DVA2005-00001A Handout Documents (2)
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") is dated ,
2008, effective as provided in Section 5 of this Agreement, and entered into between
SPINECARE PROPERTIES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Owner"), and the
CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, a political subdivision of the State of Florida acting
through its City Council ("Council"), the governing body thereof ("City").
R E C I TAL S:
A. Sections 163.3220 - 163.3243, Florida Statutes, which set forth the
Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act ("Act"), authorize the City to
enter into binding development agreements with persons having a legal or equitable
interest in real property located within the corporate limits of the City.
B. Under Section 163.3223 of the Act, the City has adopted Section 4-606 of
the City of Clearwater Community Development Code ("Code"), establishing procedures
and requirements to consider and enter into development agreements.
C. The Owner owns approximately 4.5 acres of real property ("Property") in
the corporate limits of the City, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
D. The Owner or its successor desires to develop the Property as a medical
clinic with a maximum building height of thirty (30) feet to the top of the roof deck, with a
~ four (4) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty throo (13) thirtv-eiqht (38) feet
to the top of the elevator/stair towers/architectural elements as qenerallv conforminq to
the architectural elevation dimensions shown in Composite Exhibit 0 prepared bv
Fischer & Associates, LLC with the correspondinq Floor Plans toqether attached as
Composite Exhibit "0", and ,generally conforming to the Architoctural Stakinq Site Plan
prepared by ,A.Red .'\rohitocturo last rovisod on ft,pril 29, Northside Enqineerinq
Services. Inc. dated Mav 3,- 2005 and date-stamped approved by the Community
Development Board on May 25, 2005 ("Site Plan") ~shown on Exhibit "8:1" as
modified and administrativelv approved bv the Planninq Director on Mav 6, 2008 as
shown on Composite Exhibit "B-2", attached hereto and incorporated herein.
E. The Property currently has a land use designation of Residential
Suburban (RS) and is zoned Low Density Residential (LOR).
F. In order to develop the Property, as a medical clinic, the Owner has
requested that the City place the following on the Property: (i) a land use designation of
Residential Low (5 units/acre) and Institutional (INS), (ii) a zoning designation of LMDR
Alternate "A" Development Agreement DVA 2005-0001 for CDS Hearing July 15, 2008
Formatted: Not Different first page header
(Low Medium Density Residential) and I (Institutional), all improvements as indicated in
Exhibit2 "B:F and "B-2."
G. The City and the Owner have determined that it would be mutually
beneficial to enter into a development agreement governing the matters set forth herein
and have negotiated this Agreement in accordance with the Code and the Act.
H. It is the intent of the Owner and the City that Ashland Heights Owners
Association, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation, and Landmark Palms Homeowners'
Association, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation (collectively "Association"), be third-
party beneficiaries to this Agreement.
I. The City has found that the terms of this Agreement are consistent with
the City Comprehensive Plan and the Code.
STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT
In consideration of and in reliance upon the premises, the mutual covenants
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto intending to be legally bound and
in accordance with the Act, agree as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
Agreement.
The above recitals are true and correct and are a part of this
SECTION 2. Incorporation of the Act. This Agreement is entered into in
compliance with and under the authority of the Code and the Act, the terms of which as
of the date of this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part
of this Agreement. Words used in this Agreement without definition that are defined in
the Act shall have the same meaning in this Agreement as in the Act.
SECTION 3. Property Subiect to this Aqreement.
"A" is subject to this Agreement ("Property").
The Property described in Exhibit
SECTION 4. Ownership. The Property is owned in fee simple by the Owner.
SECTION 5. Effective Date/Duration of this Aqreement.
5.1 This Agreement shall not be effective until the later of the following three (3)
events: (1) the pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Property for a land use
designation of Residential Low and Institutional (INS) becomes effective as defined by
Section 163.3229, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code;
and (2) the pending rezoning of the Property for a designation of Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) and Institutional (I) becomes effective; and (3) this Agreement is
properly recorded in the public records of Pinellas County and 30 days have elapsed
after having been received by the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Florida
Alternate "A" Development Agreement DVA 2005-0001 for CDB Hearing July 15, 2008 2
Statutes Section 163.3239 and Clearwater Community Development Code Section 4-
606G.2."
5.2 Within fourteen (14) days after the City approves the execution of this
Agreement, the City shall record the Agreement with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for
Pinellas County. The Owner shall pay the cost of such recording. The City shall
submit to the Department of Community Affairs a copy of the recorded Agreement
within fourteen (14) days after the Agreement is recorded.
5.3 This Agreement shall continue in effect until terminated, as defined herein, but for
a period not to exceed twenty (20) years.
SECTION 6. Obliqations under this Aqreement.
6.1 Obligations of the Owner
6.1.1 The obligations under this Agreement shall be binding upon and the
benefits of this Agreement shall inure to the Owner, its successors in interests or
assigns.
6.1.2 At the time of development of the Property, the Owner will submit such
applications and documentation as are required by law and shall comply with the City's
Code applicable at the time of development review.
6.1.3 The following restrictions shall apply to development of the Property:
6.1.3.1 The Property and improvements located thereon shall be
developed in substantial conformance with the Site Plan attached as Exhibit "B:.1"
approved by Developer Order of the Community Development Board ("CDB") on May
17, 2005 in case number FLD200S-01014 as further modified and approved
administratively by the Planninq Director on May 6, 2008 attached as Exhibit "B-2" ("Site
Plan"). Any minor revisions or changes to the Site Plan shall be consistent with the
approved Site Plan and shall be approved by the Planning Director as a minor
modification. Any modifications determined by the Planning Director as either
inconsistent with the approved Site Plan or constituting a substantial deviation from the
approved Site Plan and thus requiring further approval by the CDB shall require an
amendment to this Agreement in accordance with the procedures of the Act and the
Code, as necessary and applicable. Any and all such approved and adopted
amendments shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida.
6.1.3.2 The maximum building square footage shall not exceed
45,000 square feet and shall be developed as a medical clinic.
6.1.3.3 The Building shall not exceed two (2) stories in height, with a
maximum building height not to exceed thirty (30) feet to the top of the roof deck, with a
maximum ~ four (4) foot parapet wall for screening, and a maximum forty throo
Alternate "A" Development Agreement OVA 2005-0001 for CDS Hearing July 15, 2008 3
f4Jt thirtv-eiqht (38) feet to the top of the elevator/stair towers/architectural elements
qenerallv conforminq to the buildinq elevation dimensions as shown in Exhibit 0
prepared bv Fischer & Associates, LLC with the correspondinq Floor Plans also
attached in Composite Exhibit "0" hereto and incorporated herein.
6.1.3.4 The parking spaces on the Property shall not exceed 225 in
number, inclusive of eight (8) handicap spaces. Parking spaces located in the fifty-five
(55) foot buffer area on the North side of the building (i) shall be secured by a gate, (ii)
shall only allow staff access, and (iii) shall not exceed fifteen (15) in number.
6.1.3.5
shall be translucent.
All windows on the North and West sides of the Building
6.1.3.6 The Owner shall construct a six (6) foot concrete wall (with a
stucco finish) ("Wall") along the North (through Lot 40) Property line within the
Landscape Buffer zone between the parking area and the North Property line prior to
commencement of any vertical construction. The final location of this Wall will be
coordinated with the Tree Preservation Plan to preserve all trees with a rating of 3 or
higher to the maximum extent possible, and be subject to the approval of the City and
consent by the Association, provided such location does not constitute a substantial site
plan modification requiring COB hearing and approval. To the maximum extent possible,
subject to preserving trees with a rating of 3 or higher, the Wall shall be setback from
the North Property line to provide adequate area to allow maintenance of the north face
of the Wall within the boundaries of the Property. In the event, as a result of the need to
preserve an existing tree, necessitating that the Wall be located on or near the North
Property line such that in order to maintain the Wall, it may be necessary for the Owner
to enter private property to perform such maintenance and accordingly, the Owner and
the affected private property owners may enter into a private agreement regarding the
performance of such maintenance.
6.1.3.7 The Owner shall construct a six (6) foot vinyl privacy fence
("Fence") on the South Property line prior to commencement of any vertical
construction, subject to City approval. In order to maintain the Fence, it may be
necessary for the Owner to enter private property to perform such maintenance and
accordingly, the Owner and the affected private property owners may enter into a
private agreement regarding the performance of such maintenance.
6.1.3.8 The Owner shall construct a vinyl fence of at least six (6)
feet in height along the west side of the proposed parking area immediately east of the
retention pond area prior to commencement of any vertical construction, and such fence
shall be landscaped on the west face with a continuous hedge or non-deciduous vine, in
accordance with Section 2-204.C.3 of the Code.
