04/17/2001 (2)
"
,
. '
,,'
"(
"
I J
"
"
,
'J
:
~ ~ l '\\\ .,' ','
/, " I t :
d
\ , ' '
:gfC;\~:'./~~>.,:.)" .;,: '\
"..J" ~ . ' f' . '. ~'. '
l~"~~. " :~:~l~: ~:
. ~ '~'/'1'.'
I , > \" :- ..I; i'~: ~. :.!" ..
'.1
l" "
j'
l.
"
,
'"
,', .
'.'
J. ~;
~
~;;).~j,~
'.
,."
':. f,~
.' ,
(, .
\
"
COB
~d, I '
,
. ~ ~
:X,~!
,T,'l
'fro ,
f,; ~ .
.~.', l, .
)~~(/: '.
.,'q ..
~~;{,:~/.
I~, " .
"." I.
.'
, .
(
i
l
f
. \
. I
I
, l
,I
';
..C,ol1Jmu~ity. D.evelopment .Board Meeting
MINUTES'
')
,
'Ii'
I
.t
.'
....t.
'.J", ',.
~~+::'~.~,t .:.~'.~'
y~' .
','
,.
!l>' ",
.,: " I .. '11
? ~\':". ..~ 'I
}.,r"-, ,,:
""., ~!.
~;.~\" /"
o".
'.
\.
, ,
bate
o If! 17/01
"
,:'0
., ~ f
1
1
I
'[
I
"J '
, '
'I,.
'I
','
.\
.\'
"
, ~, .
"
"
. :+.
\" l:..
.~j~.1,~f~.:~~ '.'
~.::1.~.:.>~(..
l;.,. '
; ..~,: ~: .,. l, : .
I ~ . .
; ...~.
"
. ,
. !
, :
..
,
I,.
. ,
...
',.
, , ,"
~I 1" . I.
:;,:0'
'c'....
',' \ I
'.
< ,
:';~l.: :,: :", .', t . . .
:.'f.:.t~:;,:~ .:: ;;: , .
I~~:;)!:!' ,,;...::, '.~ .. ..
,r
"
..oj
3?:~
';.1
" ,
"
. I,
. : ~:. .:: .". i
:';t1
"
".
, '.
"
"
/'.'
, .'
::'~'~I::~";:' '!.,'~;"',)W}>":;;' :):';:.. ,. ..,..' .;, .
" , . .'.,1
" ,
, r.. ,
1\" .
>:~,~. : \": '
/> :-
': ::~:\ '
;', .....
~~. . f ~':~
"';""'0
"j .. ~' ..
-' ,
':.".. +
I.. '.,'
.' .
.: .:' I
, ,I.
I, ,
'.
"
, "
" .
" ,
, ,
ACTION AGENDA
"COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 1 7, 2001
Meeti'ng called 1'0 order at 1 :00 p.m. at City Hall
, ' .
ITEM A - REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERA TION
Item #A 1 - 42 Midway Island: Ernest H. McDowell - Owner/Applicant. Request
flexible'develoj:Jmerit approval to reduce rear sotback from 25 feet to 10 feet as part
. of F:\esidential Infill Project at Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 3, Lot 8. '
, "FL 01-01-02
,.\,
. '
'ACTION - APPROVED RECONSIDERATION OF 03/20/01 DENIAL - 6:0 - Hearing'
:,' scheduled for May. 15,,2001
, ", ,
ITEM B - CONTINUED ITEMS
" '
Item #81 - (Cont'd from 03/20101) - 2301 Campbell Road: Paul A. Younq. Carolvn
L.Younq & Judith N. Coachman/City of Clearwater - Owner/ Applicant. Request.
<,annexation 'of 3.65 acmsto the City of Clearwater and a Land Use Plan amendmc':!t
. to RE, F,lesidential Estate Classification, and rezoning to LDR, Low Density
. Residential District at M & Bs 34/01 and 34/011 In Section 6, Township' 29 South,
Range.f6 East. ANX 00-09-16 ' , ' ,
,,'
ACTION ~ RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 6:0
'.'
~ .. ,
, ,
I,
" I
: I
"
I.
:""Oi'''~ .
,II" r," , ","
, .'..
'T'.' ,. . ' '.
~ '. . .
. . ~ l- .
. "
I,' ,
04/17/01,
acd040,1
1 ,
., ,
. ,
,.
,.
1.." .';
>:"l:'~\'~>~~Y':~'f"~'I:" ,1".... "> ';~. "....~>~;:.:~..-:,lj:-v:-\lQ.~.?~~~(I,:X:,:';
. '. ..
~, ".),. d ., ,. ' , . ~ ",
. 'f ~.;,. . . \' ~.
,,'~" .:.~..;t'::.""'''';''d i/~;", "i~ ';'1;.-'f~;-.1- ::..::~;. ,
"/ ..
,Oll, >
~ti!l '
::.J
, '
eo .
~cm #82 . 2394 G.Y1f.to-Sov Boulevard: Davton Andrews, Inc. - Owner/ Applicant.
Request Flexible Development approval to permit vehicle sales/display in
Commercial ~istrict as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project: 1)
reduce lot slzo from 40,000 square.feet to 26,700 square-feet; 2} reduce lot width
from 200 foet to 100 feet; 3) permit vehicle display within front setbacks along
Gulfwto-BDV Boulovard & Fernwood Avenue; 4) permit vehicle sales/display on lot
contiguous to property designated in zoning atlas as residential; 5) permit vehicle
sales/display on lot with less than 7,000 square feet of enclosed building; 6) permit
vohlcle sales/display outside enclosed building; 7) reduce parking spaces from 77.to
11 spacos; 8) reduce landscape buffer from 1 5 feet to 7.5 feet on Gulf-ta-Bay'
Boulovard; 9) reduce landscape buffer from 15 feet to zero feet on Fernwood
Avonue: and 10) reduce landscape buffer from ,12 feet to six feet along north
property IIno at Sec. 1 B~29-16, M&B 24.07. FL 01-01-03
ACTION. APPROVED - 7:0 - with conditions: 1) landscape buffer to be increased
to ,10 foet along Gulfwto-Bay Boulevard & corners at Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and
Fornwood Avenue to be Improved with planters, similar in design and plant species
In lieu of 1 S-foot landscape buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to mitigate reduced
. width;' 2) 1 a.foot landscape bufferte be installed within Fernwood Avenue right-of-
way; 3) all perimeter buffers to include plant material that will reach and be
maintained at a height of 'at least 36 inches within 12 months of planting; 4) all
dead and dying plant material to be ~eplaced prior to the issuance of a certificate' of
occupancy; 5) all new plant material at 2388 and 2394 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to
meot Code minimum size requirements; 6 ) all signage on 2394 Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard slto to comply with Code; 7) two dumpsters at northwest corner of. 2388
. Gulf-to-Say Boulevard to be enclosed by concrete block wall & chain link gate; 8)
cross access agreement to be executed prior to issuance of Development Order; 9)
south entrance along Fernwood Avenue for 2394 Gulf~to-Bay Boulevard site to be a >
right-in only with its width reduced to .18 feet; 10) exterior of building at' 2394 Gulf-
,to-Bay Boulevard to be finfshed as proposed and overhead doors on west fac;:ade to'
be painted to match building; 11) vehicle display platform at southwest corner of
2388 Gulf-te-Bay Boulevard to be removed and replaced with three, single-vehicle.
display platforms, no closer that five feet from GU,lf-to-Bay Boulevard property line ,
and no more than three feet in height; and 12) all landscaping to be installed prior to
issuance of a, certificate of occupancy and that a corrected site plan reflecting
planned landscaping materials be filed with the City prior to issuance of
Development Order.
.'
acd040 r
2
04/17/01
.t,}",'~"'.::.~..." ';.'.~::.~~:'.::"."""..:, .1::.." ,';'..~J:~'i";':~.,": "':~'l ~."~'~">'~."""'" \.....,.,
:t.
.. "\'1 "
. '
, .
"
~.
'~"II.;~
( .,
~~'r::"
':..J .
/' ~ ~.. ~I
,
rnM C - ~EVe~ TWO ,APpl'CATIONS
'tom #C1 . 812 P-InoUM Stroot: Thomosol1 Executive Center Partnershio Number
J~ . OwrWrl~DDjlcont. Roquost flexible development approval to reduce the front
sotback from 25 foot to 20 foot along Plnellas Street, reduce from 20 feet the east
sldo sotbnck to flvo foot, tho WDst side setback to zero feet, and the north rear
Botbuck to eight foot, reduce the minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to
7,492 squaro feot, and reduce the minImum lot width from 100 feet to 55.5 feet,
us part, of 0, Comprehonslve Infill Redevelopment Program with a Comprehensive
Londocnpo Program at Lot 13 and sO,uth Y1 of vacated alley adjoining on the North,
Block 10, Milton Park Subdivision. FL 01-02-07
ACTION. APPROVED - 7:0 - with conditions: 1) vehicle access to adjacent al/ey to
bo prohibited; 2) oak tree in adjacent right-of-way to be preserved prior to & during
011 construction phases; 31 shared access easement for driveway to be secured and
rocorded ,with PlnelJas County; 4) all parking to be provided to building's rear &
screenod. from roadway; 5) office building elevations to remain residential in
c~oroctor to include a pitched-roof, front porch, and paned-windows as generally
doplcted in tho submittal: and 6) landscape plan to be amended to include
landscaping along north & west property lines.
Itom De2 - 2634 BSfksdale Court: Wfndinq Wood Condominium X Association/J.e.
'!tubals ~ Owner/~Qo1/cant. Request flexible development approval to increase the
height of a fenco from four feat to six foet as replacement fencing for outdoor patio
Droas, as part of a Rasldentiallnflll Project at Winding Wood Condominium X.
fL c;)1 ~O k.Q.Q
ACTION - APPROVED - 7:0 - with conditions: 1) plant a three-foot continuous
hodgo along patio fences near Countryside Boulevard and Winding Wood Drive to
Improvo tholr appearance as seen from the rights-of-way; 21 augment the hedge
along Countryside Boulevard with additional plantings to create a continuous buffer;
and 3) ropair the spilt rail fence along Countryside Boulevard as needed.
Item ItC3 ~ 667 Bav Esolanade. Units #5. 6. & 7: Kellev Investment & Manaaement
.QQrQ,/Poul Kellev - Owner/AoDllcant. Request flexible development approval to
, permit a detached dwelling as part of a multi-family development, to reduce the
minimum lot width from 100 feet to 56 feet, to reduce the number of required
parking from eight spaces to six spaces, and to permit a parking design other than
what-Is roquired by Code, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Development Project at
Mandalay Unit No.6 Replat, Blk 77, Lot 7. FL 01-02-08
ACTION - APPROVED 7:0 - with conditions: 1) future redevelopment initiatives to
Include a parking design that complies with Code or is approved by the Community
Dovelopment Board and 2) that the applicant acknowledge that parking in the right-
of-way Is not guaranteed and may cease without ,notice.
acd040 1
3
04/17/01
. ,
.r;,
Item #C4 - 1111 McMullen'-Booth, Road: PACT. Inc./Cltv of Clearwater - Owner/
,Aoollcant. Request Flexible Development approval to permit the expansion of an
indoor recreation/entertainment use within the II Institutional District and reduce the
west side setback from 10 feet to zero feetl as part of a' Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project at Sec. 09-29-16, M&B 24.03 & 24.04. FL 01-02-10
'ACTION - APPROVED - 6:0
.,
"
, .
Item #C5 - 7 McMullen-Booth Road: K.B. Investment Grouo. Inc. - Ownerl
Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings in
the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District within more than two buildings,
on a lot which was not vacant as of the date of the adoption of the Community
Development Code. and is not a corner lotI as part of a Residential Infill Project at
Sec. 16-29-16, M&B 21.09. FL 00-11-53
acd0401
4
04/17/01
"
ACTION - approved - 7:0 - with conditions: 1) all necessary precautions be taken
prior to and during construction to preserve two BO-inch oak trees on site; 21 should
the two oak trees be damaged or de:stroyedl an equivalent number of caliper inches
to be replaced on site or through City's tree replacement fund to staff satisfaction;
and 3) County driveway permits to be approved prior to issuance of any permits.
" ,
'~
, .
Item #e6 - 1601 Druid Road East: Charles W. Hamrick. Dorothv E. Hamrick,
Richard L. Kamenskv. TRE & Elizabeth Plecker (Sun Ketch Construction / Tom
Quaretatti. V.P.) ~ Owner/Aoplicant. Request flexible development approval to
permit attached dwellings 1n the LMDR District for more than two buildings, all a lot
that' was not vacant on the date of the Code's, adoption; to reduce front setbacks
along internal, private roads from 25 feet to 21 feet, reduce rear setbacks on
internal property lines from 15 feet to 13 feet, reduce side setbacks along internal
property lines from 10 feet to 8.5 feet, and reduce side setbacks from 10 feet to
zero feet for common wall construction for all buildings; and Preliminary plat
approval of 32 lots for attached dwellings at Sec. 14~29-15, M&B 43.10, 43.11,
43.12, and 43.16. FL 00-11-60/PL T 00-11~05
ACTION - APPROVED - 6~1 - with conditions: 1) annexation of portion of property
currently in Pinellas County to be ~pproved (AN X 00-12.03); 2) final plat, with
notes related to maintenance of 'private roads, to be recorded with Pinellas County
and City prior to issuance of any permits; 3) property ownership and maintenance
documents of common areas to be submitted to and approved by Legal Department
prior to second reading of annexation ordinance; and 4) all buildings to be fully
secured until, demolition.
v
, ,
, ,
l<::' .: ~ "
\' .' ~: ,
"
," .
