Loading...
01/22/2002 (2) '. .",~..' "..::..,.'~'.' ....; '~:"" :.1 ~.'.... " .:..... ~". .:..', ..... ~ ,'.~." ..:~:.' , '. .... .' :.,..:.:........,.,., .:',"""""1' .,' ,; :i' . .' " ,: " , ~.. , , " " '. ", ~~~':-<',i, {:;':'/:/':;~, ,"}r~,f,\:::,:;::4r:~!;:i:(:~/;": /;.~l'" \ '; J . " :~ '. ~I ~ /: ',~: ", " '. , ' I, "'~' :'t', . ';~~f# ;'L', .. " j I,' " ., . .:~r,: ", . ' < ~ . Cc 'J ...'. ;~~ '., . ~ .' , ..' , , ,'1' ,..~, . J. "\'~'I+:: .. .: t.. ;. ,: V:" ',', ~. .}". :' ;: :: I., ~', ';11:'>:~1. ,.' \ ~ ' . i""\ Wit:";;,',':,,, ~i~;~:\ ::, \. ~:~~~~ :', I.~' . . l' ~~!::;: .: 1;/.\',:,' , " [", .. '., \:;.::~:... ;;>,';:z"$":': .. I 1'" '.' i- ~ ' . ~ . . "..!t . '. ~ ,,' :,-:' ....~.. . F',' . :.)1. .,1 '....tl. I..:' : ;~ ~l t; ,: . ) .", .. , ;' ,', " . '" " " ~. , , " ;],: 2)" , ...' ;. ,:. .. " " c' r.." 'l, ::'0' t"" , " ',' .'" , , '" ',~, /'. '. , , , , .' 'j " .,. Oc,': >'" '. l' COB ,Commu~ity DeveI9'pmei)t- Board ,Meeting , 'MINUTES ,.' Date " ;'1 i l, "., ,~!, ~I . " " " " ", ,.' ~. ') ,.' , " ,',. o , / ;) ;;'/0 d- "I .. " " ',' i ~ c . ,.' I 'I, ,', h , I , ' 1, . , ! I I 'I I I ; I ,I 50/ >' c ~ , 0' . , " \' '~ . .,j' '{:',:: ' " ft' , ACTION AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER January 22, 2002 , Meeting called to order at 2:00 p,m. at City Hall ' A. APPRQVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: December 14, 2001 ACTION: APPROVED 7:0 B. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (Items 1-4).' The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,. neighboring property owners, etc. and will be' approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. C) 1. ' Case: LUZ01-09-08 - 19034 US19 North Level Three Application Owner/Applicant: Long Bow Corporation Representative: Todd Pressman' Location: ,4.3 acres on the west side of US 1 9 North, approximately 1,060 feet , north of Nursery Road and 320 feet east of Summerlin Drive and 440 feet south of the Ham 'Boulevard intersection. Atlas Page: 3178 'Request: a) Land Use Plan amendment from CG, Commercial General Classification to RM, Residential Medium Classification, and b) rezoning from C, Commercial 'District'to MOR, Medium Density Residential District. ' 'Proposed Use: Multi-family residential ' Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner ACTION: Recommended Approval - 7:0 2~ 'Case: FL01-11-35 - 1135 Marshall Street Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Mr. Norris Gould and Mr. J. Frank Hancock Location: C. 16 acres on the southwest corner of Marshall street and North Madison Avenue , , Atlas Page: 269A Zoning: MOR, Medium Density residential District ,Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (north) setback along Marshall 'Street from 25 to 16 feet to building, reduce the front (east) setback along , North Madison Avenue from 25 to 22.5 feet to building, and reduce the minimum ' lot size from 10,000 to 7,022.5 square feet, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-304.G. Proposed Use: A 1,788 square foot addition (as part of a separate dwelling) attached to an existing 760 square foot dwelling (2 units total). Condition: That the garages be designed with a minimum 20-foot front setback along Marshall Street, in order to provide a 20-foot long driveway Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner " '. ACTION: Approved with 1 condition - 7:0 c. '~ l . ., . . ~':: ,.;,j~.~ ':;~/~'~;~F ~.\ \ . . . , .!', c ~ .i, ; ':;", I ':t?~-: ~>::,:! :.:.;;.~..:> .;~.:>')' ': .. . "., .:'!~. ~ < :'j ':/:;' ~ ~./.t .. :' 1 :. :~..:~:, '. }.: I .: ' ,".i;,:,>::, ;,',,', ,;' , , , I' r.< . . ..'. :.r; f,.'<:,~ --.,;~~;~'J.~ ,:' :,~l.~I. " ,,' , ,1:'.,0 ;>.,: '. , }.;,' ',-, " , '. ' --, ~~ ..,~, , 3. , , 'j'" , ,Case: FU;n*11-34 - 1641 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application Owner: Linea Auto Parts Applicant: Mr. Mike Coleman (PLA Construction) for Buddy Bi-Rite Representative: Ms. ,Chris Papandreas, AICP (King Engineering Associates, Inc.) Location:' 0.46 acres on the southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Keystone Avenue Atlas Page:' 2978. Zoning: C, Commercial District 'Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (westl setback along Keystone Avenue from 25 to 20 feet to building, reduce the front (north) setback along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 25 to 20 feet to building and reduce the required , number of parking spaces from 21 to 13 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill , Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704. Proposed Use: A 4,200 square foot retail sales and service establishment Conditions: 1) That the final design of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the COB; and 2) all signage comply with Code, be architecturally coordinated with the building and limited to two attached signs and one monument-style, freestanding sign, to the satisfaction of staff. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner ACTION: Approved with 2 conditions. 