6.1.3.9 The Owner shall maintain the Wall and Fences required by
Sections 6.1.3.6, 6.1.3.7 and 6.1.3.8 in good condition and such maintenance, either
cosmetic or structural, shall be made promptly and completed in a good workman-like
Alternate "A" Development Agreement OVA 2005-0001 for COB Hearing July 15, 2008 4
manner.
6.1.3.10 There shall be trees installed at the time of planting that are
a minimum of eight (8) to ten (10) feet in height south of the Wall located along the
North Property line as described in Section 6.1.3.6 above in accordance with Exhibit "C"
containing the Landscape Site Plan & Details date-stamped approved by the COB on
May 25, 2005 for purposes of screening and buffering the medical building from the
residential homes located north of the Property.
6.1 .3.11 All medical imaging shall be conducted on the
Southern half of the building. All access ways to the imaging machines and rooms shall
be located on the South side of the building.6.1.3.12 The Owner will operate its patient
hours in the manner of a typical medical clinic in that the medical clinic will be open from
approximately 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from approximately 8:00
a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday. The imaging center located on the south side of the
building may operate later than the rest of the building, but with limited staff
involvement.
6.1 .3.13 The Owner shall reduce or eliminate lighting, as allowed by
the City. Specifically, the Owner shall reduce or eliminate lighting on the West side of
the Property during non-peak times, consistent with safety concerns.
6.1.3.14 The Owner shall attempt to preserve fifty-seven (57%)
percent of the total trees on-site with a rating of 3 or better and sixty percent (60%) of
all existing trees over twelve (12) inches in diameter with a rating of 3 or better. The
Owner shall submit a tree preservation plan at the time of building permit application
which will be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of any building
permits.
6.1.3.15
to this Agreement.
There shall be no residential uses on the Property pursuant
6.1.4 It is the intent of the Owner and the City that Ashland Heights Owners
Association, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation" and Landmark Palms Homeowners'
Association, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation be third-party beneficiaries to this
Agreement.
6.2 Obliqations of the City.
6.2.1 Concurrent with the approval of this Agreement, the Council shall
promptly process amendments to the land use plan and zoning designation for the
Property as set forth in Recital F above, all in accordance with the Code.
6.2.2 The City shall promptly process site and construction plan applications
for the Property that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Concept Plan
and that meet the requirements of the Code.
Alternate "A" Development Agreement OVA 2005-0001 for CDS Hearing July 15, 2008 5
6.2.3 The final effectiveness of the re-designations referenced in Section
6.2.1. is subject to:
6.2.3.1 The provisions of Chapters 163 and 166, Florida Statutes, as
they may govern such amendments; and
6.2.3.2 The expiration of any appeal periods or, if an appeal is filed, at
the conclusion of such appeal.
SeCTION 7. Public Facilities to Service Development. The following public
facilities are presently available to the Property from the sources indicated below.
Development of the Property will be governed by the concurrency ordinance provisions
applicable at the time of development approval. With respect to transportation and
other public infrastructure and services subject to concurrency requirements, all
applicable concurrency provisions for the proposed development have been met.
7.1 Potable water is available from the City. The Owner shall be responsible for all
necessary main extensions and applicable connection fees.
7.2 Sewer service is currently provided by the City. The Owner shall be responsible
for all necessary main extensions and applicable connection fees.
7.3 Fire protection from the City.
7.4 Drainage facilities for the Property will be provided by the Owner at the Owner's
sole expense.
7.5 All improvements associated with the public facilities identified in Subsections 7.1
through 7.4 shall be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of
occupancy.
SeCTION 8. Required Local Government Permits. The required local government
development permits for development of the Property include, without limitation, the
following:
8.1 Site plan approval(s) and associated utility licenses, access, and right-of-way
utilization permits;
8.2 Construction plan approval(s);
8.3 Building permit(s); and
8.4 Certificate(s) of occupancy.
SeCTION 9. Consistency. The City finds that development of the Property is
Alternate "A" Development Agreement OVA 2005-0001 for CDS Hearing July 15, 2008 6
consistent with the terms of this Agreement is consistent with the City Comprehensive
Plan and the Code.
SeCTION 10. Termination.
10.1 If the Owner's obligations set forth in this Agreement are not followed in a timely
manner, as determined by the City Manager, after notice to the Owner and an
opportunity to be heard, existing permits shall be a.dministratively suspended and
issuance of new permits suspended until the Owner has fulfilled its obligations. Failure
to timely fulfill its obligations may serve as a basis for termination of this Agreement by
the City, at the discretion of the City and after notice to the Owner and an opportunity for
the Owner to be heard.
SeCTION 11. Other Terms and Conditions.
11.1 Except in the case of termination, until twenty (20) years after the date of this
Agreement, the Property shall not be subject to down-zoning, unit density reduction, or
intensity reduction, unless the City has held a public hearing and determined:
11 .1.1 That substantial changes have occurred in pertinent conditions existing
at the time of approval of this Agreement; or
11 .1.2 This Agreement is based on substantially inaccurate information
provided by the Owner; or
11.1.3 That the change is essential to the public health, safety, or welfare.
SeCTION 12. Compliance with Law. The failure of this Agreement to address any
particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve the Owner from the
necessity of complying with the law governing such permitting requirements, conditions,
terms or restrictions.
SeCTION 13. Notices. Notices and communications required or desired to be given
under this Agreement shall be given to the parties by hand delivery, by nationally
recognized overnight courier service such as Federal Express, or by certified mail,
return receipt requested, addressed as follows (copies as provided below shall be
required for proper notice to be given):
If to the Owner:
Spinecare Properties, LLC
c/o William Shatz, Managing Member
2250 Drew Street
Clearwater, FL 33765
With Copy to:
Deborah L. Martohue, Esquire
Martohue Land Use Law Group, P.A.
Alternate "A" Development Agreement OVA 2005-0001 for CDS Hearing July 15, 2008 7
Villages on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
If to City: City Council of City of Clearwater
c/o City Manager
112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
If to Association: Ashland Heights Owners Assn., Inc.
c/o Progressive Management
4151 Woodlands Parkway
Palm Harbor, FL 34685
With Copy to: Robert Lapin, President
Ashland Heights Owners Association
3309 Waterford Drive
Clearwater, FL 33761
and
Landmark Palms Homeowners' Association, Inc.
c/o Larry Brown
3269 Nicks Place
Clearwater, FL 33761
With copy to:
John Katopis, President
3007 Geiger Court
Clearwater, FL 33761
Properly addressed, postage prepaid, notices or communications shall be deemed
delivered and received on the day of hand delivery, the next business day after deposit
with an overnight courier service for next day delivery, or on the third (3rd) day following
deposit in the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested. The parties
may change the addresses set forth above (including the addition of a mortgagee to
receive copies of all notices), by notice in accordance with this Section.
SECTION 14.
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.
SECTION 15. Minor Non-Compliance. The Owner will not be deemed to have
failed to comply with the terms of this Agreement in the event such non-compliance, in
the judgment of the City Manager, reasonably exercised, is of a minor or
inconsequential nature.
SECTION 16. Covenant of Cooperation. The parties shall cooperate with and
deal with each other in good faith and assist each other in the performance of the
Alternate "A" Development Agreement DVA 2005-0001 for CDS Hearing July 15, 2008 8
provisions of this Agreement and in achieving the completion of development of the
Property.
SeCTION 17. Approvals. Whenever an approval or consent is required under or
contemplated by this Agreement such approval or consent shall not be unreasonably
withheld, delayed or conditioned. All such approvals and consents shall be requested
and granted in writing.
SeCTION 18. Completion of Aqreement. Upon the completion of performance of
this Agreement or its revocation or termination, a statement evidencing such
completion, revocation or termination shall be signed by the parties hereto and recorded
in the official records of the City.
SeCTION 19. Entire Aqreement. This Agreement (including any and all Exhibits
attached hereto all of which are a part of this Agreement to the same extent as if such
Exhibits were set forth in full in the body of this Agreement), constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof.
SeCTION 20. Construction. The titles, captions and section numbers in this
Agreement are inserted for convenient reference only and do not define or limit the
scope or intent and should not be used in the interpretation of any section, subsection
or provision of this Agreement. Whenever the context requires or permits, the singular
shall include the plural, and plural shall include the singular and any reference in this
Agreement to the Owner includes the Owner's successors or assigns. This Agreement
was the production of negotiations between representatives for the City and the Owner
and the language of the Agreement should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and
should not be strictly construed against any party hereto based upon draftsmanship. If
any term or provision of this Agreement is susceptible to more than one interpretation,
one or more of which render it valid and enforceable, and one or more of which would
render it invalid or unenforceable, such term or provision shall be construed in a manner
that would render it valid and enforceable.