.~
,l
,..~
':....w)
. .
"
ITEM 0 .' LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS
,Item #01 - 1601 Druid Road East: Charles Hammrick. Dorothy E. Hammrlc~.
Richard L. Kamensky & Elizabeth Plecker (Sun Ketch Construction/Tom Ouareteti.
V.P .l - Owner/ Applicant. Request annexation of 3.178 acres to the City of .
Clearwater, and Land Use Plan amendment to RU, Residential Urban Classification,
and rezoning to LMDA, low Medium Density Residential District at 5.::c., 14-29-1 5,
M&B 43.10,43.11,43.12, and 43.16. ANX 01-12-03
ACTION - RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 7:0
Item #02 - 812 Pinellas Streot: Thompson Executive Center Partnership Number
Two - Owner/ADPlicant. Request amendment to Comprehensive Plan's Future Land
Use Map from Residential Urban (RU) to Residential/Office General (RIOG}, and '
rezoning, from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district to the Office (0)
dis.trict. at Lot 13 and south' % of vacated alley adjoining on the North, Block 10,
Milton Park Subdivision. LUZO 1-02-04
,'ACTION - RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 7:0
Item #D3 - 1972 East Skyline Drive: CraiQ M. & Lisa M. Johnson - Ownerl
Applicant. Request annexation of 0.18 acre to the City of Clearwater and a'Land
Use Plan amendment to RL, Residential Low Classification, and rezoning to LMDR,
. Low Medium Density Residential District at Lot 66, Skyline Groves in Section 06,
. Township 29 South, Range 16 East. ANX 01-02~05
ACTION - RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 7:0
..
, Item #04 - Comorehensive Plan Amendments Related to Beach bv Des;cm - City of
Clearwater Applicant. Request review and approval of amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. CPA 01-03-01
ACTION - RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 7:0
ITEM E - APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 03/20/01
ACTION -APPROVED - 7:0
. ITEM F - DIRECTORS ITEMS
, Use of Consent Aaenda
ACTION - APPROVED '-0
Amend Meet/no Start Time
ACTION - APPROVED - 7:0 - 2:00 p.m. start time to begin 06/19/01
..:.) . ITEM G - ADJOURNMENT - 4: 1 0 p.m.
,I .:
acd0401
04/17/01
5
....~.,.:.~~ '~I ':"'~I,.~::;'I .~i'~"'~':',i:~, '.:L',~ .:.I,"~..'":,, ",', . ',I t,:~ ....\;II...\.~l".,.
,...,
..~,.t\..i.~\
,I ,{
....~ '-=: ~,"!tr
FORM 88' MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY.
MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
lAST NAME. FIRST NAME. MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION AUTHORITY OR
A. "'-'n COMMITTEE t!......
rJ (l'):J -'t-..- ", '(?'1, Dr.J,4,.....i>
THE BOARD, COUNCil, COM SSION, AUTHORITY OR
d I f) COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
13G., Me. 'r .'~, t:..- .e' {c....e-{ C+ TY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBIVISION:
cJ C/~f"I-'G ~ ("
M'( POSITION IS:
o ELECTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
, .
This form is for use by an person serving at the coonly, city, or attler local level of government on an appoInted or oloctod board, council,
commission, authority, or committ9lt, It applies equallv to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of lntef'ost under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutos.
Your responsibilities under the law when faCed with a measuro in which you havo a conflict of interest will Vllry' greatly depending on whether
you hold an elective or appointive position. For this roason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the
reverse side ;md filing the form.
INSTRUCTiONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A porson holding elective or appointive coonty, municipal, or ottler local public offICe MUST ABST~IN from voting on a measure whrch Inur85
to his special private gain. Each elected or appointod local offICer also is prohibited from knowingly voting ,on a measure which inures to the
special gain of a principal (other than a govemmont agency) by whom ho is retained (including the paront organization or subsidiary of a
corporals principal by which he is retained); to ttle special private garn of a relative; or to the special private gain of a businOS$ associato.
Commissioners of community redevelopment agendes under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S.. and officers of independent special tax districts
elected on iI one-acre, ooe.vote basis are not prohibited from voting in ttlat c.:Ip3city. '
For purposos of this law, a -relative" includes only the officsr's father, mother, son, dilughtar, husb.lnd, wife, lather-in. law, mother-In-law.
son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associato" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the
offlCOf' au a partner, joint vonturer, ~or of property, or corporat13 shareholder (where the shares or the corporation are not fisted on any
national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaIning from voting in the situations described above, you must dlsclcse the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly staling to tho assembly the naltJre of your intelest in the measure on which you are
abstaining from voting; .nd
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this fonn with ttle person responsible for recording the minutes
of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes;
APPOINTED OFFICERS: '
Although you mLnlt abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in those malters. However, you
must disclose the naltJre of the conflict before making any attempt to inftuencs the decision, wnethor orally or in writing and whelhor made by
you or your direction.
IF yOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY AnEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file thili form (before makIng ~ny attempt to innuonce tho dociGlon) wllh the person responSIble for rl)Cording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes.
)
. A copy (If the form must be provided immediately to the olher members of Ihe agency
, ..I
. The form must be read pUblicly at the next meeting atter tho form is filed,
CE Form 88 . 10-91
PAGE'
.'..'" ~~'" '~~"~"'\"~'
., .' ~'
IF YOU MAKE NO ATIEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· Vw must dlsclooln ordy the natI.JI-. 01 'f04I ccnftIct In the megsum before particlpating,
· You must ~ the ftxm and. It wtthIn 115 daya aft<< the vote oCan with the person respclf'lSI'bIe for recording tho mIn\ltet of the
mooting, who mu.t \noorponIbt the form In the mInutee, A copy of tM form must be proYided Immediately to tho othM members of !he
agency, and the fonn muGt bo r8CKI pubIlc!y at the next meeting after the form II flied.
. DJSCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I. ~w) 114)"" -::n .
(a) A measure came or win come before my agency whlctl (che<:k one)
, hereby discJose that on
1//17/0 (
... .
.r:~~
<0 ( .
l'
I
f ,'.'~'"
'\
". ..'
..
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES !j112.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL
OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOITION. REDUCTIONS IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY \'.
NOT TO eXCEED 55.000. ;(JJ
..'
inured to my special private gain; , ..
inured to the special gain of my business asscclate,
inured to the specIal gain of my relative,
~ Inured to the special gain of 17Ic. r -I.- c:..
lnurad to the special gain of
organization or subsidiary of a principal which has rotainccl me.
, whom I am retained; or
, which is the parent
(b) The measure before my agency and the fl;lturo of my conftlcting Interest In the measure is as follows:
C~ F L 01- 02. -10' -- 11/ I Mc ;t/II/k~ {!;'Dit.- ill
f~:t:. ~!r ~ Hul- tL/~ ~~i'
~ ~'. ., .
I/J7fr/
Date Filed
Signaturo
CE Form as - 10-91
PAGE 2
'f'~h
:.'" \' \ '\'1; I" ~ .. .~,' . r' .. '':''::'.,?J. ..J .,I:.;.r<il' , .' .H.. ,r., .. . ,... , '. .. ~.
. ,. ,,~.... ~ 1- , ~, T,.. ,~~
, ~'~;.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· You rmm c:fisclo8ure orally the nature of)'aU' c:onftict In tho measure befIXI participating.
· You must compkIt:a the form and 1IItt It within 15 days a1bw the vote 0CQn with the poraon rasponsibMI 'or recording ttw mlnutel of the
meeting, who muat Incorporate thII fonn In the mlrtulaa. A copy of the form must be provlded lmmedialety to tho ~ memborl 0( the
1lgIC'lCy, IOd the fonn tnu.t be read publicly at tI'Il!I next moetlng after the fomlls filed. '
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I. d~j 11<<)"" c7t .
(a) A measure ~me or wiU come before my agency which (chock eno)
. hereby cfl6Close that on
1//17/t!l I
. .
.""
.,'
~ed to my special private gain;
Inured txl the special gain of my business associate,
Inured to tho special gain of my relative,
-A inurod to'the fipecial gain of 17Ic. r ~ c...
inured ~ the special gain of
, which is the p;rent
,whom 1 am retained; or
'.
, ,
organization or subsidilliry of a principal which has retained me.
"
. (b) The measure before my agency aOd the naturo of my c:onlUeting Interest In the rne:asure is as follows: '
0/- t:>2. -10 --, 1)/ I Me /II"lkn f!;pit. tl
!r~r1~vj-TI..I1 ~~i
c~ FL
F~( ~..
~' J~.
t/;{ -7 frl
O.te Filed
, ,
,
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~"2.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUrES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL
OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOITION. REDUCTIONS IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL ~ENALTY
NOT TO EXCEeD $5,000. '
'I
CE Form ae . 10.91
PAGE 2
.:.,' /~.>" " I
(
I
, "
,j
'"
~
,
I'
,:
10:;)'
( ,
. '/'(\.~t
;J,
">
',\'
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
. CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 17 , 2001
Present:
Gerald Figurski
Carlen A. Petersen
David Gildersleeve
Edward Mazur, Jr.
Shirley Moran
Alex Pliska
Ed Hooper
Chair - arrived at 2:21 p.m.
Vice Chair
Board Member - arrived at 1 :02 p.m.
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
, , Ralph Stone
Cynthia Tarapani
Lisa L. Fierce
Patricia O. Sullivan
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director - arrived at 3:30 p.m.
Assistant Planning Director
Development Review Manager
Board Reporter
The Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 1 :00 p.m. at City Hall, followed
by th~ Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM A - REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERATION
Item #A 1 - 42 Midwav Island: Ernest H. McDowell - Owner/Aoolicant. Request
reconsideration of a flexible development request to the reduce rear setback from
25 feet to 10 feet as pa~t of Residential Infill Project at Island Estates of .Clearwater
Unit 3, Lot 8. FL 01-01-02
In his March 22, 2001 memorandum, representative Todd Pressman requested
reconsideration of this case.
, Development Review Manager Lisa Fierce reviewed the applicant's request to
reduce the rear setback on this Island Estates property from 25 feet to 10 feet to
construct a swimming pool, elevated 2.5-feet.
In reference to the COB's (Community Development Board) March 20, 2001
. denial of this request, Mr. Pressman requested reconsideration, stating the board had
based their decision on inaccurate information related to the proposed neighborhood
conservation overlay district. He submitted copies of the related petition, noting no
reference is made on either form to setbacks, as inferred at last month's meeting. He
said,none of the neighbors of the subject property object to the proposed elevation of
the swimming pool.' .
Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani stated the City does not enforce
deed 'restrictions.: She' reviewed the neighborhood conservation overlay concept, .
. mcd0401
1
04/17/01
''';' ~:;:\~."'";'... ,"~,.'~. I'. .I"'''_'~''''/'''''':~'~''.\I''''~'~.':~''''.~'':::':'':..''~.'.r.'.t"":::t~:_".~'\'(''''~'~''''j:'~'''":.'' t:~~:
--
,(:')1 "
-:'.rJ
'::J
~
:;~,:~:'~/, t..,..l .~.,
Indicating the Coachman Ridge neighborhood is working on the process. She said
60% of the property owners.must agree to initiate the process to develop rules and
establish plan goals and strategies. With the petition, the Island Estates Civic
Association had included a list of items of interest for inclusion In the district. One
item addressed increasing rear setbacks. Once the City Commission approves
initiating the process,' a three- to six-month study process will include intensive
steering committee and planning meetings to develop an agreement.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said to reconsider a case, the
board must conclude that their decision was based on a mistake or incorrect
information. It was felt that was the case.
M,ember Hooper moved to reconsider Case FL 01-01-02 on May 15, 2001.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM B - CONTINUED ITEMS
hem OS 1 - (Cont'd from 03/20101) - 2301 CamDbell Road: Paul A. Youno. Carolyn
L. Younq & Judith N. CoachmanlCity of Clearwater - Owner/Applicant. Request
annexation of 3.65 acres to the City of Clearwater and a Land Use Plan amendment
to RE, Residential Estate Classification, and rezoning to LOR, Low Density
Residential District at M&Bs 34/01 and 34/011 in Section 6, Township 29 South,
Range 16 East. ANX 00-09-16
Ms. Tarapani presented the request. This case, originally scheduled for March
20, 2001, was continued upon the request of owner, Paul A. Young. The 3.B5-acre
site, on the southeast corner of Old Coachman and Campbell Road, is north of NE
Coachm an. On July 2, 1981, property owners Francis S. Coachman and Judith S.
Coachman signed an AT A (Agreement to Annex) with the City to connect to the
City's sewer and/or water system. At that time, the property was outside the
City's municipal boundaries and did not meet the adjacency requirements for ,
voluntary annexation. That agreement, binding upon the owners, their successors,
assigns, or any subsequent owner of this property, consents to, annex into the City
when possible. As required, the City sent written notice to the owner on October
6, 2000; stating its intent to annex this property. That notice expired on December
5, 2000.
