/17 5/12 5/13 6/13 7/18 8/13 8/23 9/19 9/22 14/12 14/15 17/22 19/9 22/5 23/5 23/14 24/5 27/15 28/12 28/20 32/19 37/9 37/20 37/21 39/3 57/14 57/20 60/22 us 10/4 10/21 12/1 12/10 23/6 33/8 33/9 33/13 45/14 46/4 46/4 52/21 52/25 65/22 67/20 69/8 70/19 82/22 use 1/6 5/9 5/19 5/23 6/11 6/15 6/17 6/22 6/25 6/25 7/14 8/1 8/5 8/15 12/2 15/14 16/12 25/4 27/6 27/18 27/21 28/1 28/9 28/14 28/25 34/20 38/22 41/2 57/1 64/21 70/14 78/4 86/6 86/8 87/3 89/21 90/20 93/1 93/1 93/2 93/13 97/4 use -- 41/1 96/11 uses 59/5 59/6 66/3 87/10 100/8 100/13 using 81/11 usual 92/8 92/13 92/21 usuallv 93/17 v vacant 50/8 56/24 varieties 98/14 variety 54/14 78/7 100/12 95/5 various 40/15 vegetation 37/9 versus 95/20 very 27/13 27/18 27/20 41/11 50/3 50/20 51/15 54/18 63/12 66/1 68/14 90/6 90/11 90/16 91/8 100/4 viable 39/21 81/23 viable -- 78/14 vicinity 90/20 view 61/7 viewpoint 69/17 77/8 100/6 vistas 61/3 VOLUME 1/16 vote 19/25 21/2 21/5 22/23 26/17 26/24 27/5 32/4 32/5 32/14 32/16 73/14 W 38/25 34/25 8/25 39/1 67/12 82/24 85/21 88/15 90/3 97/1 wait wall want 85/7 97/3 wanted 80/11 90/4 wants 75/17 wasn't 89/5 91/23 waste 59/18 watching 85/3 water 15/20 15/21 52/4 53/15 59/18 75/17 89/4 89/7 89/10 89/19 89/24 way 5/5 15/5 21/24 22/11 27/7 27/9 30/16 35/16 37/3 38/2 40/7 40/21 41/11 48/15 50/9 53/21 60/24 63/15 74/25 76/17 76/17 87/20 ways 28/21 36/19 74/17 81/24 we're 14/16 17/24 23/8 30/10 34/3 34/14 49/6 75/16 86/4 We've 30/7 weak 10/11 wearing 13/24 44/12 100/6 weeks 63/19 well 9/7 10/20 15/22 18/1 18/18 20/5 26/1 27/13 29/23 40/25 47/4 47/17 48/8 49/23 50/20 53/9 54/8 58/7 63/14 tw Wi11enbacher 2/23 ~~/4 33/5 38/18 77/2 Wi1lenbacher's 69/11 win-win 78/20 window 29/8 44/17 wisdom 66/8 within 7/12 14/19 25/4 25/11 25/17 26/5 37/16 46/16 52/12 56/10 58/8 91/11 without 23/16 41/8 46/3 59/12 68/15 89/11 witness 8/21 8/23 9/4 witnesses 9/8 23/4 witt 35/23 won't 33/9 w.:mder 48/3 w'::lndering 87/2 w'::loded 6/6 w'::lodlands 80/25 W'::lods 40/14 40/20 wl)rd 69/20 96/11 99/24 \ wc)rds -- 92/16 wc)rk 39/24 39/25 40/2 40/5 48/9 48/11 53/5 53/23 wc)rked 46/18 46/19 46/21 46/25 67/16 w()rks 39/23 w()rld 96/4 100/2 100/3 would -- 84/13 