SeCTION 21. Partiallnvaliditv. If any term or provision of this Agreement or
the application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, including any valid portion of the
invalid term or provision and the application of such invalid term or provision to
circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not
be affected thereby and shall with the remainder of this Agreement continue unmodified
and in full force and effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such responsibilities of any
party hereto, to the extent that the purpose of this Agreement or the benefits sought to
be received hereunder are frustrated, such party shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement upon fifteen (15) days written notice to the other parties.
SeCTION 22. Code Amendments. Subsequently adopted ordinances and codes
of the City which are of general application not governing the development of land shall
be applicable to the Property, and such modifications are specifically anticipated in this
Alternate "A" Development Agreement OVA 2005-0001 for COB Hearing July 15, 2008 9
Agreement.
SECTION 23. Governinq Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida without regard to the
conflict of laws principles of such state.
SECTION 24. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts,
all of which together shall continue one and the same instrument.
SECTION 25. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by mutual written
consent of the City, the Owner, and the Association so long as the amendment meets
the requirements of the Act, applicable City ordinances, and Florida law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto executed this Agreement the date
and year first above written.
[End of Substantive Provisions, Signature Page to follow.]
Alternate "An Development Agreement OVA 2005-0001 for CDS Hearing July 15, 2008 10
WITNESSES:
Printed Name:
Printed Name:
Printed Name:
Printed Name:
SPINECARE PROPERTIES, LLC
By:
William Shatz, Managing Member
CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
By:
William B. Horne II, City Manager
Attest:
Cynthia E. Goudeau, City Clerk
Countersigned:
Frank V. Hibbard, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Leslie K. Dougall-Sides
Assistant City Attorney
Alternate "A" Development Agreement OVA 2005-0001 for CDB Hearing July 15, 2008 11
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 2008,
by , as of SPINECARE PROPERTIES, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, on behalf of the company, who 0 is personally known to me or
who 0 produced as identification.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Notary Public
Print Name:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,
2008, by , William B. Horne II, as City Manager of the City of Clearwater, Florida, who 0 is
personally known to me or who 0 produced identification.
Exhibits:
A Legal Description of Property
B Site Plan
C Landscape Plan
108694341027
Notary Public
Print Name:
Alternate "A" Development Agreement DV A 2005-0001 for CDS Hearing July 15, 2008 12
EXHIBIT "An
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Alternate "A" Development Agreement OVA 2005-0001 for CDS Hearing July 15, 2008 13
Exhibit" A"
PARCEL 1: Lot 1, Geiger Tract, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat
Book 102, Page 18, of the public records of Pin ell as County, Fl.
PARCEL 2: The East 308.25 feet of the North Y4 of the Northwest Y4 of the Northwest Y4
of Section 21, Township 28 South, Range 16 East, Pinellas County, Florida, LESS the
South 208.75 feet, AND LESS the West 84 feet, AND LESS the East 100 feet thereof for
road right-of-way.
EXHBIT "B-1"
A 51/1 ANn fI'HIIlIL1;
'oltll
'j'l'll"I',
w^ ,.
jllll"'I'
1I0Xll/iRHI' COURT
!
I
i
I
I
I
I
~I
~I
~,
_:iriL~Io\t
\,i";l/l~. 1'11. 'J:i, P"A.'..\ ui
\.O! ~~
I.Ui
ll)T jb {ol .j,:!
lot 4~ S
LOT .('1
WI j~
'\
~
:!l
is
.7,
.,.
..jl
\
'\~,~~ ~\1
~ {.
~)f*' -i}',~ .
,/'1.> v
to! 1
IVI ;
lOT"
l{ll"
!/~>..,
, ,
I i
t\I',~"'~K PAL",
'\. ~~~ ~~'l l'lt.
\. \
\ \ ~~
\ \ ~
!\, 'I' ...
B
I j ~
\ ",
" \
'OU)IIV!'
!l / /
((
Ii
P.4IlKJUG L01
INrfN'ONUlNtJ~'CAnN(;
(tQ,~'4 U.)
('l.J9~ or V,UA.)
APPROVED BY CDB
PUBLIC HEARING: 05/17/20
ORDER DATED/PLANS STAMPED
i'
Il'
1.<
.!I.I,l
. f',l..tM
q~, 0"-'
+ "IHI
+ "'~I,IIOll...
i,,:6.llfll.l,1i:
OS/25/2
Mil H;1 Y,/ )[(/\'1'
.,
., ~ H~
_t'-~p
- ~ g ~I
_'~ i~}
I_\i\ ~ i~
Ml i~i
.=If
C"l : i!
a ~~i
~ o~
Z ~U
f8m3~ S d
Hi
i
, i
q ~.,
~\ \1
11\1
\\1'1
._,\1,1
, \\
( n
'~Ii
I :~\\
I '~II
I, t~I'
I j~'
i ~..t; 1
! 1,0.;"11
i , .1
I'i
1111
I!ij!
II II
,; Mli,IS!; lJIIIVI:
.,;\
,I'
ii
;; ,~
, ~
, 1~:~
w li!r;;!
~r.~
: ~f-
Q =>~
Q2 l!"
9~l
.... !:!U"
.'I;:./."'(J
~
SCALe.. 1'-4Q-l
~
'"' . w..o "
S
Q.
"'I
t-
ii)
"
:z
~
11/
IC3.1,1
iS7.::..:,~.i.\ti\r~"":W:i.'ii:;. :::;'';i;ii.
Il,l,~ Q 1 tfl>>
-1:o1.r0:i~~~~.'...'---
C I T Y 0 F
CLEAR\VATER
POST OI:FICE Box 4748, CLL\R\X\TER, FLORlD\ 33758-4748
ML\ICIP:\L SERVICES BULDI\G. 100 SOLTH MYRTLE A\l:\I;E, CIHRWATER, FLURIDA 33756
TELEPIIO\E (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865
PI_\\\I\G DEP.-\RT\!E\T
May 6, 2008
Ms. Deborah L Martohue, Esquire
Martohue Land Use Law Group P.A.
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Ave., Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
Re: Spinecare Properties, LLC FLD2005-01014 - 3280 McMullen Booth Road
Minor Site Plan Modification
Dear Ms. Martohue:
On May 17, 2005, the Community Development Board (eDB) approved the above referenced Flexible
Development application to permit a two story, 45,000 square foot medical clinic with non-residential off-street
parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District under the provisions of Section 2-204.C; a
reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to pavement; a reduction to the side (south) setback
from 10 feet to four feet to parking; and an increase in building height from 30 feet to 35 feet for top of parapet
and to 43 feet for elevator/stair tower; as a Comprehensive Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-
1204.A and a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
The Community Development Coordinator received a request to revise the approved project with the following:
. Relocate the six (6) foot tall concrete wall approved along the north property boundary to a five (5)
foot setback from the north property boundary to accommodate agreements reached with the Ashland
Heights Property Owners' and Landmark Palms Property Owners' Associations; and
. The addition of a six (6) foot tall vinyl fence and associated landscaping immediately west of the
parking lot and east of the retention pond. The additional fence will be of the same material and type as
previously approved located on the south property line.
In accordance with Section 4-406.A of the Code, the revisions proposed are deemed to be a Minor Revision and
are APPROVED with the following condition:
The final location of the six (6) foot tall concrete wall will be staked III the field pursuant to the
Development Agreement.
EXHIBIT "B-2"
*
"EQUAL E.\IPLOY\IE\T A:':O AFFIR.\\ATIVE ACTIO;': EMPLOlT:R"
",lay 6, 2008
3280 Nk\lullen Booth Road - minor sire plan revisioi"
Page 2 of2
It is noted that the Staking Site Plan as submitted AprillD, 2008, has been relied upon ill consideration of
this Minor Revision request and shan be included with site development permit applications.
Should you have any questions, fee] free to contact Neil Thompson, Developmentr Review Manager, at 727-562-
4557,
Sincerely,
_.,~.~~'~
.....v";/.
Michael Dc1k, AICP
Plal1i'11ng Director
S::Plmming Deparlmenl\C D B\FLEX (FlJJ)''JnncfY1! Dr Finisher. APiPiic1i3i<!JiI'S:d'Kdi:::~ffl3i!UIf:'IiJ f&:xp,iIo 32:'tUJ! d' 329@Spine enn 113dDR -Ie J) - 3-.1 J -OJ DRC -
MTP APPR01''EJ)lMclU"Jii!n BooliN 328[1- ".,nor sule rp!q;J.!l "'Nisi!!)iI'J 1)J5-iil~,Jj<<
EXHIBIT "B-2"
I n I
.. ~'
o 0
-- ?
Q ~
;: ~:
- 2:!