. Since execution of this agreement, ownership of some of these parcels has
, chan,ged: 1) Judith N. Coachman owns the vacant large parcel (M&Bs 34-01) and
2) Paul A. Young and Carolyn L. Young own the smaller corner parcel (M&Bs 34-
011 ).
The City is initiating this,annexation request. The subject property now is
contiguous with City boundaries. The City has provided the property with water
and sewer services since August 19, 1987. The proposal is consistent with Florida
statutes related to voluntary annexation regulations. Staff recommends the.
property have a land use plan designation of Residential Estate and be zoned Low
Density Residential (LOR). The Young parcel features a single-family residence.
mcd040 1
2
04/17/01
'", '~' ,
'.0
.' I'
", ,
, ," ~ ;:',
~ . I' I - .
:., " "
"
I -to . j
~" ; ,
" '.' ~. I", I '
" ,
. ,
~
Member Gildersleeve moved to recommend approval of the annexation of
3',65 acres to the City of Clearwater and a Land Use Plan amendment to RE,
Residential Estate Classification, and rezoning to LOR, Low Density Residential
District at M&Bs 34/01. and 34/011 in Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 16
East. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Item #B3 ~ (Cont'd from 03/20/011 . 2394 Gulf.to.Bav Boulevard: Davton Andrews,
Inc. A Florida Company - Owner/ Aoelicant. Request Flexible Development approval
to permit vehicle sales/display In Commercial District as part of a Comprehensive
,Infill Redevelopment Project: 1) reduce lot size from 40,000 square-feet to 26,700 .
square-feet; 2) reduce lot width from 200 feet to 100 feet; 3) permit vehicle display
. within front setbacks along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard & Fernwood Avenue; 4) permit
vehicle sales/display on lot contiguous to property designated in zoning atlas as
residential; 5) permit vehicle sales/display on lot with less than 7,000 square feet of
enclosed building; 61 permit vehicle sales/display outside enclosed building; 7)
reduce parking spaces from 77 to 11 spaces; 8) reduce landscape buffer from 1 5
feet to 7.5 feet on Gulfwto~Bay Boulevard; 9) reduce landscape buffer from 15 feet
to zero feet on Fernwood Avenue; and 10) reduce landscape buffer from 12 feet to
~ix feet along north property line at Sec. 18~29-16, M&B 24.07. FL 01-01-03
. Planner Mark T. Parry presented the request. On March 20, 2001, the COB
reviewed this case.' At that meeting, the applicant presented new information and a
(~:t), revised site plan that had not been submitted previously. The Board continued the
1":I1';rJ case so the applicant could submit corrected plans an~ staff could analyze the
revisions.
The 0.51-acre, rectangular site has 100 feet of frontage on Gulf-to.Bay
Boulevard to the south and 267 feet of frontage on Fernwood Avenue to the west.
The applicant now proposes to remove the two curb cuts and aprons on Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard, and provide 11 parking spaces, including one handicap space, and shade
trees alol1g Fernwood, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, and the north property line. . The
,property, which has undergone deterioration, has a single-story, 4,347 square-foot
masonry~block building, built in 1964, and 41-striped parking spaces. Most
recently, the building featured a nightclub, closed on August 19, 1999, plus two
retail sales and service establishments, closed June 7, 2000. The building is 100
feet from the north side, three feet from the east side, 39 feet from the south front,
and 40 feet from the west front property lines. The applicant's placement of
vehicles for sale on every available portion of the lot, including within all setbacks
and rights-of-way, results in inefficient vehicle circulation. The site has no
landscaping. A dumpster is in the site's right-of-way on its northwestcorne~.
, The applicant seeks approval of the vehicle sales and display business that
has been operating illegally on this site since 1999, when the applicant expanded
Dayton Andrews, a legally operating, vehicle sales and display establishment, to the
subject site without submitting a site plan application for a change use. The site
has a current Code violation (COD1999.03456) for illegal vehicle sales and display.
.~
mcd0401
3
04/17/01
. '
. .'. .'.. c> .'
.. .
"
~,
After nume~ous meetings between staff and the applicant to resolve the violations,
this application was submitted.
The site, in a highly developed, commercial area on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, is
adjacent to single- and multi-family residences to the north and across Fernwood
Avenue from the applicant's main business. Tho applicant intends to operate the
subject site in conjllnction with and support of the larger site. The sites are on two
separate lots. '
The site has two curb cuts on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and two on Fernwood
Avenue. Display vehicles block all curb cuts except for the northernmost one on
FernwC?od Avenu9. Parking lot circulation is impeded, although a drive aisle runs
through the site and display vehicles are parked in the rights-of-way. A driveway
connects this site With Sweetwater's Restaurant to the east.
, The applicant proposes to apply a stucco finish on the building's south and
east elevations and repaint the structure. The applicant proposes to install a 5.5~
foot landscape buffer within the Fernwood right~of-way, a six-foot buffer along the
north property line, a five-foot buffer along the east property line, and a 7. 5-foot
buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The now site. plan indicates an optional .
sidewalk along Fernwood, although the applicant proposes to install a 5.5-foot
. .Iandscape buffer along Fernwood ,in lieu of the required four-foot sidewalk. The
proposal does not meet Code landscape buffer minimums of 15 feet along Gulf-to-
, tr~1 Bay Boulevard and 1 0 fe~t along Fernwood.
, '\..,
Additional plantings typically are provided along road frontages where
developments lack sufficient landscaping. The proposed landscape plan does not
meet minimum Code requirements and is inconsistent with previously approved
projects, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard redevelopment efforts, and the City~ Staff
recommends a minimum landscape buffer of 1 5 feet on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and
10 feet on Fernwood, in addition to a four-foot wide sidewalk within the Fernwood
right-of-way. Shrub materials proposed on the site plan will not reach 36 inches in
height within 12 months as required, negating their value as a landscape buffer.
At the March 20, 2001 COB meeting, the applicant stated the landscape
plan would be revised to meet Code. Staff has not received the revised plan. On
April 5, 2001, the applicant stated that all buffers will consist of plant materials,
which will be 36 inches tall within 12 months of planting. If approved, staff
recommends a condition require staff approval of a revised landscape plan prior to
the issuanceot a Development Order. Code requires shade trees be planted every
30 feet on' cimter within all required landscape buffers. While the applicant has
proposed, the requIred number of trees, they are half the size required by Code. The
applicant has stated that all trees will meet Code requirements. Staff also
recommends a condition requiring the landscape plan to indicate which plants will
be used.
.~
Applications for Inflll projects and Comprehensive Landscape Programs
generally provide upgraded landscaping to mitigate other site deficiencies; The
mcd040 1
4
04/17/01
~
t:.~~)
"'_~fl.
.J
applicant's proposal does not meet these goals. The proposed buffer along the east
property line -will not stop cross' access with the property to the east. The applicant
has submitted a draft of an agreement with that property owner. if approved, staff
recommends a co'ndition require the applicant to obtain a cross access agreement
with the property to the east to maintain permanent legal access or a buffer along
the full length of the property line and file and record the agreement with Pinellas
County. The applicant stated at the March CDS meeting that a legal cross-access
agreement would be filed. Staff recommends the condition require proof of such an
,agreement be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits.
The 48 square-foot, 20-foot high freestanding sign does not meet Code due
to its size and height. While the applicant has stated that all signage will comply
, with Code, a plan has not been submitted. The 20 square-foot attached sign
proposed for the building's south faQade is twice as large as Code permits. Code
permits one 10 square-foot attached sign and one 10 square-foot freestanding sign.
The amount of signage may be doubled through a Comprehensive Sign Program~
Staff has not received an application. Staff recommends that all signage comply
with Code.
. On site business will operate from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, and 9:00 a.m~ to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The applicant
anticipates no more than three employees will be on site and that approximately 35
vehicles will be on display at any given time. Staff feels the site is too constrained
to accommodate this plan.
Staff feels the entire business establishment, at 2388 and 2394 Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard, should comply with Code if this expansion is approved. At the business'
main site at 2388 Gulf-topSay Boulevard, the applicant proposes to enlarge the
landscape buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, install additional plantings along the
main entrance at the corner of Fernwood and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, and enclose
the dumpster on the main site's northwest corner. The applicant will replace an
elevated vehicle display structure on the main site's southwest corner with a metal
display structure. Two similar structures will be added to the main site along Gulf-
to-Bay Boulevard.
The applicant has proposed minimal improvements for the main site,
including replacement of dead or dying plant material, a basic Code maintenance
requirement. The applicant also proposes to enclose a dumpster and install plants
along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard .within a 6.5-foot wide landscape buffer where 15 feet
is required. The applicant has proposed no other substantive improvements for the
3.83-acre main site.
The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and.
supporting materials on February 16, 2001. Staff recommends denial: 1) minimal
proposed landscaping does not meet Code for a Comprehensive Infill
,Redevelopment Project and is inconsistent with approved projects and Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard redevelopment efforts; 2) landscape buffers along major arterial roads
must be 1 5 feet in. width and along secondary streets must be 10 feet in width to
m'cd0401
5
04/17/01
. ~'. .; ',:' '; :' . 4, I ~ I . I,", ....: ',: . . . ..,. . :;; .....'. ~.'. ~ i. .,.. . ; .~. .,~ ';. ~ .' \' .. '" . :: 'I j ~ ~ ~ ,. . . '" to . ,~. . ~ " ..'"" " ,:, :":~ I '.
'~, . :c'..". .; ~"
co., ,.
'. .,
-.
mitigate defIciencies elsewhere on site. Possible solutions Include reducing the
building's size to lower par'king requirements and provide additional space for
vehicle display and landscaping: 3) minimal improvements proposed for the building
do not meet Code, Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project requirements, and
are inconsistent with approved projects and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard redevelopment
efforts; 4) the plan lacks a sidewalk along Fernwood to address pedestrian safety
and does not provide adequate landscape buffering between'the subject site and
adjacent residential uses to the north. The proposed width of the landscape buffer
along the north property line varies between five and six feet where at least 10 feet
is required; and 5) the applicant has proposed minimal improvements to the master.
site to the west. Generally, redevelopment would address the entire site and use.
, . ,
If approve'd, staff r~commends twelve conditions.
:)
hi response to a question, Mr. Parry said Code requires a sidewalk be
installed in the right-of-way with 1 O-feet of landscaping within the property line
along Fernwood. The species of plants referenced on the site plan grows only to
24 inches in height where 36 inches is requires. Concern was expressed when
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard vehicle dealerships redeveloped their sites, the landscaping
requirements were less extensive. Mr; Parry said the spirit of Code landscaping'
requirements has not changed, although landscaping requirements have increased.
Previous dealership redevelopment projects exceeded the previous Code's
landscaping requirements. Mr. Tarapani stated staff is mindful of competition
issues. Many properties have complied with the 15-foot landscaping requirement.
It was noted dealerships display vehicles to attract buyers. It was felt the new
Code is not fair as a 36-inch hedge would block drivers' views of the cars. Mr.
Parry said all future redevelopment projects will meet these enhanced landscaping
, requirements.
It was noted the board had continued this case to provide the applicant time
to submit corrected plans. Concern was expressed that little was accomplished.
Ms. Tarapani said staff had met with the applicant, who had indicated an
unwillingness to accept staff recommendations. It was stated it is disturbing the
applicant had not provided an adequate package for staff review.
Tim Johnson, representative, said the applicant has committed to providing
minimum landscape requirements. He reviewed the applicant's landscape proposal,
stating the project, estimated to cost more than $150,000, will Improve the
neighborhood. He had thought staff was satisfied with the application when staff
indicated a meeting between the two parties would not be necessary. He said staff
later requested a meeting where the applicant agreed to a host of conditions not
previously mentioned, such as reducing the size of the Fernwood egress and
painting the garage doors. He said the meeting was cordial and was shocked that
staff. continued to recommend denial of the project.
He'reviewed the staff recommended conditions. Mr. Johnson said the
appli~ant wlll accept a modification to the size of the landscape buffer in Condition
. #1 from 15 feet to 10 feet. He said Condition #2 is unacceptable as it eliminates
~ nine parking 'spaces. The site currently is paved to the road. He suggested the
, mqd040 1
6
04/17/01
"
,'4. .
."
,,' ~ ':.
..
"
",
,'.
"
"
:.:/.
':,,'
. .;
"
.,',
.,' .
'.
:.'
.~ ~c .:
.:, . i
"': .:
.,
. "
\ ~.~ ' "
,>
.'..
, .'
", ~',
, '.
','
"
~~.: :'
. ;":,.
'"
: ;..
,.
:~~, '
Ie. ~ .
. ''';'
<..
" ,
,1:
I,:"
l:,1
...,~ .-
',.
t, ~ .
. ~,
. . ~
"
, I'
,>('
~: .,
l"~ :..
:~ :~~':
';.l
.' ,
~,: r:
/ ...
. 'I.
i '
~ ..~
, ,
;,
t::,:
-.'1
;, +
,.,
" '
,'.
)~ ';
.: \'
, ~:
:,::'.:::
~r.
:',:,':
.". - ~
. ~".I
1;,1,"
:.~. . t
,",
,::.;;
:,.to
'~.':~ ..
.. ,
.'i.
. "'j
~:/
. "
"
,.
,>.j~l.
"i,:
,,'
) ~.":~
.,<
.' ,.
. ..