7:0 4_ Case:' APP01-12-04 - 141' Devon Drive Owner: Chris Giotaskis ,Applicant/Appellant: James A. M~rtin, Jr. (145 Devon Drive) Location: 0.16 acres on the south side of Devon Drive, approximately 600 feet east, of Hamden Drive Atlas Page: 276A. Proposed Use: A 54Hfoot dock with boatlift Request: Appeal'of a Level 1 (Flexible standard Development) decision by the Community Development Coordinator who approved certain deviations to the dock requirements for the property at 145 Devon Drive, under the appeal provisions of Section 4-501 of the Community Development Code. ' Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner ACTION: Discussion; Case Was not removed from Consent Agenda; decision of the Community Development Coordinator was upheld; the appeal was not approved. - 7:0 C. DIRECTORtS ITEMS, , TOR Annual Report - w Given Density Pool Report - Given Brief presentation of Guideway Concept Proposal - Ken Sides, Public Works Administration - G~en ' D. ADJOURNMENT - 4: 12 p.m. ,..._~_..,,'.",' I.,.t,:,.;..;....\~ ..t.'.r.....~.... .. ':'.:\~; f':'~1;' jl!,.", .''''r:..;'':;,~I~''..'/~'\ ,:'.t. ;":'."', ' . ~:. :.:....' ~ ~ . 0.' ., ,.'. :', ".' ..'1, .", :....."0.: .: ,..:,' ~,t L~ I,.'. ~. : '.. :. '.' . ". ;.. ~ ..... .' I',". .f.,', ,:'",:' " '.. , . .....: '".. ,~' 'I , , , " (). "iW ' " 'J " ,"' '"1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER January 22, 2002 Present: , Gerald Figurski Carlen A. Petersen David Gildersleeve Edward Mazur, Jr. Shirley Moran Alex Plisko Ed Hooper Frank Hibbard' Chair' Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Alternate Board Member (non-voting) , Also Present: L.eslie Dougall-Sides , Cynthia Tarapani Lisa L. Fierce Brenda Moses Assistant City Attorney , Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge ~f Allegiance." ' , To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed hl that order. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: December' 14, 2001 Member Hooper moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 14, 2001, as submitted in 'written summation to each Board Member. The motion was duly' seconded and carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (Items 1-4). The following cases are not contested by the' appJic,ant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote'at the beginning of the meeting. 1. , Case: LUZ01-09-08 - 19034 US19 North Leve/Three Application Owner/Applicant: Long Bow Corporation Representative: Todd Pres'sman ,L.ocation: 4.3 acres on the west sido of US 19 North, approximately 1,060 feet north of Nursery Road and 320 feet east of Summerlin Drive and 440 feet south of the Ham Boulevard intersection. Atlas Page: 317B Req'uBst: a) L.andUse Plan amendment from CG, Commercial General Classification to RM, Residential Medium Classification, and b) rezoning from C, Commercial District to MDR, Medium Density Residential District. Proposed Use: Multi-family residential 'Presenter: Etlm S. Udoh, Senior Planner mcd0102 1 01/22/02 ~ The property owner is requesting an amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from Commercial General to Residential Medium and a rezoning from the Commercial (C) to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district for the subject site is necessary to enable the applicant to develop the vacant 187,308 square foot,.4.3 acre site with attached (townhouses) residential dwellings. The neighborhood is surrounded by commercial and multi-family uses. The proposed residential use will blend into the existing neighborhood and serve as a transition between more intensive mUlti-family uses to the northwest and commercial uses to the south and northeast. The proposed Residential Medium Future Land Use classification and Medium Density Residential zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive Plans, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor affect " the provision of public services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent ~ith the development regulations of the City. " The Planning Department recommends approval of the following actions on this 'application: 1) Amend the Future Land Use Plan designation of .19034 U.S. Highway 19 (Lot 1, Bradford Court Subdivision) from Commercial General to Residential Medium, and 2) amend the Zoning District designation of 19034 U.S. Highway 19 North (Lot 1, Bradford Court Subdivision) from Commercial (C) to Medium Density Residehtial (MDR). 2. Case: FL01-11-35 - , 135 Marshall Street Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Mr. Norris Gould and Mr. J. Frank Hancock Location: 0.1 6 acres on the southwest corner of Marshall street and North Madison Avenue Atlas Page: 269A Zoning: MDR, Medium Density residential District Request: Flexible Deyelopment approval to reduce the front (north) setback along Marshall Street from 25 to 16 feet to building, reduce the front (east) setback along North Madison Avenue from 25 to 22.5 feet to building, and reduce the minimum lot size from 10,000 to 7,022.5 square feet, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-304.G. Proposed Use: A 1,788 square foot addition (as part of a separate dwelling) attached to an existing 760 square foot dwelling (2 units total). Presenter: ,Wayne Wells, Senior Planner "^'-', ',..