~9l&t YalllOl~ 'lIUYMll'nl~
'011 H1008 N3111nw'w out
WOY",..lfoIIGNlW H)JJ,QM 'Tt"W-J
910..... CltO :..:1 6nt.'(" (Lt,u 01. ::::Sf.. iu~1:ICI~~"',:;.~~:
NOI.L....1'104f.....1IJ. .1.,LNJWNOWANJ . ,,"MM.,4 elM" . ..AI,
'?1I~'~S ~3
aplsql.lON ~
': ,i :!
S;'; I' I' I I :'
~ jjl'l--'~"~'i~~~~j'~'
= ~ '1""..........,.,J......t......'i-....j 'j'
~~.~
3NldS vanml:J
I ;11 i
I:' i
'"I lil
!~ _'I.
, "I
i'
.i
; II
!II 'I.
hi
Ii i ii
:j!
ie ,
,
D
N'11d 311S 9NI)I'IlS
~
li= 0
o .~.i1
Z '-
"'
"
u
"'
~
~
'"
'"
"ii
:::i
'"
::.;
~
>-
~
...,
~
(Ill H.LOOfI - NH77f1P1l'Pi
\'t
~
~
'"
~ ~
~~~~
~~~~
~O::~~
~~~~
~ .::..
~
-.:
~
-.:
~
8
>-
~
~
t:l
3:JY7J S'Y:JlN
...
~
c.
~
o
'~
...
~
~
iIA1llG )/'/[YW([NV7
"'o)',J<tftl~"" .UJ..l.stM ,......-1
'KO&-ff" .aUlC___i A9tt..~,..,. :Ll:'l ""U-'l]JlIlOU ~"-""."n7
~DU"i..~N"'lU. . ''''LN!WN01iltAtof! 01"6 -LLl!n!I 1.U"U ~Y'U^:I1:1' toe
':>1#~ '~S ~3 .7"""".....,.. <3H'" . "I^,,"
aplsqUON!
",\ ",'191t&@ "~:lI3.l."MH~
'QlllU' Hn;nnWOIOl oizt
rn
3NldS 'iQl~O':i
;..
~
~~:
~~, ~ ,~-=:
.....: Z -;I. .
. ~~
~-=.S
~
Sll'tilO '!l N\lld WS 3d\f:JSON'11I
: i
ii,
11j!j
i;H;J'
. 't' ;'~~t
jl #::~,;;:~.q;
;i~~ -~-'.::;:'~ ,5~;e.,~
, ~
I"!! i
-\'1~; ,
.;; ~ ~ ! ~
H; j ~j
"
'<~
;'
~i 1
,
='1
<:(,
~:
i'
~,
~:
it
h
.\
"
.~ . I
.
~
il
~
~
..,
Ii
c,
~
'"
='
'"
f:
~!
~!
!il
~j
=1
~I
,
+,
~I
~i
""
~L
1..;<
'h
~:
~:
!tl
., ~!
;~ ~l
j! ~j
if 1;;1
; :ii!.
. lEii
.... ' + +~,
.:.:ii
;;;:.;
~:
::i-':::-
$
i,{'J,"$
,j
~ 1
, .
" ;P
~
'"
'"
..
~
~
..'
'./.
s
.~._--
~
... ~Jt:
%,
.,
I. tala
'1)jV.~\,(L\:V7
~
~
C/'
-i.
~
ii
~
~
I
j
,~
j~it_
ell
ill
;~
?li
Ill....'
~l
~i;;
Eo
=
'11 ~
iS~-~ &~~ 1i ~'(g~~
1iif i~~l 'iif ~
l!.'~ lh;. ~.~ I
'i~! W jll !".
" Iii Iii l~ 11.
~;; lU l~! ,~!l~
!l~ :" lfi ;!~l~
l~" 't" ;,. 1~~I'
;~~~ ;IJ; ;i1 :;li~~
l.gK~ 11 il !~. 1~'1l
~l~j ::/i :f. l"~~
u
=
.j.J
.,.,
..Q
-,.,
..c:
X
I:iI
r,)v'7<! S;)/.")/,~'
j
:t
;;;,
~!
H
"T,
:fa:
.'
;~
,
:~i
'lI)
~!;
" l~
j;~
.""
~rJJ."..
~ t-<~
~u<
~t
cn::t::
~~
~<
t'+i@~':~
....'..J....... ....c
+{. .'-
::-ff,-,:-<
_~J\JUjJ..am_
_~JIL""""""'_a'loI
___K~"'/3Sl1lJ<l1ll
YIlIIO'~ 'lIll Y MIIYn:)
'011 H.LOOI Ni11IlIl"ll
......l.aD t1tD1llI 'lBl'Bl:fS"O lJilMTBll_
.......,..
8lBDB3Cl !lOISIH
SIB'flY1d :
SI.03lIl:llIt
'::)NI 'S31 VOOSSV ONV
oala 3:>1:1:10 Hlooa N311nfll:JfII
NVld IID01:l lS\.
I
...J
---I --------~--
I
I
9
I
---------_~____I___~__--------
~
it
~
It
l-
ta
: -- ------1------------
I I
I
I
I
------------t----
!
__uu_un______i8J
-----------~--- '
3'.
';iil
a::::-'-:O::: I
OVlO
Sco9
l..J....0')l..J....
...
- - Vl
: ~ ~;g
'"
2.
-----------~-~-------------------_.__.~
. .
---------------------------------------------------..
-------------~---
I
-- -----..1.------------
------------~---
-- ------1------------
-----------r---
I
"JI,\~J.:DlB"OIID_
_~tIl"',,-..o__--...
__M~"'.<I:.ilIItIl:ll
-
~TW~lID!!lI""lAI.JJl
~~=EI-==-+~
_"iIllDSlI'__J;lI.llOaYJIimXltll
\l_~__""'I1l_~
~
YOIII01:l '1I3J. Y MIIY1'1:l
'all H.100S IGT1n_
901B 3:>1:1:10 H.100B N311m'l:lW
NVlcI ~O'bl CJII~
--rnn--~ -----
I I~
I
i
------------~---J------~------------
!
i
I
I
; 111 , .
i i: !
-~- - n__~_;_-~ .-. --~_r-~---~-~-.
~
~
~
it
~
~
3'
'"
. . <(
!g~5
'---JecO
i~~_c;:
____un:" ir
;-------------------------------------------:
---------------------------------------~q
_ _____________~_____________~____~t8j
. .
. ,
~------------------------------------------------_..
-----------~---
I I
---------4------------
I
----------------- . -- -------1'------------
I
-----------r---
I
I
"
"
ROBERT C. PERGOLIZZI, AICP
PRINCIPAL
SU~IMARY OF EXPERIENCE
Mr. Pergolizzi has conducted numerous transportation studies and land development feasibility
studies in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, Collier, Sarasota, Lee, Manatee, Polk, Walton
and Citrus Counties. These studies include site impact analyses, traffic engineering and traffic
operations studies, travel time studies, parking studies, transportation analyses for DRI submittals,
roadway capacity analyses and alternative corridor/alignment studies and impact fee studies. He also
prepares signal warrant studies and signalization plans in accordance with MUTCD and MUTS
procedures and access permits in accordance with FDOT and local government regulations. Mr.
Pergolizzi has also served as a transportation planner with the Hillsborough County Metropolitan
Planning Organization where he prepared reports to assess traffic impacts of amendments to the
Long-Range Transportation Plan. He is familiar with the latest transportation software including
FSUTMS, Highway Capacity Software (HCS), FDOT QLOS Software, SYNCHRO, SIGNAL 2000,
PASSER and TRANSYT-7F.
He has also served as land use consultant and expert witness for various land use plan amendments,
rezonings, conditional use and variance hearings for Clients in the Tampa Bay area.
SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE
Land Use/Zonine:
.
Lowe'slPublix - Pinellas Park
Waterchase - Hillsborough County
Suburban Lodge - Largo
Cypress Cove Townhomes - Hillsborough County
Oak Valley Townhomes - Hillsborough County
Oak Park - Pinellas Park
Walgreens - Pinellas County
Pinellas Expo Center - Pinellas Park
Park Place Townhomes - Pinellas Park
St. Petersburg College EPICENTER - Largo
St. Petersburg College Health Education Center Expansion - Pinellas Park
Cumberland Trace Townhomes - Largo
Roosevelt Commons Office Park - Pinellas County
Hidden Bayou Townhomes - Pinellas County
Skylark Plaza - Pinellas County
Palmbrooke Townhomes - Pinellas Park
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
DRI Traffic Studies
· Northwood DRI Traffic Analysis
· Park Place DRI Traffic Analysis - Clearwater
· River Ridge DRI Traffic Analysis - Pasco County
· Heritage Pines DRI Traffic Analysis - Pasco County
· Timber Pines DRI Expansion - Hernando County
· ICOT Center DRI Traffic Analysis - Pinellas County
· Mitchell Ranch Plaza DRI - Pasco County
· Crossroads Mall DRI - Largo
· CORPOREX Business Park - Hillsborough County
· Beacon Woods East - Pasco County
· The Grove at Wesley Chapel DRI - Pasco County
Roadwav Corridor Planning! Alternative Systems Studies
· Lynn Turner Road - Hillsborough County
· Drew Street - Clearwater
· Belcher Road Extension - Pinellas County
· Keene Road (CR 1) Extension - Pinellas County
· City of Tarpon Springs Traffic Circulation Element Update - Tarpon Springs
· Gateway to Clearwater Beach/Causeway Boulevard/Roundabout - Clearwater
· DeCubellis Road - Pasco County
· Gulf Trace Boulevard - Pasco County
Traffic Operations StudieslDesigns/Signalization Designs
.