".-
..~ I
~,
,.,.;)
, '
...._~ .q;t
Q
" '
,
, condition allow the landscaping to be located in the right-of-way. He said,
Conditions #3, #4, #5, and #6 are acceptable, although the applicant may apply for
a comprehensive sign plan in the future.
, Regarding Condition #7, Mr. Johnson said this would be the only portion of
Fernwood with' a sidewalk., He said the applicant is willing to install a sidewalk in
lieu of the landscaping buffer. He said Conditions #8 and #9 are acceptable, noting
a cross easement agreement with Sweetwater's Restaurant has been finalized. He
agreed with Conditions # 10 and # 11, and stated Condition # 1 2 is almost
acceptable. To replace the elevated ramp, the applicant wishes to nestle single car
ramps in the landscaping, setback five feet, instead of ten. He said height of the
ramps will be reduced from 5 feet to 3 feet.
Concern was expressed the applicant had not submitted complete plans.
Mr. Johnson stated attitudes had been established early in the process. In response
to a question regarding landscape materials, Mr. Parry said site plans typically
indicate the types of plants to be installed. Mr. 'Johnson said it is written on the
plan that all landscaping requirements will be met. Bill Adams, of Adams
Construction, stated the final site plan, listing the correct plants, will be submitted
when the .application for a final permit is submitted. It was stated it is the
applicant's responsibility to present drawings which list correct plant materials and
not up to staff .to make corrections.
In response to a question,. Ms. Tarapani said staff would prefer the number
of parking spaces be reduced and retain the sidewalk and landscaping requirements.
It is difficult for staff to site plan a project at a CDB meeting. Mr. Johnson agreed
to reduce, onsite parking to three parallel spaces. Ms. Tarapani said a site plan is a
binding authority. If the COB wishes to approve the project, the ,submission of a
revised site plan that meets Code would be required. She said staff would agree to
the proposed modifications to Condition #2 and #12.
It was stated redevelopment efforts should incorporate current structures. It
was suggested a side,-:"alk along Fernwood is not necessary and that landscaping
alone would be acceptable.
Consensus was to remove the requirement for a sidewalk along Fernwood.
It was stated this is a key Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard redevelopment project.
Co'ncern was expressed regarding difficulties. It was felt the project should move
ahead. It 'was stated landscape buffers are important to redevelopment efforts
along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Member Hooper moved to approve a Flexible Development request to permit
. vehicle sales/display in the Commercial District as part of a Comprehensive lnfill
, Redevelopment Project: 11 reduce lot size from 40,000 square-feet to 26,700
, square-feet; 2) reduce lot width from 200 feet to 100 feet; 3) permit vehicle display
within front setbacks along Gulf-to-Say Boulevard & Fernwood Avenue; 4) permit
vehicle sales/ display on lot contiguous to property designated in zoning atlas as
mcd040 1
7
04/17/01
.'f).."llc, . I"~ ,'It ~ I~'J ;. .......q ;~".j, _" .>~~'
,~. " ~. '..
,'.1',,1
.:","" "
~
residential; 5) permit vehicle sales/display on lot with less than 7,000 square feet of
enclosed building; 6} permit vehicle sales/display outside enclosed building; 71
reduce parking spaces from 77 to 11 spaces; 8~ reduce landscape buffer from 15
feet to 7.5 feet on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard; 9) reduce landscape buffer from ,15 feet
to zero feet on Fernwood Avenue; and 101 reduce landscape buffer from 12 feet to
six feet along north property line at Sec. 18-29~' 6/ M&B 24.07 with conditions: 1)
, landscape buffer to be increased to 10 feet along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard &
corners at Gulf-ta-Bay Boulevard and Fernwood Avenue to be improved with
planterst similar in design and plant species in lieu of 15-foot landscape
buffer along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to mitigate reduced width: 2) 10-foot
landscape buffer to be installed within Fernwood Avenue right-of-way: 3) all
perimeter buffers to include plant material that will reach and be maintained
at a height of at least 36 inches within 12 months of planting: 4) all dead
and dying plant material to be replaced prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy; 5) all new plant material at 2388 and 2394 Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard to meet Code minimum size requirements; 6 ) all signage on 2394
Gulf~to.Bay 8oulev'ard site to comp~y with Code; 7) two dumpsters at
northwest corner of 2388 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to be enclosed by concrete
block 'wall & chain link gate; 8) cross access agreement to be executed prior
to issuance of Development Order: 9) south entrance al01')9 Fernwood
Avenue for 2394 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard site to be a right-in only with its
width reduced to 18 feet; 10) exterior of building at 2394 Gulf-to~Bay
Boulevard to be finished as proposed and overhead doors on west favade to
be painted to match building; 11) vehicle display platform at southwest
corner of 2388 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to be removed and replaced with
three, single-vehicle display platformst no closer that five feet from Gulf-to-
Bay Boulevard property line ~nd no more than three feet in height; and 1 2)
all landscaping to be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy
and that a corrected site plan reflecting planned landscaping ma:ierials be
filed with the City prior to issuance of Development Order.. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
....~...,\
, ,
"~,~:.'
,Concern was expressed the applicant had taken advantage of staff. It was
felt that staff had made a supreme effort and that attacks and criticisms were
unfounded. Staff was complimented for the helpful staff report.
ITEM C - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS
u
Item #e1 - 812 PineUas Street: Thompson Executive Center Partnorship Number
Two - Owner/Apolicant.. Request Flexible Development approval to reduce the front
setback from 25 feet to 20 feet along Pinellas Street, reduce from 20 feet the east
side setback to five feet, the west side setback to zera feet, and the north rear
setback to eight feet, reduce the minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to
7,492 square feet, and reduce the minimum lot width from ,100 feet to 55.5 feet,
as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program with 'a Comprehensive
;' ,
J'
; ,
~... ,
mcd040 1
8
04/17/01
:~;...:~ >; :,~ t; :,1 ': "~',...:..t 'c. T_J 1/; ~~,; ; ~.
.~
:)
~.
,
~ .
,I
"
Landscape Program at Lot 13 and south Y2 of vacated alley adjoining on the North,
'Block 10, Milton Park Subdivision. FL 01-02-07
Planner W. Ryan Givens reviewed the request. The 0.17-acre parcel, south
of downtown, is east of Myrtle Avenue, a commercial and office corridor. The
Thompson Executive Center, west of the site, fronts Myrtle. This section of
Pinellas Street has modest single-family homes.
The parcel is zoned LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District with an
underlying land use of RU, Residential Urban Classification. The site legally can
support residential uses with a special exception to permit non-residential parking,'
The s!te currently is under review for a zoning change to 0, Office District with a
future land use of RIOG, Residential/Office General Classification concurrent with
this Flexible Development application.
The vacant site, rarely used, is covered by shell rock and reserved for non-
, residential, overflow parking for the adjoining office center. An alley to the rear of
the property is closed to vehicular traffic. One of the three oak trees in the front of
the lot has a healthy, 34-inch trunk. Two smaller oaks are to the rear.
The applicant recently acquired the site for approximately $83,000 and razed
.the single-family residence to provide overflow parking that never materialized. The
site is unused. Assuming a modest, $60,000 home is built, it is unlikely the owner
could recoup an investment in excess of $142,000. Staff feels a small office would
be a more practical use for the property as it would be relatively low intensive and
compatible with the restdential neighborhood, if designed appropriately.
This project will construct a 1,350 square-foot office building designed to
resemble a wood, bungalow-style house with a pitched-roof, porch, and columns.
Five parking spaces will be to the building's rear to maintain the appearance of a
single-family home. All five oak trees will be preserved. Water detention will be
provided underground.' Staff recommends access to the adjacent alley be prohibited
, as the easement is far below engineering standards for a paved aisle.
The request to reduce all required setbacks would allow a reasonable use of
the property and a design that blends into the single-family residential
neighborhood. As many nearby front setbacks vary in size, the proposed 20-foot
setback is consistent with the neighborhood. The requested five-foot east side
setback is consistent with standards for a single~family residence. As the building
will appear to be a home, the reduced setback seems reasonable, especially if a
dense landscaping buffer is proposed. Staff recommends the project provide
ingress and egress an Pinellas Street. Given the narrow lot size, the minimum
required driveway width of 1 9 feet can be achieved only via an access easement,
with the neighboring office building, resulting in a zero-foot west setback. Staff
supports this solution. The applicant also wishes tei provide one more parking
space than required by Code to prevent on-street parking. One required parking
space must be designated as handicap, preventing normal use. The added space
will reduce the rear setback to eight feet. Staff supports this request only if the
mcd040 1 '
9
04/17/01
. .. ~ C'->}, . r" ~,'
, '
"
':,
,"
,landscaping plan is amended to create a dense landscaping buffer along the north
property line. As submitted, the landscape' plan features a tiered effect in the front
setback and a continuous hedge with trees along the east property line.
~
Considering the applicant's attempt to provide a compatible design, staff
feels the requested setbacks seem reasonable and will not impact negatively on
neighboring properties. Staff feels the proposal is reasonable, due to the
neighborhood's condition, the site's location next to a large office building, and
high, site-related economic factors.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 15,
2001: Staff recommends approval with six conditions.
"
, ' Bob Thompson, 'applicant, stated the rear of the buildings are not ~ttractlve.
He said the project will improve the neighborhood and shield unsightly views. The
project will retain the oak trees. He said the project will provide a transition
between office and residential uses. It was stated Mr. Thompson has made
significant investment and efforts,to improve Myrtle Avenue.
(~1il-)
\'r\"!j:):oI
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve the Flexible Development request to
reduce the front setback from 25 feet to 20 feet along Pinellas Street, reduce from
20 feet the east side setback to five feet, the west side setback to zero feet, and
the north rear setback to eight feet, reduce the minimum lot area from 10,000
square feet to 7,492 square feet, and reduce the minimum lot width from 100 feet
to 55.5 feet, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program with a
Comprehensive Landscape Program' at Lot 1 3 and south % of vacated alley
adjoining on the North,' Block 10, Milton Park Subdivision with conditions: 1) vehicle
access to adjacent alley to be prohibited; 2) oak tree in adjacent right-of-way to be
preserved prior to & during aii' construction phases; 3) shared access easement for
drive"Yay to be secured and recorded with Pinellas County; 4) all parking to be
provided to building's rear & screened from roadway; 5) office building elevations
to remain residential in character to include a pitched-roof, front porch, and paned-
windows as generally depicted In the submittal; and 6) landscape plan to be
amended to include landscaping along north & west property lines. The motion was
duly seconded anci, carried unanimously.
Item #C2 - 2634 Barksdale Court: Windinq Wood Condominium X Association/J,C.
Dubois - Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to increase the
height of a fence from four feet to six feet as replacement fencing for outdoor patio
areas, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project at Winding Wood Condominium X.
FL 01-02-06
Mr. Givens reviewed the request. The 11 .56.acre property, on the southeast
corner of Winding Wood Drive and Countryside Boulevard, is east of US 19N. The
site is one of ten phases of the Winding Wood Condominium Devolopment.
Condominium developments are north, south, and east of the subject property. The
immediate vicinity is suburban in character with both attached and detached'
:,~ dwellings. '
mcd040 1
10
04/17/01
"
, c
, '
. .; .
, ,
..
f:-'"
The site features 72 dwelling units in 36 wood buildings. The six-foot wood
fences, which enclose each unit's outdoor patio, need repair and replacement. The
project includes new fence posts and panels. Code restrictions require a level Two
application for this project. The new fences will be of the same design, height and
taupe color that currently exists. Residents enjoy their patios as a private place
outside the complex's common outdoor spaces.
.' ,
Staff usually discourages ,tall fences near public rights-at-way for aesthetic
and safety purposes. However, these fences are set back more than 26 feet from
Countryside Boulevard. Many complex fences face interior green space. Replacing
the fences with shorter panels to meet Code would degrade residential privacy.
, Property landscaping of several trees and sparse hedges front Countryside
Boulevard and Winding Wood Drive. Staff recommends enhancing property
landscaping with additional plantings to improve the buffer between the fences and
rightspof-way. The split rail fence along the Countryside Boulevard right-of-way is
in poor condition. Staff recommends the perimeter split rail fence be repaired as
part of this' application.
, The DRe reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 15,
2001., Staff recommends approval with three conditions.
In response to a question from representative Bruce Phillips, Mr. Givens
.tl!l1.l\ 'reviewed recommended landscape materials and height requirements. The permit
, i'tt1i!" will allow the replacement of privacy fences and repair of the split rail fence.
Member Mazur moved to approve the Flexible Development request to
increase'the height of a fence from four feet to six feet as replacement fencing for
outdoor patio areas, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project at Winding Wood
Condominium X with conditions: 1) plant a three-foot continuous hedge along patio
, fences near Countryside Boulevard and Winding Wood Drive to in:prove their
appearance as seen from the rights-ot-way; 2) augment the hedge along
Countryside Boulevard with additional plantlngs to create a continuous buffer; and
3)' repair the split rail fence along Countryside Boulevard as needed. The motion
was duly seconded and carri~d unanimously.