-) I' 'I':,tl The property owner is requesting Flexible Development approval to reduce the, minimum lotarea from 10,000 to 7,022.5 square feet, reduce the front setback from 25 to 16 feet to building along Marshall Street and reduce the front setback from 25 to 22.5 feet to building along Madison Avenue, as a Residential,lnfillProject. .'~ The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting , materials on December 13, 2001. The Planning Department recommends approval of the' Flexible Development application to expand an existing single-family detached dwelling to a duplex (two attached dwelling units) with a reduction in the minimum lot area from 10,000 squaro feet to 7,022.5 square feet, a reduction in the front setback from 25 to 16 feet to bU,lIdlng along Marshall Street and a reduction in the ,front setback from 25 feet to 22.5 mcd0102 2 01/22/02 Id;~~.t.;~~~',~'.;: '.."\ . ,.:vl.: "l:<1 ;:.\ . \" : ~ ~ 'T : .- ' ~, . \: 'r. . . ''v ' '" '., 1 , .. J . . ~ feet to building along Madison Avenue, as a Residential lnfil! Project, with the following bases and condition: Bases for Aooroval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Resldentlallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-304G; 2) the proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code, including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) the development is compatible with the' surrounding area arid may encourage redevelopment of the area. Condition: That the garages be designed with a minimum 20-foot front setback along Marshall Street, in order to provide a 20-100t long driveway. 3. Case: Fl01.11.34 - 1641 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application Owner: Linco Auto Parts 'Applicant: Mr. Mike Coleman (PLA Construction) for Buddy Bi-Rite Representative: Ms. Chris Papandreas, AICP (King Engineering Associates, Inc.) Location: 0.46 acres on the southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Keystone Avenue ' Atlas Page: 2978. Zoning: C, Commercial District Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (west) setback along Keystone Avenue from 25 to 20 feet to building, reduce the front (north) setback along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from '25 to 20 feet to building and reduce the required number of parking spaces from 21 to 13 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704. Proposed Use: A 4,200 square foot retail sales and service establishment Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner (-) . .....,~ The property owner Is requesting Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (west) setback along Keystone Avenue from 25 to 20 feet to building, reduce the front (north) setback along Gulf to Bay Boulevard from 25 to 20 feet to building and reduce the required number of parking spaces from 21 to 13 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2. 704 with a Comprehensive Landscape Program per Section 3-1202.G and Comprehensive Sign Program. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on July 1 2, 2001. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to reduce the front lwestl setback along Keystone Avenue from 25 to 20 feet and to reduce the front (north) setback along Gulf to Bay Boulevard from 25 to 20 feet and reduce the required parking spaces from 21 to 1 3 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (with a Comprehensive Landscape Program), under the provisions of Section 2-704 for the site at 1641 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, with the following bases and conditions: '.J Basis for Aooroval: 11 The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704 B; 2) the proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisIons of Section 3-1202 G; 3) the proposal Is in compliance with other mcd0102 3 01/22/02 ,~ /~) '\':,'.')1. l~ standards in the Code Including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-9'13: and 4) the development Is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. ' Conditions: 1) That the final design of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the CDS, and 2) all signage comply with Code, be architect'urally coordinated with the building and limited to two attached signs and one monument-style, freestanding sign, to the satisfaction of staff. In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said that ' Item 4'on the Consent Agenda, Case APP01-12-04, would remain on the Consent Agenda unless the CDS (Community Development Board) pulls it. Member Petersen moved to approve 3 of the 4 Consent Agenda Items: LUZO 1-09- 'OB, FL01-' 1-35, and FL01-11-34 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. , 4. Case: APP01-12-04 - 141 Devon Drive Owner: Chris Giotaskis 'Applicant/Appellant: James A. Martin, Jr. (145 Devon Drive) ,Location: 0.'6 acres on the south side of Devon Drive, approximately 600 feet east of Harnden Drive Atlas Page: 276A. , Proposed Use: A 54-foot dock with boatlift Request: Appeal of a Level 1 (Flexible'Standard Development) decision by the Community Development Coordinator who approved certain deviations to the dock requirements for the property at 145 Devon Drive, under the appeal, provisions of Section 4-50101 the Community Development Code. Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce, acting as the designee of the Community Development Coordinator, presented an overview of the case. This 0.1 B-acre site on the south side of Devon Drive, approximately 65 feet east of Hamden Drive, fronts on a channel off of Clearwater Harbor and contains a 2,000 square foot, one-story dwelling with a 346 square foot dock. , On October 22, 2001, Ms. Lisa Ryan, Advanced Marine Construction, filed an application for Flexible Standard Development approval on behalf of Mr. Chris 'Giotakis ,(property owner) for a dock. The application 'requested an increase in the permitted length of a dock from 35 to 54 feet, due to low water depth and the proximity of sea grasses and . other aquatic plants and 'marine life. Section 3-601 (C)(1 Hb) of the Code provides that the length' of docks and boatlifts that serve a single-family dwelling shall not exceed 25 percent of the waterway or half of the width of the property measured at the waterfront property line, whichever is less. In this case, the lot is 70 feet wide at the south, waterfront property line and the waterway is approximately 500 feet wide. In this case; half of the lot width Is used to determine permitted length of the dock and is 35 feet. mcd0102 01/22/02 4 ~~.,i~i'i;: ,~~) ...~.,:'..' .":h p."..,.J"'I' F. : .,.l. < " " . ....;.,. ~ .tA!.I~ {, J :..,.~.., ~ The proposal Includes replacing the existing dock with a 401 square foot dock and a 1 52 square foot boatlift. The proposed dock will be 24 feet from the east property line and 30 feet from the west property line. The proposed boat lift will be 14 feet from the west property line. Section 3-601 (CH 1 )(g) of the Code provides for deviations from dock requirements for single-family (and two-familyl dwellings. The Community Development Coordinator may grant deviations as part of a Level One, Minimum Standard review, provided signed and notarized statements of no objection are secured from both adjacent Waterfront , property owners. In the event such statements cannot be obtained, deviations are reviewed under Flexible Standard Developm'ent applications, based on .Q.!l!i!. of the following criteria: 1) The proposed dock will result in no navigational conflicts and the length of the proposed dock will not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway; or 2) the proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to protect environmentally sensitive areas; or 3) the property configuration precludes the placement of a dock in compliance with the required dimensional standards; however, the proposed dock will be similar in dimensional characteristics as surrounding dock patterns. The applicant was not able to provide statement of no objection from both adjacent waterfront property owners and applied as part of a Level One, Flexible Standard Development review. As part of his submission, the applicant provided documentation from the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management stating that there are, no navigational concerns associated with the proposed dock. 'It also was stated that the' proposed structure is more environmentaliy sensitive than the existing structure, reducing negative environmental impacts to existing sea grasS3S. The DRC (Development Review, Committee) reviewed the application on November 8, 2001. There were no objections' raised by the ORC whose members include the Environmental Manager of the Public Works Administration and Harbormaster. The application was approved by the Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director) on November 29, 2001, (refer to Development Order and staff report for Case FLS 01-10-73,) with the following bases: Bases for approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Standard Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601 (C)( 1 )(g)(i)(ii) (iii); 2) the proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Crite'ria per Section 3-913~ and 3) the development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said this Is the first case under the current. Land Development Code that involves an appeal of a Level One (staff level , approval) flexible standard approval from an abutting property owner, Section 4-504 of the Code, Community Development Board Appeals, states that , appeals may be filed from a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) approval from an abutting property owner. The abutting property owner filed this appeal on December 6, 2001 to the south (James A. Martin, Jr. - 145 Dovon Drive). mcd0102 5 01122/02 :: L'. .:.....)... ',.,' ,J"~j:"'L.'.: ;..:'.~."'.L.'''..'''.'':'''''''''":. ..\ ..:;.......~...>~.-;..rl.:.;lf..~.~::.t...~.