MPO Transportation Plan Amendment Studies - Preparation of numerous studies for roadway
plan amendments.
Baywalk/Mid-Core Traffic Analysis/Traffic Signal Design - St. Petersburg
Gulf BoulevardIW. Gulf Boulevard Traffic Signal- Treasure Island
GulfBoulevard/112th Avenue and GulfBoulvard/117th Avenue Traffic Signals - Treasure Island
Venetian Residential Development - Sarasota County
W al- Mart/Sam's Club - Traffic studies for rezoning and FOOT permits for numerous facilities in
Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Manatee, Sarasota, Lee, and Collier Counties
Suncoast Lakes MPUD - Pasco County
Perrine Ranch Road Analysis - Pasco County
Clearwater Community Sports Complex - Clearwater
Thurston Groves 102nd A venue and Ridge Road Improvements - Seminole
RiverWalk at Manatee River Plantation - Manatee County
Valrico Road/Wheeler Road Traffic Signal- Hillsborough County
Morton Plant Hospital Master Plan - Clearwater Campus
Palm Harbor University High School - Pinellas County
Key Vista - Pasco County
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· Madison A venue/Gould Street Improvements - Clearwater
· Bryan Dairy Road/Eckerd Corporation Traffic Signal - Pinellas County
· Bryan Dairy Road/Longwood Drive Traffic Signal - Pinellas County
· Clearwater Mall Transportation Analysis - Clearwater
· Trinity Town Center - Pasco County
· Rooms to Go Distribution Center Expansion Traffic Analysis - Lakeland
· Broadway A venue/Williams Road Intersection Improvements - Hillsborough County
· SR 580/Summerdale Drive Signalization Plans - Pinellas County
· The Lakes at Lucerne Park - Winter Haven
· The Lakes at Laurel Highlands - Lakeland
· Miller Road / Lumsden Road Signalization Plans - Hillsborough County
Access Permits
.
Numerous access permits for commercial and residential projects throughout Florida.
Parkin2 Studies
· Frenchy's Rockaway Grill - Clearwater Beach
· Post Comer Pizza - Clearwater Beach
· Outback Steakhouse - Clearwater Beach
· Roma Square Shopping Center - Clearwater
· Mandalay Grill - Clearwater Beach
· Morton Plant Hospital - Clearwater
Travel Time Studies
.
St. Anthony's Carillon Outpatient Center - Pinellas County
Community Hospital of New Port Richey - Pasco County
St. Joseph's Hospital- Hillsborough County
Lakeland Regional Medical Center - Polk County
Bayonet Point Hospital - Pasco County
Martin Memorial Medical Center - Martin County/St. Lucie County
Morton Plant Hospital - Pinellas County
.
.
.
.
.
.
EDUCATION
Master of City and Regional Planning, Rutgers University, 1987
Bachelor of Arts, Environmental and Urban Studies, Montclair State College, 1985
Successful completion of 128 hours of training conducted by the Federal Highway Administration
and the Florida Department of Transportation on Urban Systems Modeling, Transportation Planning
and Site Impact Analysis
Graduate course work in Traffic Engineering, University of South Florida
\
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION
American Institute of Certified Planners #9023, 1991
AWARDS
1990 Florida Institute of Transportation Engineers Past Presidents Award for Technical Paper
submittal Unsignalized Intersection Analvsis on Florida's Divided Arterials
MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
American Institute of Certified Planners
Institute of Transportation Engineers
American Planning Association
JUL-09-2008 01:48 PM
,- tlI-Ue;'~:OUI-'M:U'T''T'IClel .....eC:O~OB
P.02
;727 6f!2 dOse
.. , /
~&~"o
~\\'\ ~
'V~\ t.t~C7
,;
HODorable Mayor Hibbard
HoI1orabJe Vice Mayai' Doran
Hoaorab1e Cotmci1 Member Petmen
Honorable CouDcil Member GibSOD
Honorabl~ CauDell Member Crnkos
City Hall
112 Osaeo1a Aven~ 3rd Floor
Clearwater, FL 337~6
RE: City Council Public H.eatiDa Thursday Apnl 17. 2008 at 6pm
AppUc-tfOD LUZ200j.02002
AppJicatioll ANZ200s-02003
AppIieoDt SpiDeea1e Pmpen:ia. LLC
Property Location: 3280 " 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater
. \
PIlOnI ,.
Pl'lOne .
"
F..
~1
Dear Mayor 8Dd Ccnmci1 Membem:
I ~ the President oftbll AsbJaDd Hapt Property Owners Association.
mpresentins tbe abutting property 0WDen loca1ed to the north of tho proparty owned by the
AppliClllt 'Nhicb is tile Mject oflbe capdoncd appIicItioDs. Plcue accept this leua IS
evidence of our support and no objection to the captioned applications schoduled for
hearin& before you on April 11, 2008; as such appliclaOllS rcIare to 1hc annexation of a
portion of the property and ~rattOll of ecnaiD Imd use aad ZODJDg caIqJOries tbst will
permit the deYelopmcat ofa 4',000 square foot medical c:linic 8Ild 2~ parking spaces.
This proposed devc10pncnt will be in subs1ant:ial accordaoce with the Site Plan
approved by PJ..D2O()S.O 1014 and ita correspoadiug Development ~ which is the
subject of application DV A2005-0001 amd tile Applicant bat submitted minor site plan
modificlltioDl 8Dd modi1Icatioas to the Developmmt Aan=aent tbat ere eunmdy prmtI;ng
-mew by the PlIImiDs.Directot 8Dd Staff that addnn 0111' prior is8ues and (lQbCCmS. .
~~
RobcrtLapiD,
President '
Ashland Heights Property Owners Association
/
-
-
-
U-ES ·
- .-
Properties, Inc.
April 15, 2008
Honorable Mayor Hibbard
Honorable Vice Mayor Doran
Honorable Council Member Petersen
Honorable Council Member Gibson
Honorable Council Member Cretekos
City Hall
112 Osceola Avenue, 3rd Floor
Clearwater, FL 33756
RE: City Council Public Hearing Thursday April 17,2008 at 6pm
Application LUZ2005-02002
Application Ai"\J"Z2005-02003
Applicant Spinecare Properties, LLC
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Weare the abutting property owners located to the west of the property owned by
the Applicant which is the subject of the captioned applications. Please accept this letter
as evidence of our support and no objection to the captioned applications scheduled for
hearing before you on April 17, 2008; as such applications relate to the annexation of a
portion of the property and designation of certain land use and zoning categories that will
permit the development of a 45,000 square foot medical clinic and 225 parking spaces.
This proposed development will be in substantial accordance with the Site Plan
approved by FLD2005-0 I 014 and its corresponding Development Agreement which is
the subject of application DV AlOOS-OOO 1 and the Applicant has submitted minor site
plan modifications and modifications to the Development Agreement that are currently
pending review by the Planning Director and Staff that address our prior issues and
concerns.
300 State Street East, Suite 222, Oldsmar, FL 34677
Phone 813-749-8834 0 Fax 813-749-8855 0 www.jesproperties.com
-\
.J
Sincerely,
Dr. Dougla~~ ,~'
/ /
/ ~~
Dr.E~liZ~~~!. ~ ;~!~
, I, vi'!..' " Y'/~/L j,--,,\
I t!/r, r; ,J '- 0' I V
Cc: :fY Mana~er, Bill Ho~e
City Planmng Director, Mike Delk
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Do a 1 Sides
Deborah Martohue
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Deborah Martohue [dlmart@tampabay.rr.com]
Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:55 PM
'rlapin@tampabay.rr.com'
Ashland Heights petition objecting to Spinecare project
Objection letter & petition from Ashland Heights 070808.pdf; Signed letters to Ashland Heights
residents 070808.pdf
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Dear Mr. Lapin:
As a follow up to your discussion earlier today with my client, Sean Swalin, please see attached letter and petition of
objection delivered by Mr. Cook today to City Staff regarding the SpinecarejEquity medical facility project as well as the
corresponding letters of outreach to each of the petition signers. I hope the letters answer questions and bring
clarification to your Association membership. Any assistance you can offer to us to help address the concerns of these
individuals prior to the hearing next week will be appreciated.