wouldn't 59/18 84/5 84/9 89/6 91/24 w]~onq 82/18 X X" s 100/1 y YElah 25/9 33/3 33/16 35/8 39/1 39/24 83/2 YElar 14/23 15/6 15/7 23/9 29/19 46/8 50/23 67/11 69/10 73/17 YElars 11/3 11/7 11/16 27/14 27/24 28/2 33/17 46/7 46/10 46/14 46/16 46/20 46/21 46/23 47/19 49/8 85/3 92/13 93/19 YElars -- 33/20 47/18 Yep 22/13 YElt 70/25 Yc,rk 85/11 yc,u're 10/11 33/14 40/11 66/22 68/8 68/23 82/15 82/15 83/22 91/1 91/11 91/24 91/25 94/10 yo,u're asking 93/9 yo.u've 51/12 yo.ur 4/17 5/15 5/19 8/20 9/6 10/4 10/6 10/8 10/22 10/24 11/10 11/13 12/13 15/1 20/8 20/10 21/14 21/19 25/9 26/8 26/19 27/8 27/13 31/19 32/17 32/24 33/8 33/13 33/14 34/21 35/10 36/14 36/21 37/1 39/20 40/17 41/5 41/24 44/5 44/12 45/7 45/14 45/16 45/20 45/22 46/1 46/4 46/5 46/5 46/15 48/14 49/2 49/20 53/1 54/21 55/8 55/9 55/12 55/25 56/7 56/20 57/5 58/17 58/22 59/1 60/21 61/14 62/2 62/8 62/17 63/8 63/24 64/9 69/17 70/14 73/19 74/23 78/1 80/18 81/1 82/18 86/22 87/7 88/8 92 93/3 96/3 96/14 99/12 10, 100/6 yourse1f 45/23 .h RE CEIVED JUL 3 0 2003 PLAN ~ING DEPARTMENT Cln OF .CLEARWATER ~ . . . FUTURE LAND USE PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA · .. SUBJECT AREA /11- ~h . .. . I; $~k~, - ,~'~-~'~ ~~ -- t~1ii . ~c- . ., u. -~'~'-' ~ /::::.~~/~;;Z~-~...~.- . 1;, JifJ I. ~ .- - .. . ,. · ..- f!!:.-.o /II~~.~I rqOQ6 c1J tJj~~ -.. . <.-re: jP" ,II ~_,__ _ __,"~~~/~l7Je?~__~o'P?~4ln//~~~ .... - - ~~ / ~l~ ~. .~... ....~ ..~_......~.~..~..., .,. _ ...~...., . . . . ~i~: ~.. ?-~0ff--~~e~ ~...~.'..."'" ". ..... t1 .ifiJrio-r: ItJtJ~. =:::1/7 ~__ ... .,~.~.. .' . ""..' '., . . .',. ~0t,~~~pFm1~~ ,.~-...."-.-.., . '~'-. . -'. f~~~.. t'9~ -. ....- ..,.. '--'.. '" . ~ _ PI! ,q ~ _ _ _f/~ ~A. _ 9 '_ " = __, , c , -- 1. ~I ,~_ ~~ ~r;~~__~ -- /~~,P<~ - _. d__,__ , ~: ~ ~?-= tau- u/~ ~h - - - - If -~ -- ,- " -- '---- '- . - ~ ,- ~'-c_ -_~-c~====, . - - --- '- - .. Jf~/? ~._~ - - '.. -~., .. . . 'n' . .n' -' . _--~ _- c ' '," .-_.=.~__~_ffijf; _ '--.-~_,-,~._-,~,-__~===__~- -.'- - _ _-=- "- j,~~-.. -~- ...~...~ . - ~_='u- t1J~~~.- ~ '- ~.~ - ~ '.. ...f?j;.... .', . . ~~'d;k-" .~i52t ........-l~~.l~. .'-~ ....,. '.... ~#t'.~,~~~/~&q _ .