Item #C3 - 667 Bav Esplanade. Units #5. 6. &: 7: Kellev Investment & ManaQsment
Coro.lPaul Kellev - Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to
permit a detached dwelling as part of a multi-family development, to reduce the
minimum lot width from 100 feet to 56 feet, to reduce the number of required
parking from eight spaces to six spaces, and to permit a parking design other than
what is required by Code, as part, of a Comprehensive Infill Development Project at
Mandalay Unit No.5 Replat, Blk 77, Lot 7. FL 01-02-08
Mr. Givens reviewed the request. The 0.278-acre site, on the east side of
Bay Esplanade adjacent to Clearwater Harbor, has seven dwelling units in three
buildings. The buildings are in good condition but lack architectural style. The
~~ sIte's front is 'nearly covered with asphalt and blends into the adjoining property's
. mcd040 1
11 ,
04/17/01
.,...' ,. .,.1 'oil, ',. ~j.,.: ....,'.~
" .
. "".1. 'c
n'......" '...., '
~ ,~ T .
,"::",'
"
'. '.l'.,
" ' , .. ~.
--,
, (;-;\):\
t ,hl>~'1
......x
" :\
''''J
.(~t. ,~.\ ~::;',> :
parking area. Of four perpendicular parking spaces in the right-of-way, the
southernmost space blocks access to the site's interior. Another two spaces are in
th~ center of the parcel. The buildings and sito configuration prevent an efficient
parking and landscaping pattern.
, .
Most of the immediate vicinity has attached dwellings and small motels,
which feature 1950s architecture and show signs of previous expansions. Bay
Esplanade has no sidewalks in this area. Many sites rely on public rights-of-way to
accommodate perpendicular, back-out parking. The streetscape needs
redevelopment to imprqve parking, pedestrian access, and aesthetics.
The beach redevelopment plan, Beach by Desi,qn, identifies this
neighborhood as the "Old Florida" District, with residential neighborhoods and
limited retail uses to serve local needs. Beach by Design recommends this area be
redeveloped with single-family dwellings and townhouses. Beach by Design
acknowledges a lack of parking may hinder revitalization, particularly on Bay
Esplanade. The Plan suggests pursuing shared parking strategies to assist
revitalization efforts. '
, ,
This proposal will convert the three-unit, two-story structure into a single-
family residence. The project will expand the building's footprint by 361 square-
feet and convert the structure into a two-story, Key West-style home with an
observation tower and galvanized metal roof. The project must meet FEMA (Federal
Emergency Management Agency) flood construction requirements if the value of
improvements exceeds 50% of the structure's value, assessed over five years.
The owner intends to pursue a phased approach to redevelopment due to
economic issues. This project will make little change to the parking configuration
but proposes landscaping improvements to a small area along Bay Esplanade and to
the site's interior. The owner proposes to plant five QueAn Palms along the harbor.
This request is to permit a detached dwelling in the Tourist District where
the use'is not permitted. The site meets Code's intent to permit multi-family
development. Attaching the building to other onsite structures would impede
tenant access of the water and be unattractive. Beach by Design recognizes
neighborhood site constraints and redevelopment difficulties.
The applicant also requests to reduce the minimum lot width from 100 feet
to 52 feet. The triangular site's irregular shape varies from 52 feet wide at the
front setback to more than 115 feet wide along the waterfront.
The applicant also requests to reduce the required number of parking spaces
from eight to six and to permit a parking layout different from Code. As proposed,
the site will retain six parking spaces; counting those in the right-of-way. While
staff no'rmally does not support parking in the right-of-way, this type of parking
alreadY exists and will not be expanded.' To improve circulation, one parking space
will be removed.
: mcd040 1
12
04/17/01
" . ~ ~ <. ~ '~, I. .
~ t .' c. . '.. \ ' j I t
, t~, ~ ': '.~~"
. " ':' "
i '''. + . ~ <
; t:., \
,;;n~iIa
!' .,
\.~~
Mr. Mazur declared a conflict of interest and vacated the dais.
~ ' The DRC reviewed the application 'and supporting materials on March 15,
r: '~, 2001. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. ,
Paul Kelley, appHcant, was present. In response to a question, Mr. Givens
reviewed on,site driveway access issues.
Member Petersen moved to approve the Flexible Development request to
permit a detached dwelling as part of a multi-family development, to reduce the
minimum lot width from 100 feet to 56 feet, to reduce the number of required
parking from eight spaces to six spaces, and to permit a parking design other than
what is required by Code, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Development Project at
Mandalay Unit No.5 Replat, Blk 77, Lot 7 with conditions: 1) future redevelopment
, initiatives to include a parking design that complies with Code or is approved by the
, Community Development Board and 2) that the applicant acknowledge that parking
in the right-of-way is not guaranteed and may cease without notice. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Itern #C4 - 1111 McMullen-Booth Road: PACT. Inc./Citv of Clearwater - Ownerl
Applicant. Request, Flexible Development approval to permit the expansion of an
indoor recreation/entertainment use within the I, Institutional District and reduce the
west side setback from 10 feet to zero feet, as part of a Comprehensivo Infill
Redevelopment Project at Sec~ 09-29-16, M&B 24.03 & 24.04. FL 01-02-10
.,
Planner Mark T. Parry reviewed the request. The 41-acre flag lot is on the '
east side of McMullen-Booth Road, north of San Bernadino Street. The site, with
55 feet of frontage on McMullen-Booth Road to the west, is more than 2,000 feet
,deep. The site's 73,269 square-foot, 80 foot high masonry-block building is home
to Ruth Eckerd Hall, a performing arts facility, and is between 110 and 350 feet
from all property lines. The site's 959 parking spaces are in four distinct lots, ze'ro
feet from the west, 60 feet from the south, 35 feet from the north and 200 feet
from the east side property lines. Only the west half of the property is developed.
Also, a 15-foot high, 5,400 square-foot masonry-block studio building is north of
Ruth Eckerd Hall, across the access drive.
The site has three zoning districts; 1) Open Space/Recreation; 2)
Preservation; and 3) Institutional. The far east portion, and a small area in the north
central portion are zoned OS/R. The Preservation District is between the two as/R
sections, 'along the north portion of the site. The site's as/R and Preservation
District portions are vacant and are not part of this application. All development is
exclusive to the Institutional District portion of the site.
The site is within a residential area. Currently, PACT, Inc. owns 4.24 acres
on which Ruth Eckerd Hall sits. The City owns the other 36.76 acres, including the
, access drive from McMullen-Booth Road, the studio building, and all parking lots.
Ruth Eckerd Hall, built in 1983; has operated continuously for 18 years. Since
Q " 1981, the City and PACT, Inc. have had a joint access/use agreement. By the end
mcd0401
13
04/17/01
, ", L: "'.' "1"
"
'n
~
he
...J;l't.~t
I.
'.ot::il
"
,y
of '2001, the property owned by PACT, Inc. will revert to the City. CI'earwater will
, own the entire property. PACT, Inc~ will continue to operate the site.
, The applicant seeks to expand Ruth Eckard Hall with a three-story, 40-foot
high, 19,462 square-foot addition to the building's northeast side. The project will
expand the building's footprint approximately 60 feet and increase the total building
area from 73,269 square-feet to 120,741 square-feet. Also proposed is additional
space under the auditorium's seating area on the building's southwest side, to
provide an internal corridor between both sides of the building. No such connection
currently exists and patrons must walk around the building's exterior. The
addition, including fac;:ade refurbishment that will provide a unified appearance, is
the facility's first major renovation.
The proposal includes extensive landscaping throughout the site that
exceeds Code. New landscaping will be installed at the McMullen-Booth Road
entrance, around the freestanding sign, and along the entire access drive. All
redesign9d, parking areas'will be landscaped in excess of Code. All dead and dying
plant material will be replaced.
The project will provide additional lobby, conference, office, and hallway
space, classrooms, rehearsal, and practice rooms, an expanded loading dock, new
ticket office, and restrooms. A new 176-seat studio theater will increase the
facility's total number of seats to 2,351.
The proposal also' will reconfigure several lots to improve circulation and add
approximately 82 parking spaces, primarily in the site's northeast portion, for a total
1,041 parking spaces.' Although Ruth Eckerd Hall is required to have 604 spaces,
the center historically has experienced parking shortages during some events.
The proposal also includes a 3,060 square-foot addition to the studio
building for supplementary studio and workshop space. That b,uildinQ, on City-
owned land, is three feet from the property line separating City and PACT, Inc.
owned property. The addition will cross the property line with a zero foot setback.
The Institutional District does not permit indoor recreation/entertainment use.
Ruth Eckerd Hall is a nonconforming use. As Code prohibits the expansion of
nonconforming uses, this application for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project is necessary. This request is to permit the expansion of an indoor
recreation/ entertainment use within the Institutional District.
The ORC reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 15,
2001. Staff recommends approval.
In response to a quest'lon, Mr. Parry said staff is unaware of noise
complaints from the residential neighborhood. All expansion will be in the northeast
section, toward the site's interior. The area fronts Alligator Creek and is heavily
buffered. ' ' ,
mcd0401,
14
04/17/01
:,~'.'tl>..:~:. ,',;';,1' '~"',.-" \"~.L",>':,',~"',"f'~"""::~'~':':"' ,'~.::". .'~....""'.';,~."" ':~, :I.~:L~'.~:J.,\,,::,,',,':,';~, .:; "
~
,/
'.'~"")
'-.." ,
v
Harry Cline, representative, was present. It was noted this expansion was
part of the facility's original plan.
Member Petersen moved to approve the Flexible Development request to
permit the expansion of an indoor recreation/entertainment use within the I,
Institutional District and reduce the west side setback from 10 feet to zero feet, as
part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Sec. 09-29-16, M&B 24.03
& 24.04. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gildersleeve, Moran, Petersen,
Pliska, and Hooper and Chair Figurski voted "Aye." Member Mazur abstained.
Motion carried.
ftem #C5 - 7 McMullen-Booth Road: K.B.' Investment Group,' Inc. - Owner/
Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings in
the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District within more than two buildings;
on a lot which was not vacant as of the date of the adoption of the Community
Development Code and is not a corner lot, as part of a Residential Infill Project at
Sec. 16-29-16, M&8 21.09. FL 00-11-53
Mr. Parry reviewed the request. The 0.84-acre site is on the east side of
McMullen-Booth Road, north of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The City recently annexed
the property with zoning LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District. The site
is heavily wooded and features a vacant, 1,516 square-foot, single-family
residence. Several specimen live oaks in the site's southeast quadrant include two,
50-inch trees. A 30-inch tree will be removed. Bayshore Townhomes are, north and
adjacent to the site. An access road to the townhomes runs along the site's north
side and east rear property lines. ,Single-family residences are west and south of
the site, and across McMullen-Booth Road. A mobile home park is to the south.
The applicant wishes to construct six town home units in three 4,672 square-
foot buildings. The wood, two-story colonial-style homes will have peaked shingle
roofs. Each dwelling unit, to be platted as a condominium, will have 2,336 square
feet, a two-car garage, and be' 24 feet in height. The homes will be finished with
vinyl siding or stucco. The design is consistent with the size and character of area
houses. Two retention areas, each approximately 1,700 square-feet, will be
constructed in the site's northeast and southeast corners. As the site drains
across priva,te property to the east, the retention ponds, designed to handle a 100-
year storm event, must perk within 24 hours.
A private drive will bifurcate the subdivision and provide ingress/egress to
McMullen-Booth Road. The private drive requires approval of a Pinellas County .
driveway permit prior to the issuance of any City permits. The homeowner's
association will own and maintain the driveway.
Attached dwellings typically are permitted in the LMDR District as a Level
One, Flexible Standard Development request, provided the plan meets eight
flexibility criteria. The plan does not meet two criteria: 1) parcel developed before
the Code was adopted and 2) dwelling units are in more than two buildings.
Developing the site with a ma~imum of two buildings would be out of scale with
mcd0401
15
04/17/01
~
("\
...!-;;:.J
, ,
';)"
, ^
(
""
. the neighborhood. Application as a Residential Infill Project development was
.necessary.
Site constraints, related to drainage and specimen trees, influenced the
layout of the three buildings, positioned to preserve many large trees. Staff has
guided and worked closely with the applicant to ensure that specimen trees will
have the best chance of survival. The applicant has worked to design buildings that
are consistent with neighborhood scales.
The DRC reviewed the appHcation and supporting materials on December 1 4,
2000, and March 15, 2001. Staff recommends approval with three conditions.
In response to a question, Mr. Parry said staff is confident the trees will
survive. The City's arborist has worked with the applicant on the site plan.
Todd Pressman, representative, introduced the developers.,
Member Petersen moved to approve the Flexible Development request to
permit attached dwellings in the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District
within more than two buildings, on a lot which was not vacant as of the date of the
adoption of the Community Development Code and is not a corner lot, as part of a
Residential Infill Project at Sec. 16-29-16, M&B 21 .09 wit~ conditions: 1) all
necessary precautions be taken prior to and during construction to preserve two 60-
inch oak trees on site; 2) should the two oak trees be damaged or destroyed, an
equivalent number of caliper inches to be replaced on site or through City's tree
replacement fund to staff satisfaction; and 3) County. driveway permits to be
approved prior to issuance of any permits. The motion was duly secon~ed and
carried unanimously.