-:-".:~': , AIh.' r.., '::) \~ ;: d. i '" ~.: The Community Development Board has the authority to hear, appeals from level One, approval decisions, including Flexible Standard Development applications, in , accordance with Section 4-501 (A)(2) of Community Development Code. In this case, the decision' by the Community Development Coordinator was the November 29, 2001 Development Order to the applicant's representative, Lisa Ryan of Advanced Marine Construction, approving the application for Flexible Standa'rd Development. , , Upon receipt of a notice of appeal/application from an abutting property owner, it shall be placed on consent agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Community Development Board. The appeal may be removed from the consent agenda by a vote of at , least four members of ,the Board. If the appeal is removed from the consent agenda, the Community Development Board shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director), conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on, the application (per Section 4-206) and render a decision in accord with Section 4-206(0)(5). If the appeal is not removed from the consent agenda, the Community , ' Development Coordinator's decision of the approval shall be final. Pursuant to Section 4-504 (C) of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the Community Development Board shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented b', the applicant or other party: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Community Development Code; 2) the decision will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Joshua Magidson, representative for James A. Martin, Jr., abutting property owner, 'said the subject dock was to be built a year before the current application under the former 'Code. The County approved that application but the City never issued a permit. This application has been reviewed under the current Code. He felt that some statements that were made under oath in the application are untrue. He said the application does not meet the 3 criteria in the Code for docks. He said the Code specifics cr!teria for docks and states that City staff "may" approve a deviation. He felt as there are objections by neighbors arid a signed petition against the length of this dock in this area, the CDS should consider removing this case from the Consent Agenda in order to hear all the evidence. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the petition Mr. Magidson referred to simply objects to the dock. The appellant who lives next door received notice of the ORe meeting and did not participate In 'the process. Staff weighs petitions and all other input from the public as well as technical expertise when making decisions. She said if Mr. Magidson wishes to present any new evidence today, it would be difficult to review it during the meeting. She suggested they present their materials in written form to staff for review. Mr. Magidson said his client received notice of the DRC meeting in the mail after it took place. The letter was dated November 5, 2001., The envelope was stamped . November 7, 2001, and his client received it on November 8, 2001. The next day, SHiff was made aware of the appellant's objections to the dO,ck. mcd0102 ,6 01/22/02 '.. . " " .' ~' iill~ ('~d\1 (J, " It was remarked that Mr. Magidson's client appears to object to the way the City Ordinance reads, which is a City Commission matter. Mr.. Magidson said his objection Is regarding the method by which the right to present evidence is permitted under a level On's appeal. He felt that although the Code states that staff "may" grant deviations, the COB should review all the evidence at a quasi-judicial hearing. He expressed concern that only one person has the power to make a level One approval. Ms. Tarapani said she also is the Community Development Coordinator. She consults with all members of the ORe Including the City's Marine & Aviation Director and Environmental Manager. She said although the DRC is not a public hearing, it is a fact- finding meeting, andmembers of the, public are welcome to attend. Staff meets with the applicant to ensure the application is complete and that the applicant understands the applicable City standards. She said one does have to attend a DRC'meeting to become involved in the application process. The meeting recessed from ~:28 ~o 2:36 p.m. Ms. Tarapani said the ORC does not hear verbal public testimony at its meetings, however, written input is' accepted. Upon review of the application and any public input, the ORC makes a recommendation to the Community Development 'Coordinator (Ms. ' Tarapani), who makes a final determination regarding'the application after review of all the facts and' any' additional public input received. She said the ORC meeting was held ,November 8, ,2001 and Ms. Tarapani's development order approving the application was issued on November 29, 2001. Ms. Tarapani said although the applicant could not attend, tlie ORC meeting, he had the opportunity to participate in the process. In response to a question, she said the notice of DRC meeting mailed to Mr. Martin did not include a deadline to respond. Concern was expressed that the time period between the notice of ORC meeting and the date area residents received notice was rather short. It was suggested that future meeting notices include the procedures for an appeal and specify deadlines for responses to specific staff members. Ms. Tarapani reiterated that no verbal public testimony would have been taken at the November' 8, 2001, DRC'meeting as it was only a fact-finding meeting. She suggested Mr. Magidson had opportunity to provide objections to the application during the 3-week . timeframe before the final decision was made. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said subsequent to the DRe meeting, Mr. Magidson objected to the application but did not present any ,environmental reports disputing the information staff received. , Mr. Magldson said he had provided staff with 3 letters specifically addressing the cri,teria In the Code along with objections and that his client believes the application . contains inaccurate statements. In response to a question, he said he did not have the ,exact date that he filed an appeal. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said staff received letters dated November 27 and November 28, 2001, from the appellant's representative. She said Mr. Magidson objects to the general applicability criteria. The application moets all 3 of the criteria, although, it is only necessary to meet one of them. Staff disagrees with Mr. Magidson's opinion. mcd0102 7 01/22/02 '''i.'' ~". .,:,'\,".. "." j.\.... ',' ..~.,..,..~.:\I...:..Li,..l:.:.i... ':"..~:...;.1...;~:,>.:,..\.. ,:'1' .:' \ t.;"(,.:.: .:.: ~ ''J In response to a question, Mr. Magidson said he does not know how his client was 'da'maged by, not being able to attend the DRC meeting, as he does not know what was discussed. He said he did not know the ORC meetings were recorded and available to his client for review. It was remarked that Mr. Magidson's objection regarding the number of docks that are less than 35 feet is inaccurate. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Land Development Code was designed to be flexible at the level One (staff approval) level, and to the extent the appellant has an objection to the " ordina'nce, it wOlJld be more appropriately discussed in another forum. Mr. Magidson said he is not claiming that staff misconstrued or misunderstood the deviation standards. He feels the deviation as addressed in Criteria #1 of the staff report could apply to everyone in Clearwater. He felt he has evidence to prove that the environment would be detrimentally affected and the dock would not, be in compliance with the' dimensional characters of surrounding docks. ~:) Tim Johnson, representative for the applicant, saId the appellant has no grounds for an app'eal. There are 3 separate reasons this deviation may be granted. The applicant has met all 3 criteria, whereas only 1 is required to be met. The appellant wishes it were 'otherwise, but that is a matter for discussion with the City Commission. Mr. Johnson said an appellant must meet all 3 reasons stated in the Code for an appeal to be granted and Mr. Magidson has not done so. mcd0102 8 01122/02 Mr. Magidson said he believes in order to overturn staff's decision, all 3 criteria Mr. Johnson referred to' must be met. He said when that criteria is read in conjunction with the authority o'f the CDS and staff's authority to use the discretionary rule, his client is ,entitled to an open and fair hearing. The discretionary rule states that a developmental officer #may" deviate from the rules; not that he/she has the right to deviate from them. In response to a remark regarding permitting the technical information being heard by staff, Mr. Johnson objected. His client already has been issued a permit. ' , James A. Martin, Jr., appellant, said a meeting was set with staff but was canceUed and his appeal was placed on today's COB agenda. He and Mr. Magidson tried to follow up with staff to determine when additional evidence could be presented. He said he r~cejved notice of the application just before Thanksgiving and was unable to meet with the County; He presented signatures on petitions from residents in the area to staff. He said that one of the property owners owns 5 lots and did not receive a notice of hearing. , He has an expert environmental witness that can testify that the dock would be a detriment to the environment. In response to a question, Mr. Martin said he believed the meeting with staff had been, set on December 18, 2001, then was cancelled. He felt he has not'been given the opportunity for a hearIng. ~ Ms. DougaU~Sides said if Mr. Magldson feels his cUent has not received procedural due process, he could file an allegation regarding same in the Circuit Court. "i l- . ;~. . ~ : . " '~ , It was remarked that Mr. Magidson has indicated he agrees that no misinterpretation of the Code was made by staff. Mr. Johnson said Mr. Magidson's grounds for appeal did not include a claim regarding a lack of due process, a lack of notice, or any environmental issues. He had sufficient to,become involved in the process., Mr. Johnson said Mr. Magidson has admitted that the applicant meets 1 of the 3 requirements of the Code and that the . appellant has failed to meet the 3 the, requirements required for an appeal. Mr. Johnson said the environmental issues were raised after the Community