---~'-~ .' .', ,.' /1$1-~~~/~~~~. .... _~ ~ _ ~flf ~~ /J1 ~~, _ _- =_==__ _ _ _- - 1 (.../ // I n _, ~.-'.~-;~-_~ - -- - ::_--~~-=--::.._----::::. =:: ~'. , , , 0iu.. t/A:JJo -----::-:;---:;.-----,- .;: -. .-----=-...--"'-....--- - --- _ ....___ ....::c__ __-~_-~____~~...::._=__-__ __. __ ___----=_-_ .. 1IO-? ~~ ~ - _~~ ,. ~~ .Ie t1!L~ Jttdfjt..- . .. ~ ~ - ~= ~~ _./~ t ~ "Pnk _-7dj;/~trt1!2.!~_ 0h1t,_ ~ .~~~J(~;"/lL~~ ~_~~c ~-.-~ ~~ ~& _.-' _ N~ek/~~- _ a#' ~v&f27d ~~ -LY--.:- .~lU2/-a-4"~ ~ 'Q~ f1~- .'/~). /~~ _ 6 ~~~o~~ ~~ ~~1:1e ~ -~2t ~~ ..~ _ ~ __ ." .' -<jJd?!%~f:::~'~-"~~~~. /ZtJ~ lfLJbd - Ihllt ~~ ~.iC~~ ~ ~' ~- L2:UhLma ~ L~~ ,,~~~~ ~~..~ 'tl~ ~~p~ 4J:..~ ~ .~~ ----. ~~ . ~ ~~~~. = --~_.~~ " ~ ~ - , L' ~i#izee . · _~~~. H' _ __~~ ~./J7t/7f .It'$" ~ ~~/J/~~~ -ct;~M~ . ~_ I ~;IJ:~'S?~~@~~~' -~ _-~"_C-_ - I.. .ptJ;~~ .~.- ~.. I . :$~~Ck ~) .~. .~... ~. /~~ .. ;h~. . ...... .. 5fft . ~ .. - /z> t?A?~ ~n~~ ./1J:t-~~~'J/~~I ..~.~ . -- -- _ _ _n _ I ,~ - , .. - - '- -- -- -, - -- - - -~ - .- -- -- , - ---- -. - . - -- u_ - .-, . I~ /tf ~ -..< ~ /t:). !1lf- CJ:.~!J . o. . . __ t/(p ~k Ue . I . .._~Vp. tJ~ ... .. . I tr.q~~~~~~~..~/U'r#M. ._ ... r~~~~//z13f~/~/h1..... I ~~, ~- - 'i- ,~:,~~~ ~ -.~~ =~~~~--- - - -- '-o~_~=__-=__ ,-" --~--=~=---~-~,- , - - - _'.-~~~_O- ;g~. ~~ ' ~o,' - __ I.. - -- _ -_.-__~~=~___==__--'. __ ~~_~=-~,__ _,___,-_~-__-~~_-_~_ _,< _-, _0 r'-=, i /ifrtb j?J7~ j/17tJ a iJl' 1 ~h(Jt 11g/ --~~=~ ~- '- __n -- . - - ~ -= ~= - ~ - - - - = ~--=- u_ -- --~ .- tI~ ~1M-:U4bWP;7:.m,P1C _ .~.x _h .. ... -~ .. J -~,J!J)C ~tI ~- --- ~ -,-- . f'!J ~~~Y ...E fi~ ..~ ~p- . . - .. . ..~ ~ .._ . .0 ~U.. .... ... . ....__._ .... .. m -- -, ---' - '-I;i ~ ...w(;:lkt!'/tfJ'u t#?~~Ac.? .-... .. ......~__...,[.17~ ~~~ ~Ai.~T//:k~~ . - ------ ---,_ __,__. -_uP _ __ =,===o~_c _ -, __ u_ '_ _ ~_____,'~- ,~~_ - _ _ - =- - - - .._.._ _:7~x. M1JP,;:.& /av I)-;f-~ - . . ,-~ -~ -, -- - ---.- .,~- -=--~-'- -~~-~~~~=--,-~- - - ~-' ~~~(~,- - ,---, --- -. ~------_'C--__--___""-.-- /7/ ~o(?_~~7~. ~/IJ- aJ. ~~tf~,-~~ ... m~ '~-~'--.~-'_.. ... . ~ ~ - .- .;--_ ..' .~ ._.m . . _.~.__ .c. '.' .... _ ... .-.