I understand that you intend to attend the CDB hearing next Tuesday as well as the City Commission hearing next
Thursday. If you would be so kind to confirm that with me. Also, if you have any questions or need information to
distribute to your residents, please let me know. Feel free to provide my contact info to your residents who may have
questions or want additional information.
Best regards,
Deborah L. Martohue
Martohue Land Use Law Group, P.A.
Villages on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: 727.321.5263
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
Email: dmartohue@martohuelaw.com
Website: www.martohuelaw.com
******************************************************************************
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT, WORK PRODUCT, OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGE,
IS CONFIDENTIAL, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE BYTHE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, COPYING OR USE OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE NOTIFY THE AUTHOR AT
THE ABOVE ADDRESS OR EMAIL ADDRESS AND DESTROY THIS COMMUNICATION IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
1
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Clrand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
WW\\". rna rtohuela1,\'.com
Telephone: 727.321.LA.~D
Facsimile: 727321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
dmartoh ue@martohuebw.com
July 8, 2008
Mr. John B Cook
3093 Doxberrv Court
Cleanvater, FL 33761
RE: DVA2005-000 1
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Properrv Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Cleanvater
COB Hearing Date: Julv 15, 2008
Dear Mr. Cook:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Clearwater has prO\:ided me a COPy of the letter signed
by you and delivered today to staff which included a petition with several resident signatures including yours,
objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to a Development Agreement. r am the la""yer
representing the Applicant in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the
property and Equity which is the contract buyer for this property. r am contacting each one of the petition
signers and abutting property owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application
proposed. My intent is to be sure that each of you has current and accurate information and mv hope is that
such information will answer any questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. r am also
available to speak with you by phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain. r understand that my
client, Sean Swalin, has or will be contacting you personally to schedule a convenient time to meet with you
this week to go over vour concerns.
As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45.000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) teet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 teet with the exception of the elevator
shaft which is the equivalent of a tVl(o-story home built above base Hood as required by FEMA, more or less.
1
The site plan and agreement approved by the COB in May 2005 also includes 225 parking spaces, a
privacy wall along the north property. boundarY (Ashland Heights south boundary) and a privacy fence along
the property's south boundary line. The restrictions on the location of the parking and traffic circulation on
the north part of the property was restricted in 2005 to address compatibility issues with residents in your
Association. In addition, architectural teatures such as translucent windows on the north and west ta<;:ade of
the building to ensure privacy for your Associations' residents was required and approved. These essential
restrictions to address compatibility with Ashland Height residents remain unchanged in the modification to
the Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard next Tuesday, July 15th by the COB.
In fact, the modifications to the Development Agreement that are the subject of the hearing are a
direct result of several meetings berween my client and Ashland Height representatives beginning last
Summer 2007prior to re-activating the pending applications. BrieHv, a representative of my client EqUity, Mr.
Sean Swalin, requested through the Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, a meeting to discuss resuming
the project with any resident who wanted to attend. Mr. Swalin met with residents on at least three occasions.
Mr. Lapin, President of the Association, presented issues and concerns on behalf of the Association members.
Mr. Carmine Grastataro, former President of the Association, presented a laundry list of specific issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots directly abutting the project to
the south. My client engaged a certified arborist who re-surveyed the site and joined me in meeting with City.
Staff to discuss every viable option available to maximize the preservation of quality on-site trees, particularly
along the northern property boundary while at the same time accommodating relocation of the privacy wall at
the request of the Association.
.As a result of those meetings and several telephone conversations, several changes were made to the
Development Agreement and previously approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented to and ultimately agreed to as acceptable by Mr. Lapin and Mr. Grastataro. In fact, both of these
gentlemen were present to support the project at the initial Ciry Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 17tl,. In addition, the site plan previously approved by the COB in Mav 2005 was
revised to retlect the changes requested on behalf of the Ashland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively approved in May 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the Association in the
Development Agreement.
A. Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit Ashland
Heights residents are:
1.
.Ashland Heights Owners Association added as a third parry beneficiary to the Development
Agreement which gives the Association the right to enforce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall privacy wall located along the boundary bWNeen the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback from the property line to allow maintenance of the side facing Ashland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved by the abutting lot owners
with the intent to preserve the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City's rating
system. Section 6.1.3.6.
The duration of the original Development Agreement approved by the COB in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
.,
3.
B. Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address Ashland Heights residents concerns are:
2
Trees 8-10 height will be planted south of the 6 foot privacy wall on the north property boundary to
provide privacy, screening and butfering. Section 6.1.3.10.
Hours of operation and rvpes of operations are restricted. Sections 6.1.3.11 and 6.1.3.12.
Parking spaces on the north side of the building are for staff only, secured by a gate and limited to no
more than 15 spaces. Section 6.1.3.4.
4. All windows on the north and west sides of the building must be translucent to provide privacy for
Ashland Heights residents. Section 6.1.3.5.
1.
..,
"
).
I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any additional questions or need additional
information, please email or call me at the address and/or numbers located above. In the event the
information I have provided reduces or eliminates your concerns, we would appreciate if you would contact
Mike Remolds, the Citv Planner assigned to this case to withdraw your objection. He can be reached at 727-
562-4836 or mikc.rc\n"ld~('UtT!.\dcdrwll-cr.(, 'm. Alternatively, you can email me at
Jmlrr,>hl'e!,;'mdrr,l.L'LeLm.:..'m and state that you no longer object to the application. Please include your full
name and address.
::::-
//)/j/}"l//
Sincerely< U' .j;/
I~/'U~~/C . ~~-
Deborah L. Martohue, Esq.
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH 1. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
\\,\\,\\'. ma rtohuelaw.com
Telephone: 727.321.LAu'\JD
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
dmartoh ue@martohuelaw.com
July 8, 2008
Mr. Carmine Grastataro
3069 Doxberry Court
Cleanvater, FL33761
RE: DVA2005-000 1
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Clearwater
COB Hearing Date: Julv 15, :W08
Dear Mr. Grastataro:
The Planning Department Staff of the Ciry of Clearwater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. Cook and delivered today which included a petition with several resident signatures including yours,
objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to a Development Agreement. As you mav
recall, I am the lawyer representing the Applicant in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as
the owner of the property and Equity which is the contract buyer for this property. We met prior to the City
Commission meeting that you attended on April 3, 2008 to support the application project. The hearing was
then continued to the 17th and in lieu of you and Mr. Lapin attending in person, you gave us a letter from the
HOA in support of the project.
1 am contacting you and each one of the petition signers and abutting property owners to provide
each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be sure that each of you
has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any questions yOU
may have and address some or all of your concerns. 1 am also available to speak with you by phone to discuss
any questions or issues that remain. 1 understand that my client, Sean Swalin, has or will be contacting you
personally to schedule a convenient time to meet with you this week to go over your recent concerns so we
can better understand what transpired ber-w'een April and now to change your mind and object to the project;
particularly after we have already obtained the administrative approval of the minor site plan revisions
requested to benefit the .Ashland Height residents.
As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of historv and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Communit'l Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet with the exception of the elevator
shafi: which is the equivalent of a t\Vo-Sto ry' home built above base Hood as required by FEMA, more or less.
The site plan and agreement approved by the COB in May 2005 also includes 225 parking spaces, a
privacv wall along the north property boundary' (Ashland Heights south boundary) and a privacy fence along
the propertY's south boundary line. The restrictions on the location of the parking and traffic circulation on
the north part of the property was restricted in 2005 to address compatibility. issues with residents in your
Association. In addition, architectural features such as translucent windows on the north and west fa~ade of
the building to ensure privacy for your Associations' residents was required and approved. These essential
restrictions to address compatibility with Ashland Height residents remain unchanged in the modification to
the Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard next Tuesday, July lS'h by the COB.
In fact, the modifications to the Development Agreement that are the subject of the hearing are a
direct result of several meetings between my client and Ashland Height representatives beginning last
Summer 2007prior to re-activating the pending applications. BrieHy, a representative of my client Equity, Mr.
Sean Swalin, requested through the Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, a meeting to discuss resuming
the project with any resident who wanted to attend. Mr. Swalin met with residents on at least three occasions
including Mr. Lapin, President of the Association, who presented issues and concerns on behalf of the
.Association members and yourself and vou presented a laundry list of specific issues and concerns that you
stated were compiled from talking with the owners of the lots directly abutting the project to the south. My
client engaged a certified arborist who re-surveyed the site and joined me in meeting with City Start to discuss
every viable option available to maximize the preservation of quality on-site trees, particularly along the
northern property boundary while at the same time accommodating relocation of the privacy wall at the
request of the Association.