Item IIca . 1601 Druid Road East: Charles W. Hamrick, Dorotlw E. Hamrick,
Richard L. Kamenskv. TRE & Elizabeth Plecker (Sun Ketch Construction/Tom
Ouaretetti. V.P.l - Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development approval to
permit attached dwellings in the LMDR District for more than two buildings, on a lot
that was not vacant on the date of the Code's adoption; to reduce front setbacks
along internal, private roads from 25 feet to 21 feet, reduce rear setbacks on '
internal property lines from 1 5 feet to 13 feet,. reduce side setbacks along internal
property ,lines from 10 feet to 8.5 feet, and reduce side setbacks from 10 feet to
zero feet for common wall construction for all buildings;' and Preliminary plat
approval of 32 lots for attached dwellings at Sec. 14-29-15, M&B 43.10, 43.11,
43.12, and 43.16. FL OO.11.60/PLT 00-11-05
Mr. Parry reviewed the request. The 4.58-acre site consists of three parcels:
1 ) Parcel 1 - 3.19 acres - southern portion; 2) Parcel 2 - 0.38 acre - southeast
corner of Druid Road East and Lake Drive; and 3} Parcel 3 - 1 acre -between
Parcels 1 and 2. Parcels 1 and 3, totaling 4.19 acres, are in Pinellas County.
Companion application ANX 00-1 2-03 requests annexation of that property into the
City. The annexation will be approved prior to the issuance of any building permits.
mcd0401
, 16
04117/01
.t J ! ' ,c r " l,' ~: . :"c .',' r! .
~,
..
I, ,......~
~~~!,~~i
',..;)
: ,H > ~ .
The site, developed as Hamrick lumber, a sawmill/lumber yard, has 11
buildings, which are between 140 and 19,000 square-feet In size. The business;
which recently closed, operated at this site for 53 years. Manufacturing is a
nonconforming use in this zone and district. Access to the property is via a curb
cut that extends along most of the west property line on lake Drive. Surrounding
properties are developed with single-family residences. Staff recommends all
buildings be fully secured until demolition.
The applicant wishes to maximize the site's development potential,
accommodate the 20-foot grade change from north to south, complement the
residential neighborhood, and eliminate blight. The applicant proposes to construct
32 townhorne units in 16, 4,846 square-foot buildings. The two-story, 2,8 foot
high buildings are designed to fit into the neighborhood and will feature ,
contemporary Mediterranean architecture, with tile roofs and stucco exteriors. A
common wall will separate each townhome and shared, common courtyards will
separate the structures.
The projec~ also includes a community swimming pool between two private
drives accessing lake Drive. A retention pond will be constructed in the site's
southeast corner. A six-foot, white, vinyl privacy fence, with landscaping in excess
of Code intent, will be installed al~ng lake Drive. A six-foot, wood fence, along the
east property line; will separate the'development from neighboring single-family
residences.
The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat for the development of 32
lots. The plat includes all Code required information. Prior to the issuance of any
permits, the applicant is required to file a final plat with Pinel1as County and the
City..
,
Attached dwellings typically are permitted in the,lMDR District as a Level
One', Flexible Standard Development request, provided the plan meets eight
flexibiiity criteria: The plan does not meet two criteria: 1) parcel developed before
the Code was adopt~d and 2) dwelling units are in more than two buildings.
Developing the site with a maximum of two buildings would be out of scale with
the neighborhood. Application as a Residential Infill Project development was
necessary.
The project includes two internal drives, which meet Code width
requirements and terminate incul-de~sacs. The condominium association will own
and maintain the private drives, which will be platted 'as separate lots. The plat
meets Code subdivision requirements. The applicant requests to: 1) reduce front
setbacks of four structures on the two cul-de-sacs from 25 feet to 20 feet: 21
red'uce the rear setbacks of two buildings between the cul-de-sacs from 15 feet to
10 feet; 3) reduce the side setback from 10 feet to zero feet for the common wall
between townhomes; and 4) reduce aU other side setba.cks int~rrial to the site from
, 10 feet to seven feet. '
mcd040'1
04/17/01
17
'J
" ,'.t.. ~./: I"t'.~'..'~": .:....,'.:,.... "\'''11'~ .. ....;;. . >'.. I
, ,
~
. ,~'~.~ "
:. __J '
"I.t~;)'
~;;
The entire site is considered a corner lot with frontage on two streets and
two front setbacks. All required setbacks along the site's perimeter will be met,
including 25-foot front setbacks along Druid Road and lake Drive and 10-foot side'
setbacks elsewhere.
The DRC reviewed the apr>lication and supporting materials on December 14,
2000 a'nd March 15, 2001. Staff recommends approval with four conditions.
Mr. Parry reviewed objections listed in the April 12, 2001 letter from Peter
and Patricia Scott. ,All departments had responded regarding listed concerns. The
cui de sacs are appropriate in size and will provide Solid Waste and Fire Department
,vehicles adequate space to maneuver. The edges of the cui de sacs do not impinge
on side sotbacks. C9de requires all new construction to bury utilities. The
applicant agreed tolo,cate the street lights so they do not shine on adjacent
properties. The area features other two-story structures. The proposed height is is
two feet less than permitted. Referenced easements are on adjoining lots and do '
not impact this project. The lMDR district allows 7.5 dwelling units per acre.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the easements will be corrected
on the site plan. The private road meets all City construction requirements.
Concern was expressed in the future the homeowners may request the City
maintain the roads. Mr. Parry said a condition could be added to the plat and
related documents indicating homeowners are prohibited from requesting City
maintenance of the project's private roads. It was recommended this information
be inCluded to advise future homeowners.
Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the applicant does not control the entire property.
Two quick claim deeds must be submitted to the legal Department before the
property can be annexed and permits issu'ed.
Ralph Quaretetti, applicant, said the site is difficult to develop due to its
shape and topography. He said the project fits the neighborhood. He said has built
these popular models previously, In response to a question, he ,said he accepts the
conditions. He anticipated his attorney soon will resolve related ownership issues. '
Five persons spoke in opposition to the project. In response, Ms. Tarapani
said the request does not change the site's plan category or zoning. The lMDR
dist'rict allows attached single-family residences. The setbacks are consistent with
single-family residential development. If the site plan undergoes material changes, it
must be returned to the board for review.
Concern was expressed the separation is inadequate between the lake
Avenue access points to private roads to the east and City streets to the west. Ms.
Fierce said the City engineer had signed off on the plan. Ms. Tarapani said several
of the units would be lost if the roads were aligned.
Octavia Cabrera, representative, said lake Avenue is a County road. The
project must ,obtain driveway permits. He said the project addresses County
mcd040 1
04/17/01
18
, '.' ,I',
, ",
~
c,!ncerns regarding the separation issue. He said the jog exceeds Pinellas County
requirements. In response to questions, he stated the site naturally drains to the
southwest, where a pond will be installed. As the property drops four feet from
east to west, he said the project will not affect drainage to properties east of the
site. He said the site is below the property abutting on Druid Road East. Regarding
privacy, he said the site will be fenced and landscaped and meet required setbacks
along its perimeter. Only one window in each building's second floor will face east.
It was no~ed the property could have been platted with single-family residences,
with similar setbacks, and 30 feet in height.
(~W"
c \1.,!!~t:I
, Member Hooper moved to approve the Flexible Development request to
permit attached dwellings in the LMDR District for more than two buildings, on a lot
that was not va,cant on the date of the Code's adoption: to reduce front setbacks
along internal, private roads from 25 feet to 21 feet, reduce rear setbacks on
internal property lines from 1 5 feet to 13, feet, reduce side setbacks along internal
property lines from 10 feet to 8.5 feet, and reduce side setbacks from 10 feet to
zero feet for common wall construction for all buildings; and Preliminary plat
approval of 32 lots for, attached dwellings at Sec. 14-29-15, M&B 43.10, 43.11,
, 43.12, and 43.16 with conditions: 1) annexation of portion of property, currently in
Pin~lIas County to be approved (AN X 00-12-03): 2) final plat, with notes related to
maintenance of private roads, to be recorded with Pinellas County and City prior to
issuance of any permits; 3) property ownership and maintenance documents of
common areas to be submitted to and approved by Legal Department prior to
second reading of annexation ordinance; and 4) all buildings to be fully secured until
demolition.. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gildersleeve, Mazur,
Moran, Petersen, and Hooper and Chair Figurski voted "Aye"; Member Pliska voted
"Nay. II Motion carried.
ITEM 0 - lEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS
Item #01. - 1601 Druid Road East: Charles Hammrick. Dorothv E. Hammrick.
Richard L. Kamenskv & Elizabeth Plecker (Sun Ketch ConstructionlTom Quareteti.
V.P.l - Ownerl Aoolicant. Request annexation of 3.178 acres to the City of
Clearwater, and Land Use Plan amendment to RU, Residential Urban Classification,
and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District at Sec. 14-29-15,
M&B 43.10, 43.11, 43.12, and 43.16. ANX 01-12-03
, Mr. Parry presented the application. The property owners request
annexation to receive City water and sewer service. They are aware the sewer
impact fee is $900 and water impact fee is $480 per dwelling unit based on 5/8-
inch'meter. Fees must be paid before building permits are issued. The applicants
also are aware of additional costs to connect to the City utility systems. Staff
, recommends approval with two conditions.
w
Member Hooper moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 3.178
acres to ,the City of Clearwater, and Land Use Plan amendment to RU, Residential
Urban Classification, and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential
mcd040 1
19
04/17/01
',.( ',~. ',' ,~~ ,:~ ,c\' .:. ',i , c
~. ' .1. I,' '>J, , "":':. /." '.> .....~ '
"
,
,".",' .:
. ,. T, . >",' ~
'>'
: I , ...;. . ~.'; .' " " I
. +, '~. .
. \', .
" ,
~,
~I~.....
'. ..
!,...~~)
,~
, ,
, "
'"
District at Sec. 14-29-15, M&B 43.10, 43.11, 43.12, and 43.16. The motion was
duly seco.nded and carried unanimously.
Item #02 - 812 Pinellas Street: Thomoson Executive 'CElnter Partnershlo Number
Two - Owner/Apolicant. Request amendment to Comprehensive Plan's Future Land
Use Map from Residential Urban (RU) to Residential/Office General (R/OG), and
rezoning from the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district to the Office (0)
district at Lot 13 and south % of vacated alley adjoining on the North, Btock 10,
Milton Park Subdivision; LUZ 01-02-04
Mr; Givens reviewed the request. The property owner requests this plan
amendment and ,rezoning application to 'allow office redevelopment on this 0.17-
acre parcel. The subject parcel, currently vacant, was developed to provide non-
residential parking for the adjoining office center, developed with Thompson
Executive Office Center. The site is within two zoning districts and future land use
plan classifications. Lots 6, 7, 8, 11, & 12, to the west, belong to the applicant
and are zoned Office (0) district with a future land use plan classification of
Residential/Office General. The eastern portion of the property is zoned LMDR, Low
Medium Density Residential with a future land use plan classification of Residential
Urban. The applicant wishes to rezone the eastern parcel to Office (0) district with
a future land use plan designation of Residential/Office General. The property is on
the north side of Pinellas Street, east of S. Myrtle Avenue.
, , .
Office development is not permitted in a Residential Urban plan classification.
Recognizing this limitation, the applicant requests the changes to bring this parcel
, into consistency with the Countywide Plan and City zoning district. The
amendments will allow the applicant to manage and use both parcels with the same
use and redevelop the subject site with the intended office use.
Also, the applicant has applied for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment '
Program with a Comprehensive landscape Program to streamline redevelopment
is,sues. That request has been reviewed by the COB in Item #C1 (Fl 01-02-07).
The PPC {Pinellas Planning, Councill will review the land use plan amendment as a
level1-Type A sub-threshold amendment. Staff recommends approval. '
Member Hooper moved to recommend approval to amend the
Comprehensive Plan's Future 'Land Use Map from Residential Urban (RU) to
Residential/Office General (R/OG), and rezone the property from the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) district to the Office (0) district at Lot 13 and south %
of vacated alley adjoining on the North, Block 10, Milton Park Subdivision. The
motion' wa's duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Item #03 '- 1972 East Skvllne Drive: CraiQ M. & Lisa M. Johnson - Owner/
Apolicant. Request annexation of 0.18 acre to the City of Clearwater and a land
,Use Plan amendment to RL, Residential Low Classification, and rezoning,to LMDR,
Low Medium Density Residential District at Lot 66; Skyline Groves in Section 06,
Township 29 South, Range 16 East. ANX 01-02-05 .
mcd0401
04/17/01
20
'~
, .'
./
('P~iJ)
~.:::~/
, "
u
"'~1-.. ~~ c" ~ '
Staff distributed a copy of Planner Lochen Wood's resume.
Member Petersen moved to qualify lochen Wood as an expert in the field of
planning. The motion was duly, seconded and carried unanimously.
Ms. Wood presented the request. The property owners request annexation
to receive City water and sewer service. The 0.18-acre site has a single-family
, residential home. The applicants paid the $900 sewer impact fee on February 21,
2001" They are aware of approxImately $800 in additional costs they must pay to
extend sewer service to their property. The City also requires payment of a utility
deposit for the home. Staff recommends approval.