- J, H ,~ .ro/, ~ ~ tJW7'~~ 1:- ._-~" -. . ~ '. ... _h }7)--- '.. .... .~... --..' . . . .~~~ ~/J;~/~,F; '.. .... ............... '. ~/!t!~./h~ ... .l9J. ... .. .-.-.. - - it-...... - . ~ta~1JJ~~15V..._.... . -, .......0_ . ~ -- ._.~na5tl~~J1Ji.~-_...-._--_u _......n~-~_~__. ~q /~Ilr'.0jfC_~' '--g;;tid,' ~ .. ,:' .' - . I... OJ.. ...... - ~/. - . .~~~ ~ ~. n~~ _~:.:. " '. ... .;~-_. py~~ . (:;, .- ~ ... '? - ....~. ~ jdi?-iiJld _' ....-n.~. .' ~". ,-.-~/Iff~-.--.=~ i?lml<m_~~~, ..~. ..... .. . 'd 1. ,. .' . ~_,~_,___"'JJ?p ~., ==,~~~ _._ , ~~_ >_~. .' , , RJ /1~~~J ~ b .', ~c - q . .., _H.__;-:!_/V"r 1f7A:?f~, -=~~~...' ~_, .,. " .. ',u _ _ " , --_,~ __ , 'flau ~~w ~~.., ., ~ . c' ~'" ,~~,/'~ ~~. =,-: ~~ ~ ~~~ z ~ '._ . -,"'.., .<U.=_'_'."~ ~-~uf~~Jb]I$~r . .~o... '.. .~k!h:zt'.N~tht:f.. ....__/~/@~17/~ _~~..-:"--~ ~~~::;~-r~ 'rtf- ;18..' n -.. r t1Jv,,7<::/,. __.. ,=_::...=_=--=---_---__~_.. J._~~=__...__-__;::_ ___ -----=--=.-_~_ _ -_ _ ~ ~ ~ -__--__=-=--~::_.._ __ _ ___ _~~_~ -- -'- - -:::.... - - ~-- - - ,::>;_ ----~ -;; - ::..__ -....;. -~ __" .:::..--:-_-~-..-;:_- _.- _ _- -:..-~- r'_-~ -_ _, ~_.::::.-~_ _ - -:- - - - - __- ~ ~/{)- ~ . - I!:f -f ?' tlt/Pp j;)e, ~V{ ~ft ~ .'ft~~~ ~~T . i!fb7~~ '",I ~~ff ~'~-r/b>4U~~_ . I .. ~p}~ -l1t1h~d;~li72e /Jt>>e.1/U/&:?~__ at(..' . ~ ~IW~-~--mff :~a'/~ IUd/.- ~~k . 'I . ~~/?t.eh~/:J~M":~"_ , __ ~ ~ I ~~9~ /~//7~ tJIf~ ~tm P;#J1.-?/~ _ 5:/ftJjZ 1d/J~ ~hm~ - _" mJt4t'#w ~ n1~ ~~ ~y . ~.uIrc8 ~ ~~~~~~-'~ ,'1/b.&j ~ 0111' " _ " . . -~~D' _~ ._- -- ..' . . .. ~ e. -'" ,n ... . , -- 1 - - - .-' - - ,~ -- -.- " - - - . , - ,-- '-,~--~" >~_.-~ ~:--,~-- -~, -~. . ,- , 7..' -"1 .' ~#.!~/PtlI:n?;';;'/b#~{ ._a~_ .. . ~_ _n'~'l' . .~=/~~~. '...-~~ ..':~~~_o~-~n' _'-' ""~.~.__' . - fjJ i:, t2)9?j~?7~- ~~~4:' .'... 0'0.. - It R/1P'P?~~ ,-, - '''_'' I - 'k/'J';:' ~-~--"-'-- -"--~ '~',_-_~_O__~' ~ -_=~~_c~~~,~~___u__: '- -...--~'~-- - ~-,"------= .. . '.. .. ---. I' . , /' r. .....~ ... . . .' --~... .._,.. an. un. u__.. . ......... ....0 . -~ -~ 4.tP.~#/~_... .~.~~~L4'<,. " ,__ t .l/vKl~h~,,_ __ ' _ n -~.. -- --- --T-~- ---"'-----~------~- ....---- -"-~---- - ~-..,..