As a result of those meetings and several telephone conversations, several changes were made to the
Development Agreement and previously approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented to and ultimately agreed to as acceptable by you and Mr. Lapin. In fact, both of you were present to
support the project at the initial City Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which was later postponed to
April 17'h. In addition, as stated earlier, the site plan previously approved by the COB in May 2005 was
revised to reHect the changes requested on behalf of the Ashland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively approved in May 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the Association in the
Development Agreement.
A Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit Ashland
Heights residents are:
-,
1. Ashland Heights Owners Association added as a third party beneficiary to the Development
Agreement which gives the .Association the right to enforce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall privacy wall located along the boundary bet\veen the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback from the property line to allow maintenance of the side facing Ashland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved by the abutting lot owners
2
with the intent to presef\'e the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City's rating
system. Section 6.1.3.6.
3. The duration of the original Development Agreement approved bv the COB in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
B. Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address Ashland Heights residents concerns are:
1. Trees 8-10 height will be planted south of the 6 foot privacy wall on the north property boundary to
provide privacy, screening and buffering. Section 6.1.3.10.
Hours of operation and types of operations are restricted. Sections 6.1.3.11 and 6.1.3.12.
Parking spaces on the north side of the building are for staff only, secured by a gate and limited to no
more than 15 spaces. Section 6.1.3.4.
4. All windows on the north and west sides of the building must be translucent to provide privacy for
Ashland Heights residents. Section 6.1.3.5.
.,
3.
1 hope this information has been helpful. If you have any additional questions or need additional
information, please email or call me at the address and/or numbers located above. In the event the
information I have provided reduces or eliminates your concerns, we would appreciate if you would contact
Mike Reynolds, the City Planner assigned to this case to withdraw your objection. He can be reached at 727-
562-4836 or mike.rc\ltulds@lm-dearwarer.u)m. Alternatively, you can email me at
dmdrtohueIL!im,lftuhueLm.cum and state that vou no longer object to the application. Please include your full
name and address. /J
/
/
I
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Crand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
v."\\ w. n1<1 rtohue la\Lcom
Telephone: 727 .321.LA.,\;D
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
dmartoh lle@martohllela\\'.com
July 8, :W08
T errv Matthews
3085 Doxberry COUrt
Clean~;ater, FL 33761
RE: DVA2005-000 1
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equitv
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Cleanvater
COB Hearing Date: July 15, 2008
Dear Terry Matthews:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Cleanvater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the lav.yer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. I am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain.
As you mav be aware, this project has quite a bit of historY and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 feet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
The site plJn Jnd Jgreement Jpproved bv the COB in MJV 2005 a.lso mcludes 225 parking spJces,J
privacv wall along the north property boundMV (AshlJnd Heights south boundJrv) Jnd a privacv fence along
the propem"s south boundary line The restrictions on the location of the pMking and rrarhc circulation on
the north pJrt ot the propem' was restncted in 2005 to address compatibilitv issues I,vith residents in vour
Association. In addition, MchitecturJl features such JS trJnslucent windmvs on the north t"a.-;:Jde of the
building to ensure privacv for vour AssociJtions' resIdents I,VJS required Jnd Jpproved. These essentiJl
restnctlons co address compJtLbLim; with AshlJnd Height residents remJln unchJnged m the modification to
rhe Development Agreement dut is scheduled to be heard next TuesdJv, Julv ljell bv the COB.
In fact. the mocLt"ications to the Development Agreement that Me the subject of the hectnng Me ct
direct result of several meetings bem'een mv client ctnd ,Ashland Height representcttives beginnmg lctst
Summer 2007prior to re-JLtlvctting the pendmg elppllcJtlons. BrieHv, el representeltive of mv client Equit\., Mr.
Sectn Swalm, requesred through the .Ashlelnd Height Homeowner's AssociJtion, J meeting to discuss resuming
the project with a.nv resldent who wanted to attend \1r. Swalm met with resldents on at least three occasions
\fr. Lapin, President of the Association, presented issues a.nd concerns on behalf of the ,Association members
Mr. Carmine GrJstataro, former President of the Association, presented a laundry list of specific issues and
concerns that he stJted he compLied from talking with the owners of the lots directly Jbutting the project to
the south. \{y client engaged a certified Mborist who re-surveyed the site ctnd joined me in meeting with City
Staff to discuss everv victble option available to mdXimize the preservJtion of qUctlity on-site trees, particulJrly
along the northern propem' boundarY' while elt the same time clccommodJting relocation of the privacy ''';Jll ctt
the req uest of the .Associcttion.
A.s ct result of those meetmgs ctnd several telephone converseltions, several chJnges were made to the
Development Agreement ctnd previouslv approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These chelnges were
presented to and ultimately ctgreed to as ctcceptable bv \1r. Lapin and Mr. GrastcttJro In fJct, both of those
gentlemen were present to support the project at the initictl Cm' Commisslon heMing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 17th In ctddition, the site plan previously ctpproved lw the CDS in ~{cty 2005 was
revised to reHect the chctnges requested on behalf of the A.shland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively ctpproved in Mav 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested bv the .Association in the
Development Agreement.
A Criticctl chctnges melde to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit ,Ashland
Heights residents Me:
1.
,Ashlelnd Heights Owners Association ctdded ctS ct third pam' benerkiarv' to the Development
Agreement which gives the ,Association the right to entorce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violctted. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall pri"acv walllocJted along the boundary bet\veen the property ctnd ,Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback tTom the propem' line to ctllow mctintenance of the side facing .Ashland
Heights on-site. The finctlloccttion will be set in the field and approved bv the abutting lot owners
with the intent to preserv'e the ma...Xlmum number of trees rctted 3 or higher under the Cit\.'s rating
S\stem. Sect!on 61.3.6
The duration of the original Development Agreement approved bv the COB in 2005 was 10 years
ctnd the proposed duration is 20 Years. Section 5.3.
.,
~
).
B Crirical restrictions in the Developmenr Agreemenr that were approved in 2005 ctnd remelin
unchctnged to ctddress .Ashland Heights residents concerns ctre:
2
..,
T ree~ 8-t 0 he ~g ht 'kill be p lamed sou th ot the 6 toot privacv wa II 0 n the north prope m bound,l rv to
prO\lde privacv. ~creening and buffering. Secnon 6.1.3 .to
Hou r~ or' ope ra tion and types ot operations a re restricted Sections 6. t. 3. tt and 6. t. 3. 12.
Parking spaces on the north side of the building are tor staff onlv. secured bv a gate and limlted to no
more than t5 speKes. Sectlon 6t.3.4
All wmdows on the north and west sides of the building must be tnn~lucent to provide privacv tor
.-\shland Heights residents. Section 6t.3.5
3.
4
[ hope thi~ lOformation has been helpfuL [f vou have anv additional questlon~ or need additional
lOformatlon. plea~e ematl or call me at the address ,md/or numbers located above. In the event the
mformation [ have provided reduces or eliminates vour concem~, we would appreuate if vou would contact
\flke Remold~. the City Planner assigned to thi~ case to withdraw vour objection. He can be reached at 727-
5624836 or r:>~c: rO\l'.,LcLr.cUll\....: lei L'.\Tc!'.':"IT'.. Alternatlvelv, vou can email me at
.l'c'lr-,l"e:'),,','-r >l,.eiF,:'.'''' and state that vou no longer object to the application. Please include vour full
name and address.
Sin"'#~1 ,fJ iff
>I:~;c / Ii! j~ / i'<<A L-------.
~?t- !/l/ I '
Deborah L. ~hKohue, Esq.
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
\\ "VI,\". ma rtohue la\v.cam
Telephone: 727.321.LAJ\D
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
d marta h ue@martohllelaw.com
July 8, 2008
Mr. Alfonso Fontaine
3089 Doxberry Court
Clearwater, FL 33761
RE: DV A2005-000 1
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
PropertY. Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Clear,vater
COB Hearing Date: July 15,2008
Dear Mr. Fontaine:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Clearwater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. r am the la\Vyer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. r am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. r am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain.
As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formallv re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) teet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) teet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 teet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 feet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
The Slte pLm and agreemem approved bv the COB in Mav 2005 abo includes 225 parking spaces, a
pri\acv wall along the north property boundarv (A.shland Heights south boundarv'\ and a privacv tence along
the propertv's south boundarv line. The restrictions on the location ot the parkmg and trattic circulation on
the north part at the property was restncted in 2005 to address compatibility issues with residems in 'lour
A.ssociJtion. In ,{ddition, architectural teatures such as translucem windows on the north ta~Jde at the
buildmg to ensure privacy tor your AssoClations' residems was required and approved. These essemiJl
restrictions to Jddress compatlbdltv lAlth Ashland Height residents remam unchanged in the modirkation to
the Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard next Tuesdav, Julv 15'1, bv the COB.
in ['act, the modlrications to the Dewlopmem A.greemem that Jre the subject or the heanng Jre a.
direct result or several meetings bet\veen mv cliem a.nd A.shla.nd Height represematiws beginning last
Summer 2007pnor to re-Jctivatmg the pendmg applications, Bnetlv, J representative or mv client Equit\., \fr.