Member Gildersleeve moved to recommend approval of a land Use Plan
amendment to R/Ol, Residential/Office limited Classification and rezoning to 0,
Office District of 0.67 acre at lots 1 and 2, Crystal Heights Subdivision, in Section
'16, Township 29 South, Range 16 East. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously;
Item #D4 ,;. Comprehensive Plan Amendments Related to BOBch bv Des;cm - Citv of
Clearwater AooUcant. Request review and approval of amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan. CPA 01-03-01
Senior Planner Gina l. Clayton presented the recommended amendments. '
Clearwater Beach, a 543-acre barrier island oriented north.south, is on the Gulf of
Mexico, west of Clearwater Harbor and the Intracoastal Waterway. Access from the
mainland is via Memorial Causeway and the Clearwater PassBridge. Memorial
Causeway and Pier 60 separate "North Beach" from "South Beach."
The 1990 Census reported 3,466 residents live on Clearwater beach. Almost
half of the island has residential uses, including single~ and multi-family residences,
townhouses, and condominiums. The remainder of the isla~d is tourist~oriented,
with approximately 3,777 units in properties that range from "mom and pop" motels
to large chain hotels. The "North Beach" commercial district runs along Mandalay
Avenue. The "South Beach" commercIal district is by Clearwater Pass and along
Gulfview Boulevard.
In 1991, the City began discussing the need for a beach development plan
and ordered a traffic study. No real planning efforts occurred until 1 996 when the
City ordered a parking feasibility study and redevelopment report on the Mandalay
Avenue area. The City Commission then authorized a RFP (Request for Proposals) to
determine if a beach CRA (Community Redevelopment Area) was plausible. In
1997, the final report indicated a portion of the beach met the statutory
requirements for eRA designation. Due to concerns'about adverse perceptions
related to the designation, the CommissIon did not pursue CRA approval.
Concerns continued regarding the condition of beach facilities and declining
tourist and market perceptions due to a lack of reinvestment In beach business
properties, poor traffic and pedestrian cIrculation, parking problems, and poor
mcd040 1
21
04/17/01
~../..' ., '. ~ . :" ~ t E '0'\' ILl ~.'~' :.: '... '
,,". .t.
- ,
. ~, c: . i", '
.. ......
: ",I'
~
c /d~ji;i:1
T "'I.~,,p:
~'CtJ '
~{~~~:'~~j'~, ~
'J '.
,1 . .~. f "\
aesthetics. Modern travelers perceived beach facilities; designed for 1960s and
, .
1970s visitors, as shabby, too small, and functi,onal1y obsolete. Due to density and
height restrictions, large private-sector developers did not attempt redevelopment
projects, because the intensity of development opportunities was insufflclemt to
justify costs.
In 1997, the City hired a consultant to identify beach problems, desires, and
opportunities and to determine specific actions to preserve and improve the island.
The planning process to produce the strategic development plan, Clearwater Beach:
Strategies for Revita/ization, involved extensive public input and three surveys of
stakeholders: 11 beach property owners; 2) beach visitors; and 3) hotel/motel
owners/operators. The Clearwater Beach Association, Clearwater Beach Chamber of
Commerce, and Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce Beach Area Council
hosted a series of public meetings. A two-day public design charette and several
other public meetings were conducted. This process identified a number of key
issues. and concerns, including basic code enforcement and maintenance issues, .
complex redevelopment needs, public ~ervices such as parking and transportation,
public facilities, recreation needs, public buildings; and safety. The Plan
recommended 20 projects to address these issues' and opportunities. Many project
ideas were formulated, discussed and critiqued at the public design charette and
gained significant public support.
The City hired consulting firm, Siemon and Larsen, to prepare an
implementation plan that considered fiscal and legal constraints, an economy and
market analysis, and changed conditions. Following Charlie Siemon's presentation of
Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines
to the City in September 2000, 13 public meetings were conducted, including four
Citywide public workshops. The City Commission adopted the plan on February 15,
2001. Beach by Design strategies to revitalize the beach include: 1) land Use; 2)
Mobility; 3) Off-Street Parking; 4) Catalytic Projects; 5) Economic Feasibility &
Financing; and 6) Design Guidelines
Regarding land use, Beach by Design affects most of the area between
Acacia Street, the Clearwater Pass Bridge, Gulf of Mexico, and Clearwater Harbor,
excluding Devon Avenue and Bayside Drive. Beach by Design establishes districts:
1) Old Florida - low scale/intensity area of North Beach. Anticipate renovationl ,
revitalization. Densities generally limited to current levels; 2) Destination Resort -
preferred redevelopment mixes resort residential/hospitality uses on beach front
with retail, restaurant, & residential uses fronting North Mandalay;3) Marina
. Residential - redevelopment of marina-based re'sidential neighborhood with
, commercial uses permitted in specified locations. Public boardwalk desired for
neighborhood between Causeway and Mandalay with potential development of
marina-base9 hotel on Yacht Basin Apartment site; 4) Retail and Restaurant- plan
stresses need for parking garage to accommodate commercial development; 5) Pier
60 ... beautif!,cation efforts for area surrounding roundabout. Area to remain a place
of assembly; 6) Small Motel District - retaIn most buildings for renovation except for
Brightwater Drive, where Plan anticipates development of townhomes/timeshares;
7) Beach Walk -' redevelop South Gulfview into great beach front promenade.
mcd040 1
22
04/17/01
"
.. ,
, ,I
.. \,
<,'
~
'f')
.rJ 4....
t .....
\~..~
"
~
Remove some parking west of Gulfview. Strategy to stimulate area redevelopment;
and 8) Clearwater Pass District - area of strategic revitalization/renovation In
response to improving conditions elsewhere 'on beach.
Regarding catalytic projects, the plan proposes to designate the beach as a
CRD (Community Redevelopment District) to allow the transfer of development
rights within the pla'n area ,and deviate from density standards in limited locations.
To overcome econ'omic constraints associated with beach redevelopment, the plan
suggests a few catalytic resort projects would transform Clearwater beach into a
quality family resort community. For stimulation, the plan proposes to establish a
pool of 600 additional hotel rooms, available for five years in key beach locations
designated as a CRD, upon compliance with specific criteria. CRD locations: 1)
Yacht Basin apartment property on east side of Mandalay, north of Baymont Street;
2) land between Mandalay and Gulf of Mexico between Baymont and Papaya '
streets; 'and 3) land south of Pier 60 parking lot and north of southerly lot lines of
Lots 77 and 126 of the L1oyd-White-Skinner Subdivision between South Gulfview
Bou,levard and Coronado Drive. Units not used within five-year time frame would
cease to exist.
Current density limits of 40 hotel units per acre constrain beach
redevelopm'ent opportunities. The 600 resort.unit density pool will not adversely
impact the island. To ensure plan goals, development must meet 14 criteria,
including a legally enforceable, mandatory evacuation covenant requiring properties
to close down as soon as practical after the National Hurricane Center posts a
hurricane watch. Tenancies will be limited to 30 days. . Destination resort amenities
will discourage guests from driving vehicles on local streets.
Beach by Design guidelines will ensure private development and
redevelopment projects will meet City design objectives. Design guidelines address:
1) density; 2) building height; 3) building design, scale, & mass; 4) setbacks; 5)
street level facades; 6) parking areas; 71 sidewalks; 8) street furniture; 9) street
lighting; 10) fountains, and 11) materials and colors.
. Staff proposes revisions to expand and/or better define redevelopment
policies, recognize Beach by Design as the special area plan approved for
Clearwater beach, designate Clearwater beach as a Cf:lD, create a limited resort unit
density pool for three specific areas, and address transportation concerns.
, The City is substantially built-out and outlying areas are attracting residents
and businesses. For Clearwater to remain competitive, the City needs to be
proactive. While not blighted, many beach structures are considered obsolete or
inefficient by modern standards.
Proposed amendments support construction of catalytic private projects to
spur redevelopment and City investment in public facilities. Development incentives
may be necessary to stimulate private investment. The City previously has allowed
,higher densities through the CRD, and significant consolidation within the
Downtown' Periphery Plan's boundaries. Clearwater permits the transfer of
, , mcd040 1
23
, 04/17/01
: :. '~.: ~ '~J' <~.: ' .. ",,' ~ ..' ~I \ ~ , . ,." ';".: ;:"...... ~ I '.::' ~ ~ ~: .~.~ ~ ~ ''; ~ ;', ., :~. . ~ ..~ . 'j' ~ ~ :. : ': ':, . \, ..... ,. ,1. l..~;. f. ~'.,: .:. ;'" .: !;. .' ,J;.. ;. . '.' . ~'::L ::... ;'", :~~',' t'
, ,
,~,
":)
cf~ ,I,;~ l '
\~.t.!$
, ' ,
~~
'I ~ ~ \ I , . ;
.' ,
.' l>':'
,',
development rights within approved areas. The policy recognizes that sometimes
redevelopment needs to be stimulated and the City needs the flexibility of various
techniques, including development incentives.
Renewal of the beach is critical to the City's economic health. The beach,
an extraordinary natural resource, attracts potential residents, tourists, and a large
seasonal population. As the heart of the City's tourist economy, Clearwater beach,
which,is less than one square-mile, or 3% of the City's land area, contributes 12%
of ad valorem tax revenues collected from the city.
A proposed amendment expands .the concept of a renewed tourist district
and reflects the major elements of Beach by Design. The Code already features the
concept of shared parking.
Proposed revisions support the use of transfer of development rights as a
redevelopment tool within the Beach by Design plan area. County rules permit
special land use designations to exceed density and intensity limitations established
by the Countywide Future land Use Plan. To' be eligible for CRD designation, the
area must meet specific characteristics and the local government must adopt a
special area plan that, governs development potential within the district. The
Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority must approve the
special area plan and apply the special land use designation to the Countywide
Future land Use Map.
The City Commission has adopted Beach by Design, a special area plan
described as a CRD. Clearwater beach, a focal point of the community and Pinellas
County, supports the tourist economy. The beach features numerous businesses
and City-owned recreational facilities, including a recreation center, swimming pool,
boat ramp, ball fields, Pier 60 Park, and the marina. The Beach by Design area has
six land use designations: 1) Residential High; 2) Resort Facilities High; 3)
Commercial General; 4) Institutional; 5) Recreation/Open Space; and 6)
Transportation/Utility. The plan permits density increases beyond current levels
only through the resort unit ,density pool.
The proposed policy provi'des the necessary regulatory link between Beach
by Design, the CRD, and the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. If the CRD .
designation is applied to the City's Future land Use Map, a significant number of
properties would receive a new land use designation, though existing development
potential would not change. The CRD designation will permit increased flexibility
related to allowable density and intensity. Use of the density pool is limited to
, specific areas that. feature proximity to land assembly opportunities, or proximity to
, the dry sand beach, Clearwater Harbor, or the proposed Beach Walk. Staff will
monitor and track the density pool.
Beach Walk, an important component of Beach by Design, would relocate
South Gulfview west from the existing right-of-way, which would be vacated and
given to properties that front South Gulfview, Increasing the size of small parcels.
Beach Walk would be a two-way, two-lane roadway with a pair of 30 foot-wide '
mcd0401
24
04/17/01
. ,t ~
.'
.,.. > I ~
..
.',',..
":1'
.....'
'.
"
~': '.;
,:,'
"..'",
.,
;..',
.'
:~' .
''''.
.:>
..:.";
,,'.
'~
'? ~~
i
,',
,M I~,
0,
..,
','
, .
"...
,"
~.; ,
. ,
.,
,"
(;,
~ ~
t..~
, ~
I~~ ;
:),'
I ':.:~
',I "
,"
I
',.
t<'i
"'~':I'
S\:
'"
'!?:-
~ ~. .
,.1,",_
,0
.I,:'C
;,l.:
.: ~.'
",
't
,1".-
",
: :~: I';
~ :
': ,'~ !
"
'dt
"~'i.,
,i'::
'~
pathways along the western edge ~ one for pedestrians ~ one for bicycles and roller
bladers. The plan proposes to reconstruct the eastern half of the existing right-of-
way for a promenade with sidewalk cafe seating and other sidewalk activities.
Beach Walk would improve pedestrian movement and create a drive with views of
the beach and Gulf of Mexico.
Regarding mobility, Beach by Design focuses on the arrival and distribution
of traffic, and the need and desirability of alternative transportation modes including
pedestrian, bicycle, intra-beach, intra-Clearwater, and inter-island transit. Also
addressed is access rationing; which considers residential and guest priorities, and
the possibility of rationing access via controlled access lanes. Recommended
improvements include widening Coronado to three lanes, relocating South Gulfview
to the west to create Beach Walk along traffic-calmed South Gulfview, Mandalay
Avenue road improvements, a continuous sidewalk system south of the roundabout,
sidewalks ~J1ong N. Mandalay, and an intra-beach transit system.
(~fI~
~'J!r#
Staff supports Beach by Design's proposal to improve the beach
transportation network's arrival and distribution system and the need for alternative
modes of transportation. Clearwater beach, urban in nature, has limited access to
and from the mainland and a limited street network to handle island-wide
transportation. A large number of residents, visitors, business owners, and
employees compete for access, resulting in significant traffic delays, particularly
during peal< periods. The City has committed to replacing the Memorial Causeway
Bridge to improve service. The proposed policy recognizes that improvements are
necessary for beach traffic. The City must evaluate the network to coordinate
necessary improvements with construction of the new bridge., The plan identifies
the beach's pedestrian environment as "hostile" and addresses the need to develop
a pedestrian system to reduce beach traffic. Beach by Design r~commends a ,
continuous sidewalk system be constructed with sidewalk width standards specific
to areas within the CRD.