Development Coordinator's decision 'was made. mcd0102 9 01/22/02 , " , Ms. Tarapani said a meeting was set with Mr. Magidson in December 2001. She' said she personally cancelled the meeting upon the advice of the Assistant City Attorney as a final decision had already been made regarding the application, and she felt it important not to hold another meeting outside the ORC meeting. She said no technical information was presented to staff to dispute the expert opinions that staff had received. It appears that new, information is being brought up now that was not presented to staff during the d~cision-making process. Mr. Magidson said he disagrees with the processes staff has presented. He felt that when he began discussions with staff, they had already made a decision regarding the application. He felt staff did not afford the appellant due process. "J ......pr'\4 Mr. Martin said the purpose of the Code is to have orderly development in Clearwater. The Code sets forth the basis to do so. Docks are to be no greater than 50% of front footage of seawall on the water, and docks should be placed in the center third of property seawall. The docks on Devon Drive are 50% of the front footage of the seawalls. The other 2 docks that are longer are on one and a half lots. The concept is to have , uniformity and a basis in the community to count on standards that are upheld. He , 'requested the opportunity for due process in order to present the information he has complied. He felt he has responded in a timely fashion to staff over a short period of time w,ith short notice and over a major holiday weekend. Discussion ensued by the CDB and consensus was that the appellant has not , presented any evidence that the Code was misconstrued or that the Community Development Coordinator's decision should be overturned. It was remarked that the COB's role is to make determinations based on the Code. It is the City, Commission's responsibility to 'change the Code whenever they deem it necessary. Member Hooper moved to adopt Item 4, Case APP01-12-04, of the Consent Agenda and that the decision of the Community Development Coordinator be approved. The motion was dUly seconded and carried unanimously. (J, Mr. Magidson requested submission of additional documentation into evidence. Mr. Johnson objected, as there was no official hearing of the case today, but only an appeal hearing. Ms. Dougall.Sides suggested Mr. Magidson submitted the evidence in written form to staff for, filing. /~"L' ~. . .....",. ','",d.1 .,.1 '.1; " .' ~ " ' ~.':.: I~' " ,<-) . ,1 ',:} '\";' .'., ,I '\ 'I , ! The meeting recessed from 3:26 to 3:28 p.m. c. DIRECTOR.S ITEMS TDR'Annual Report Richard Kephart, Senior Planner, presented the TDR (Transfer Development Rights) Annual Report. Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-1403IH), a record of transfer of development rights must be maintained and reported annually to the City Commission and the Pinellas Planning Council. The City has approved two transfers since the adopting the new Code in 199~. On December 14, 1999, the Community Development Board approved TDR 99-10- , 01 for the transfer of nine ,(9), development rights from the sending site at 423 rv1andalay Avenue to the' receiving site located at 468 Mandalay Avenue. On March 17, 2000, the required Special Warranty Deed was' filed with Pine lias County and is part of the Pine lias County Property Records. The sending site was the City parking lot on Mandalay Avenue and the'receiving site was the JMC Multifamily residential project. This project is under ,construction. On December 14, 1999', the Community Developm'ent Board approved TDR 99-10- 02 for the transfer of thirteen (13) development rights from the sending site at 349 South Gulfview Boulevard to, the receiving site located at 325 South Gulfview Boulevard. On February 1 2, 2000.' the required Special Warranty Deed was filed with Pinellas County and is part of the Pinellas County Property Records. TI,e sending site was the McDonalds and the receiving site was the Americana Resort. The transferred units have not been used to date. Both sending sites have no excess development potential remaining. In addition, TOR 99-10-01 requires that the sending site (423 Mandalay Avenue) remain a parking lot or rec~eation J open space use as agreed upon in the agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pine lias County Countywide Planning Authority. Density Pool Report Mr. Kephart presented the density pool report. In July 2001, in order to stimulate catalytic resort development, the City Commission approved Beach by Design: A' , Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. This special' area plan established a limited pool of 600 additional hotel rooms to be used wit,hin 3 specific areas of Clearwater Beach for a period of 5 years from the date the Community Redevelopment District {CRD)was~pproved by Pinellas County. At the request of the County for approval of the CRD, the City amended its Comprehensive Plan on July 12, 2001 to formally designate the CRD. mcd0102 1,0 01/22/02 ",' ,"::'.~ '~'~..~ ',; .;:.1- ....~ .t'-:.:~.'.:".: .