~"...:---~-~--- -"-- .::=--~-~---...::..::::....::----.<-^;.----.--- _ _ .~, ~~t:1~ =~=-~~~"~71Js.~- ~-~"<~-~- -- '- .-~- _.,__0=-' -~- ,~--, :--'---~--'~, -.",~'--~ - - - -- . ,'j: .-CJ6~----_. .. .- ~~ . ., - :,--~-~,,---,::-~ " ,~ :_ ___ ~~~--~klu~~.o-~=~~-=-.-, .. ...... .. .. '0 ~f%t~OY;;!~;;;;._.~n..~-. ~_=~-_:o~... ..... .' _- ~ ~ ~ . ...__~,_ ..x..._....... .' '. _n~.' ....,. d~~~_.r _,__,_'_". .._~.._ -:')1~/I~/?fJ:Z. -:-: ..-;:/15.. - '.n.'.__'_'n . /' ~. ..- -:_,-_~~~-x.~_. -" .,....~ -,-=--=<,- ~- -.. '~-- " -, . v~ a, ~~kJ1U4(/-:,._._.. ..... . -'. '.' _~. .... _. . _--_ .t1F..~~k &~~~,/t))J~ ..... ..' n.&1t- 'n'~-~//~~~t.<<-CJl'?-. ..' .... '~- -. ,~, u~ -. -~,-- -"'.~ - .--.~--"-- .- '. '" /L--- - - = ,-- . _ @Jtr;Y ...... . .:' ~/#e- - 'r~-- ~.~'_H~ .' ...... 1./.~z ... . ~ 1/ /12.~ 'I" ~ ~r - -,- ,,,'-'--~ - II - ,rapI;~/t '-'. -. .,,,- ",,- .' , -"-". -,--- - . ,~,~_,,-->--,-~,_ -'. .',,, '_ .~'_-~,'._'__ " 'C "' __.'~, .'.J);JJlhbw~~u~._... . (/V~~.. . . ... ...._ : ----I!:-y ,-... . - 11-". - - ---.. '.--C, _-" -_ztpt: __._ _ _.' _.~._'~',~ ~,~, . __ =., ,.~=.X_ . _, - _~ '.' . .... ~_~, ==_ - ~ I/t&: - R ./7L/VJ/J~A../) 1tJafl1~ . . _ _. . . .... u I , "~n_"" "ry/i[;~ ,- r~~ -- - -- - u...~lu ~~._., '-.'---' fl; .,-.fI#~,. ...- .'...'. ~!1H~d tal!~~~. _.:-, "t:tu~ ~o_,._" ,=__ ~_'~,. -- ~!JjtJ~~-.. .,-~~ ~-'-'".-~~'-- ,~. ,,'- . . ,..-.= '.="~~~'~~~'~'" ~ ',-. '-~','~ ,'.,,' u .~~. "'..__" , _,,---..,__ .- -f1!..' =~..I;I'. , fft "/J/e-; 1ii2:.'~' - ,.~ . . - " .... - -~ -- - - - - --- ~ - - - - - -~ -...... - - .~ - -- - ~ ------- -- - -- -- - ~ -~ - ,- - -- -- - - - - -- - ~ - - - ---- -- - - - - V'4' "i 'lJJ/hJit/tJ'J;i-p~dC$C76iP;;( ~j;-.-'- .... _ u .. ..-..' fit..., j,~'~-' ," 'u..' . ~.--,v " u. -. -~._ . ~1~?':--L?~T~~_. ..._ .....__ ~- .-:-~c~~?W1a:/ ~~~~.ct~~~-~- . ~--' -.,,,-...' ",.=' _ -:.- - ---............ _ :,.. --_ ~--~::- ='=-....:::-~_.....r_ -_- _ _ __ ~.::..;:: ~-_ -:;:- _ _- _ /~ . /./.()':j t . - f2J.' /.) t2- Jiji~ .a&t7';t1U 10 ~ .- f/;~ ~~ - , . ...~- . - . ~ . . , .. , - - - ~~=-- - - ~ - - 5'1.j.~?J __~"'"'..._ ",,-._~_ -=-...o::.~",~--;:t-"'----=-_=_-A~_~:::o._ _~-