. ' '.~
...J
The proposed policy will require further evaluation of an intra-beach transit
system. This potentially long-term solutio!1 would reduce the number of intra-island
vehicular trips. Staff recommends evaluation of the potential route, costs and
benefits of such a system, and identification of funding source. Staff proposes
amendments to the Transportation Element of .the Comprehensive Plan, which
currently does not address traffic congestion on Clearwater beach. Staff proposes
'to recognize seasonal traffic problems and to determine the feasibility of solutions.
The City 'needs to monitor the amount of traffic accessing the beach and how it
navigates the beach. The City needs to handle increased traffic by evaluating
transportation alternatives, such as rationing access, an express bus service from
the mainland, intra-beach and inter-barrier island transit, increased pedestrianism,
,etc. to determine which methods best address traffic problems. Improvements are
needed to improve year-round traffic flows. The City should consider
maintaining/improving levels of service, preserving commercial and residential area
accessibility, and remedying safety or operational problems. Transportation
improvements geared toward enhancing beach economic development potential
should be considered.
mcd040 1
25
04/17/01
,.! ' '.." , " ...: OJ'.", ..". .~1" J 1"..... ~ ~' ~' ~:. .:..4 :1. ~~ . + < .::' ".:' ~ ." I...' ~:.' ..~j,~l....~ lo', . ': ~_.;t'"..', ,:'; ',~ ; :...)~' ':..: .;,..u~',~.
~
~Ul~:
, ! :>
. .. '1.:X'
\..J '
As vehicles visit the City's coastal areas every day, transportation and '
par~ing must be considered coastal management issues. Staff proposes
amendments to the Coastal Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan to
encourage increased transportation service to the beach, between barrier islands,
and to determine if an intra-beach transit system is feasible and affordable. While
existing policy encourages trolley service between the mainland and the beach, it is
necessary also to address travel between the City's barrier islands, and beach
communities south of the City, and focus on ways to reduce the amount of traffic
arriving and departing from the beach. The average number of daily trips on
roadways connecting the barrier islands range from 1 2,793 to 21,644. Reducing
these numbers will reduce congestion and pollution, and improve the quality of life.
PST A (Plnellas Suncoast Transit Authorityl recently established trolley
service connecting the Clearwater section of Sand Key with Pass':A-Grille, the
County's most southerly beach community. Beach by Design recommends the City
work with t:'ST A to extend the transit route to link Clearwater beach with other
barrier island communities. In addition to reducing the number of generated trips,
this connection could enhance County tourism.
To reduce beach congestion, Beach by Design suggests integrating an intra-
beach transit system into Beach Walk improvements. In addition to the roadway
, and pair of trails, the plan recommends dedicating an area for a fixed transit
guideway system to transport passengers between, North and South Beach to public
parking and commercial areas. Beach by Design supports a fixed guideway system,
separated"from traffic to permit an operating schedule not affected by traffic, which
encourages system use. A fixed guideway offers pedestrians transp~rtation
options. Due to difficulties and costs associated with developing a guideway
system, staff proposes review to determine costs and benefits. '
Regarding economic reality and feasibility, the plan estimates public
investment costs for all proposed road, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements at
$1 2-million. The Plan proposes that City revenues such as Pennies for Pinellas and
the capital improvement program could finance improvements, as well as developer
contributions, tax increment financing, grants, and increased ad valorem taxes
resulting from new development. The plan also recommends seeking federal
funding. for capital costs related to the' intra-beach and beach access transit
systems.
Regarding off-street parking, the plan proposes construction of at least two
garages when revitalization efforts generate additional demand. One garage is
proposed for south of Pier 60 and one behind Pelican Walk. Additional garage sites
are on the west side of Mandalay between Rockaway and Bay Esplanade, in the
Clearwater Pass District" and at the Clearwater Marina.
A total of 695 surface parking spaces are west of Gulfview, south of Pier,
60. While these valuable parking spaces, on publicly~owned beach front property
provide convenient beach access, they greatly compromise the beach's natural
mcd040 1
26
04/17/01
""
"..\~
(~ ,
., '."'J~I;
I c.~~ ~
" ,
~:'
" '
\
''''(~;I:;'' '
beauty, obscure the view 01 the Gulf, and preclude 'the use of this property from
any pedestrian and/or recreational uses. While the City acknowledges the number
of needed parking spaces will increase. it must balance parking demands with the
need for an attra,ctive public gulf front amenity. The proposed policy recognizes the
need to relocate some or all of these spaces. It is unlikely enough land can be
purchased to replace parking spaces with another surface lot. Structured parking is
the most attractive and realistic, alternative. The proposed policy also implies that
the private sector also may provide structured pa~king, open to the public should it
not be economically feasible for the City to provide such facilities
Public/private partnerships are valuable endeavors for most redevelopment
situations.' Improvements, such as parking, usually aid redevelopment efforts but
are costly. Due to the significant cost of beach property and construction, the City
may not be able to afford to build parking structures. The City recognizes it may be
best to work with the private sector to provide new parking spaces as
redevelopment occurs. The proposed policy also encourages replacement of some
, or all public surface parking west of Gulfview for construction of Beach Walk.
The objectives and policies of the Capital Improvements Element do not
recognize the importance of capital improvements recommended by redevelopment
or special area plans. As a key element of comprehensive planning efforts, the .-
City's capital budgeting process'should reflect redevelopment needs for investment
in City-owned infrastructure. These plans must be considered when prioritizing
capital improvements budget projects.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan, which redefine City redevelopment policies, recognize
adoption of Beach by Design, create a Community Redevelopment District for
portions of Clearwater beach, articulate the need to analyze and find solutions for
beach traffic issues, support relocating public parking from the gulf-front, encourage;
alternative modes of transportation on the beach, support public/private
partnerships for public beach parking, and support integrating improvements
proposed by special area plans into the capital improvement budget process. These
proposed amendments further the goals and many objectives already in the
Comprehensive Plan.
" In response to a question, Planning Director Ralph Stone said the time limit
established, for use of the 600 resort-unit density pool is intended to peak interest
and create a sense of urgency. A policy revision was recommended to allow the
vacation of a rlght~of-way when deemed appropriate. Mr. Stone agreed the
vacation of rights-of-way is an important tool for redevelopment projects. Design
guidelines and land areas will determine the ability to ,transfer development rights.
Member Petersen moved to recommend approval of amendments to the
dty's Comprehensive Plan related to Beach by Design. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
mcd040 1
27
04/17/01
I ~ C j ,
. I , .
. . . F. .
:' "
.", .",..' c.
, ' ,
\..... ."},
I'.' ",
,< ,
"
..,
, '.' ~
, "
, "I,
~ ITEM E -'APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
, 'Member Petersen moved to approve the minutp.s of regular meeting of March
20, 2001, as recorded andsubinitted in ,written summation to each board member.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
, ,
ITEM F - DIRECTORS ITEMS
Consent Atlenda '
"
Discussion ensued regarding implementing a Consent Agenda. It was
suggested staff identify which items are not controversial, and have not been
objected to via letters or telephone calls. It was suggested each related item be
, identified for the audIence and a map of the property's location be broadcast. If
there' are questions, the item could be pulled from the Consent Agenda. All
Corisent Agenda items are approved by one motion.
, , ,
Concern was expressed the public may feel the board has not done its due
diligence. It was felt those Interested in discussion would appear. Concern was
expressed interested parties may arrive late, assuming their item will be heard late
in the meeting. It was suggested this method be explain'ed in adver~isements and
notices.
,;" t''''' '
: ,\",,~;.I
Member Petersen moved for the COB to adopt tho Consent Agenda process
as part of ,its meeting procedures. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Meetintl Start Time
It was suggested the start of meetings be rescheduled to 2:00 p.m.
Member Petersen moved to reschedule the start time of COB meetings to
2:00 p.m., starting June 19, 2001. The motion was duly seconded.
Concern was expressed the meetings will run too late. It was felt the
meeting process should be shorter if some items are considered and approved via a
Consen~ Agenda.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
, (';.:':;i
~
mcd0401
28
04/17/01, '
"
~i~i~~}:,/.:',:;. ~:~:,t l r.,;~.;.~~:l~~}~~ ~.).:,; ,~'.L. \",. l~' .,~ .~~;):"'~.i' . '.... j, ~'~ ' .
" <", ~H;: '~i~: '; I <,(~ ',;1 ~~..,:. I~.. '.~" ~~I~.,. ,;.<,' ,.1:- , :,i ~ I~'! .~.';. ~,~'.~'~:t ~ 'I;~~'-t '~';:1 .~" ),,:, ,i. , . i '.
',~ .' r. " .,.: J ,
, :::, ',,:',+/::. ::.:(:
,',
,", .,
~;I:" ~:'~~ <;fi~A~ .;:~';'\\f;!~:('!X'~,<;",;:~ ,:;' :~:},/' ,,~:' :~':;':" :":""
!.{'f'~;(' t>-"':~~;'t( ".J}' l;ll."'{o;. '.~ )~ ..t,[.,.~. II? ", '
~~'I~'!ti"i~:,.l..~\~I,I~>,l!:'~t~<' \' "'~~J\t!,;I\:," :1".\,:".' :l.'t',F I" <,
;If[~tj:'t::}~/,:''?;'.'>'''' ,.,.:' ... ;" .,;
j,{,/';~J ~ '}; . \',
'~?i}::;;:,::;:,I' ,; ';
T.' ',' t,.
:/::':':~',:i", ":;.."
~_: ~'. I: ,~
:~.'7.:d Y'?'1'"
,0:. .: '
~T',~,':, ..
1:"1;<
'. '
:' ':".!"
.";:,,,,'
l"
, .,,' ,
~,~:;; '.
~f.~~/,.." .-
ft'};, ,.
;I.~;,;", . ."
..... ,+L',
';'(,:':,:1"".,
", :
'~'I .
'j"
~(r" 't:
~~...~ " . ..~:
\, .j ,\,
;F..p',',','",' ',',"
:~?~'O'"
:-,'....... . .
'~'.? ~, ': .
f ;~
.' "
",
:1 t . .:.:' ",' ,
\,
, ,
~{.!}F:""(,,,
:(:.i>;'
~\ft'::'
\':'>~,,':,~' ' "':
.:\
'0'; (:
~Ir~ ';.:: ,f J :,=, < I
~?:; .;~T ~d\,. ~
,'.:.,:,' I, .
. >' ~, , {
'"
.: ~
~.I ,
. :~I
..~:. ~:.~ ! ,:
\';", ' '
,''"''0
\.\'~ , .;i)..?
l:i(;~F::.. ..
l" ,'iI.. ,I
lP~'~!~:.';- :,' ,j',
"j- T: "
"
",
, '
'(I'
, "
,"
"'. .
"
I
,
",
, '
ITEM G'. ADJOURNMENT
"
, ~::,"~:'i:~'.,\"
The,meetlng adjourned at 4:12 p;m.',
~~Ad~Y--~
, Board Reporter '
~ .
.1
'I
" '
. ~ \ I ,.
I ~. ,
'I'
"
,','
,."
..",
.".,
','
','
" ,
<',
" ,
"
, ,
\ '
,;,",. .
,:'
, ~ I
,',' ,
, '
,J,
I"~
, .,
.!; .
:., .:'
, I, J :'1
"I ' :' 'I
I.:
I,
, I
"I
"
0,
Yd.;
\
~ .' l "
"
"
, ,
, ~.
, ,
"
>1.' .
mc:d040 1
. ";"
. '", ~ . ; < ,
:, ," ". '.
;i~\.;';:":':, ',:" "', "
"~~""N ;;"..:,v.'.:';"ltt';; ~,.ttI',
"
"
',.
: )'.
'. t,
-<
", t
"
, ,
\
~ .,
" .
:'
",
~, .
,I)'
"
I,
.,
"
, \
j." >
'"
"
, ,,', .;', ',.. ~; ;,~;, ",:::. ~', ,:, 't ;"" .', :;., ~ '., ">,~.",~.,:.; "';" 1'j;,:: ,; J; ,/ ,<,; 1~'~':l,~ ~,,:: ~ ;~'\';'" i~ '<"~;'" ':(>1' "'\;!".;'~:"'" ; i,i,:~';::!) ';;.~/"f i,l; ,':,1',; )':~;f ,:::.' :fi~iA~;:' '
\lit, I'.j;..,,,! lili.~,,~":d~,; .!R, eJ~.,1: ',,', ,J)V,:J..l1,~I'tC'I),~dp;: ",,'" I';"" '.\ ,'!',,:,;,~',':\F....,,:;'!.,.:rf~I~,f f,,'\>'.!T.;yr.-'\i\, ,;,Q6/;11-.'I, f .,~.',fl(.'L',I,;:'i '",h..;)J;~:'''\f,1. ~,;,:~'f.{~,,:<:..,~I,.,~I:.l..~ b
',!
" ,
,',
'. '
, "
:1
'I
, ,
.'
c,,, ,
"I,.
'1 ..' ~.
'l
'f
. 'I.
{TO,
,"
,"
"
','
'I ,
, ,l 'I:
l'
"
".
"
,i
"
-,'
,',
, ,
> .,
..
.' , i'
'j"
,,'
\'1""
,\ 'I
'<
"
./ ;
'. "
"
"
"
, ;
"
"
/':i
.'
~ ' ~
, \
" '
29
, , .' 04/17/01.