}., ~'..'~.:./~ .1, ~. ".4,. ,.1 ,", ".~...' '..i'.....,i,.. ~ .,c'.l' On March ,1, 2001, the City approved the use of 184 hotel rooms from the 600- hotel room density pool for a resort hotel at 229/301 South Gulfvlew Boulevard. This project is known as the Marriott Seashell Resort. No construction is underway on this site. , A total of 41 6 hotel rooms are still available from the density pool that can be used within the priority redevelopment sites. The pool use provision will expire In July 2006. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the development order with the Marriott Seashell Resort remains in effect for another month. The City has the ability to extend it, but has received no request to do so. The density pool units would be null and void with the expiration of the development order. They run with the property when sold. 'Ms. Tarapani said she did not know if the entity seeking to purchase the property northof the proposed Marriott Seashell Resort. Ms. Tarapanl said density pool units must be used within a year of an application for a building permit and a certificate of occupancy. Brief presentation of Guideway Concept Proposal - Ken Sides, Public Works Administration Member Gildersleeve stated that although no action is being taken, the Guideway , Concept Propos,al is one that Wade-Trim and its subconsultant, Jakes Associates, Inc. contracted to do, therefore he has a conflict of interest. C, ....hf:]! , Ken Sides,' Public Works Administration, gave a brief presentation of the Guideway Concept Proposal. Clearwater's mobility goal is redevelop downtown Clearwater with an efficient, high quality, multi-modal movement system with supportive and visually positive terminal ,and transition facilities for all modes. He distributed an executive summary done by Wade-Trim in Tampa, Florida and Jakes Associates, Inc., in San Jose, California regarding a Clearwater Guideway System. The summary was funded entirely by a State grant. The summary indicates that an alternative transportation system for residents and tourists will attract and retain income-producing industries and enhance the economic g'rowth and competitiveness of the City, Tampa Bay region, and the State. Mr. Sides said the City has identified no funds for the guideway system at this time. ,In response to ' questions regarding the specific location of the guideway system, Mr. Sides said the City Commission has made no decisions. Other Member Moran said the COB Christmas luncheon donations to the Homeless Emergency Project were very much appreciated. Barbara Green of the Homeless Emergency Project, thanked the CDS for their support. Ms. Moran distributed a copy of the letter. Ms. Tarapani distributed a list of meeting dates for Code Amendments. Ms. Fierce reviewed a list of anticipated cases for the February 19, 2002, COB meeting. " ' ~ \;J Ms. Tarapani reported that Chair Figurski does not wish to be considered for re- election as Chair of the COB. . Consensus was to schedule a luncheon in his honor on February 19,' 2002, be'fore the COB meeting. Staff will coordinate the effort. mc.:d0102 11 01/22/02 . tt',' 'I c.~.' ,." .... .,', ,". .... .'. ::..,... ...~.. ."\ '.... jl~" '" .','}~ ..}, ' "~ . ,..... "... .', ':","> ',',," '.'- '~~, ,;..~.-.:~ '.... I. . .". ~'~:'.'",.' ""~ ,/1 , 'I' . i .', , .' , " , . .., I ". "c " .' , . , c,' :fi$i;{~~~r!i:;;;) ;,:;{"l:f'}':};Wf(',:;,:. ':. . r , > ~ '. c I, '. ", , } . i. .' .' ,. " I.... '; '. >. .:' "\ ". . '. "/.,U ' , ' ~:~: :::, :,':, ':' " :',:'. ',> J \, t:;:::'i,'" ,( , >;..::; ~'il .~ .~':", .' ~. ' c , ( 'I c ~ , ' ~Iection. of officers will take place at the March 19" 2~02, COB meeting. , ' , ,Member Mazur said the Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a program similar to the one County'Commissioner .John Morroni and local area business" owners. have coordinated to honor local police a'nd firefighters. The Chamber is honoring . rescue workers who were at the World Trade Center site. Member Mazur thanked all the 'sponsors' ~ho are particilpating., ~:::.~'~ ,,' ;.~...,;.::~~~;:J . j, .' .' ~ ~ , '. ~ " 'f;'. '. ',. : t I ." ',:.i:: : , " " ,I D~ ADJOURNMENT ,,> r" ~,' ,f " -':.. :f.,..;, ':" ~ '. ..:.' .,1 ~:}.", ~: " . I j;:;ri. ' ;':: :~:. j}~ ::. c'.. ,-c, ~ .' '~' 'f:'.':':~':. '. The meeting, adjourned at 4: 1 2 p.m. \, " , air, ' Community Develop ard Attest: ' ::n1~ , ' , ,~:,c.\<", ',:,: . . I " .." . ',>., :;':\ ,. tJ. . " \', ' ;,' ',I ..... 'I {t"i'l. .~ I :,~""/~, '. ~:.;I.<.,. '-t~B1 ' , ' " . '. ~ " . ~ ( ,~ . " . , . ~ ~ I, , , ,1 " . <~'. . i '. . " .. , . I . ,1-'"' .~ . I " r '.">, " ' /. ;, c.c" c " , . h'. > '1;'" 'f' ,L./. , . ': ~ .. J, ,; , . ;'. :(. , , , " .., 't '. ' .'~' ~ i : , .' ( , l' ',j , , I; ,. , " " ", . : 'J, , " : l " , . >', .. ~ . . ~ ,t' . , , ~:;, 0" ',t,;'::,;:":, .." !. \ " ;'f " !. ~. " ~,' , .c',:'} '", , . ~ : ,.,,/c ,; f '.It:c;',;;:,,t.. '.. ii~l\l :', ,.\ ( : ..lJ ~ 'I'" 'll]i\;i':;:\,:~:i;;,,:~::>, "':~ ": ,":', :, " mcd9102,' c'I', , 12 01/22/02 '" \. 'j "'.'. ~,:....:-. .:., . ~ ',~.,'..'.. ~~..~ ,~ .~ '~..":-. ',',. .'i.' '~'."""H..':: ........ ,.4" ,.; ."" ....