SeJn SWCllin, requested through the AshlJnd Height Homeowner's ,AssoClCltion, Cl meering to dlscuss resuming
the project with anv residem who wanted to attend \{r. Swalin met with residents on at least three occasions.
\{r. Lapin, President at the .Association, presented issues and concerns on behalt or the ,Association members.
\{r. Carmine GrClstataro, tormer Presidem at the Association, presemed a laundrY' list at specific issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled tram talking with the owners at the lots directlv abutting the project to
the south. Mv diem engaged a certified Jrborist who re-surv'eved the site Jnd joined me in meeting with City
StCltf to discuss everY' viable option available to maximize the preserv'ation ot qualitY' on-site trees, particularlv
along the northern propertv boundarY' while Jt the same time Clccommodating relocation ot the privacv wall Jt
the req uest ot the ,AssociJtion.
,As a result ot those meetings and several telephone conversations, severa! chJnges were made to the
Development Agreemem and previouslv approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presemed to and ultimatelv agreed to as acceptable bv Mr. Lapin and \fr. Grastataro. In tact, both of those
gentlemen were present to support the project at the initial Citv Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 17'11 In addition, the site plan previouslv approved bv the COB in Mav 2005 was
revised to rerlect the changes requested on behalf of the Ashland Heights residems and those changes were
administratiwlv approved in Mav 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the Association in the
Developmem Agreemem.
A. Critical changes made to the Development Agreemem at the request of and to benefit Ashland
Heights residents are:
1
,Ashland Heights Owners .Association added as a third partY. beneticiarv' to the Development
Agreemem which gives the Association the right to entorce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six toot tall privacy wall located along the boundary- between the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback from the property line to allow maintenance of the side facing ,Ashland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the tield and approved by the abutting lot owners
with the intent to preserve the maximum number ot trees rated 3 or higher under the City's rating
system. Section 6.13,6.
The duration ot the original Development Agreement approved by the COB in 2005 was 10 vears
and the proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
~
3
B, Critical restrictions in the Development Agreemem that were approved in 2005 and remJin
unchJnged to Jddress ,Ashland Heights residents concerns are:
2
1.
T ree~ 3-10 helghr will be planted ~ourh or the 6 root priVc1C\ wall on rhe north propen\" boundar,; to
provide privacv. ~creening and burfering Section 6.1 3.10
Hour~ or operation and tvpe~ or operation~ are restricted Sections 6.1.3.11 and 6.1.3.12.
Parkmg space~ on the north side or the bllllding are t'or staff onlv, secured bv a gate and limited to no
more than 15 sp,\ce~ Section 6.1.3.4.
All windows on the nonh dnd west ~ides or the building must be translucent to provide privacv tor
Ashland Heighrs re~idems Section 6.1.3.5
'1
3
4
I hope thiS mformdtion hds been helpruL If you have anv addltlonal questions or need additional
mtormarion, pledse emdd or call me at the address and/or numbers loeared above. In the evem the
mformanon I ha\'e provided reduces or eliminates your concerns, we would appreCiate It vou would conta,ct
:\.1tke Remolds. the Citv Pldnner assigned to this ca,se to withdra,w vour objection He can be reached at 72 7-
562-4836 or ('.'.c~,c:r::\:",,:,_L'l,i)m'~'!c.I~~.\dCerc(,'m. Altemativelv, vou ca,n ema,il me at
_~'1'.'rC.'I".::C'."1-.icr +:<::.1'\":" "" and sta,te that vou no longer object to the application. Please include vour full
name and address.
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. .MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
\\"\\ w. martohue h\\'.com
Telephone: 727.321.LAND
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
~lobile: 727.460.8431
dm,~ no h ue@manohuelaw.com
July 8, 2008
Ms. Laurie Serra
3321 Waterford Drive
Cleaf'-"ater, FL 33761
RE: DVA2005-0001
Applicant: Spinecare Propenies LLC/ Equity
PropertY Location: 3280 & 3290 McM ullen Booth Road, Cleaf'-"'ater
COB Hearing Date: July 15, 2008
Dear Ms Serra:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Cleaf'-"'ater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr, John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the laIN'yer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equitv which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting propertv
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. I am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain,
As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of histoty and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last FalL However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 feet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
1
The site plan and agreement approved by the CDB in Nby 2005 also mcludes :25 parking spaces, a
privacy wall along the north propertv boundarv (Ashland Heights south boundary) and a privacv fence along
the propertv's south boundan' line. The restrictions on the location of the parking and traft'lc circulation on
the north part of the property. was restncted in 2005 to address compatibilirv' issues with residents in your
A.ssociation. In addition, architectural features such as translucent windows on the north fa~ade of the
building to ensure privacv for your Associations' residents was required and approved. These essential
restrictions to address compatibilirv' with !\shland Height residems remaln unchanged m the moditkation to
the Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard next Tuesdav, Julv 15'1, bv the CDB.
In fact. the modlflcations to the Development Agreement that are the subject of the heanng are a
direct result of several meetings bet'Neen my client and i\shland Height representatives beginning last
Summer :007prior to re-activatmg the pending applications. Brietlv. a representatlve of mv cllent Equirv', Mr
Sean Swalin, requested through the i\shland Height Homeowner's Association, a meeting to discuss resuming
the project with any resident who wanted to attend. M r Swalin met with residents on at least three occasions.
\tr Lapin, President of the A.ssociation. presented issues and concerns on behalf of the Association members
~tr. Carmine Grastataro. former President of the Association, presented a laundn' list of specitk issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots directlv abutting the project to
the south. My client engaged a certified arborist who re-sun'eyed the site and joined me in meeting with em'
Statf to discuss even' viable option available to maximize the presen'ation of quality. on-site trees, particularly
along the northern property. boundar,; while at the same time accommodating relocation of the privacv wall at
the request of the Association.
As a result of those meetings and several telephone com;ersations, several changes were made to the
Development Agreement and previously approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented to and ultimately agreed to as acceptable bv Mr. Lapin and Mr. Grastataro. In fact, both of those
gentlemen were present to support the project at the initial Cirv' Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 1Th In addition, the site plan previously approved by the CDB in May 2005 was
revised to reHect the changes requested on behalf of the Ashland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively approved in May 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the Association in the
Development Agreement.
A Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit Ashland
Heights residents are:
.,
1. Ashland Heights Owners Association added as a third pam' benefician' to the Development
Agreement which gives the Association the right to enforce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall privacy wall located along the boundary bervveen the property. and Ashland Heights
subdiVIsion will be setback tTom the propem' line to allow maintenance of the side facing .Ashland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved by the abutting lot owners
with the intent to preserve the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City"s rating
system Section 6.1.3.6
The duration of the original Development Agreement approved by the CDB in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
3.
B. Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address Ashland Heigtm residents concerns are:
2
I.
Trees 8-lC' he:ght will be pl,mted south of the 6 foot privacy "vall on the north propert\" boundar\" to
provlde princ\". screening and buttering. Section 61 310.
Hours of operatlon and types of operations are restricted Sections 6.1.3.11 and 6.1.3.12.
Parking spaces on the north side ot' the building are for statt onlv. secured bv a gate and limited to no
more than l5 spaces. Section 6.1.3.4
All windmvs on the north and "vest sides of the building must be translucent to provide privacv for
Ashland Helghts residents. Section 6.1.3.5.
~
3
4
I hope this mr'ormation has been helpfuL If vou have any additional questions or need additional
Information. please emad or call me at the address and/or numbers locdted above. In the event the
mformation I have provided reduces or eliminates your concerns. we would appreciate if vou would contact
\flke Revnolds. the eitv Planner assigned to this case to withdraw your objection. He can be reached at 727-
562-4836 or n,:~<:r~\:',..lJ.;iw'Tl'.cleil[wJ"er':,)rr:. Alternativelv. vou can emdd me at
cl'1'.:r'+"e(";)l~.,.lrr +:'C,!,\:,,'ln and state that vou no longer object to the application. Please include vour full
name and address
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
\n\'w. rnartohuelaw.com
Telephone: 727.321.LAJ\ID
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
dmarw h llC@manohuelaw.com
July 8, 2008
Mr. Michael Malone
3071 Doxbeny CT
Cleanvater, FL 33761
RE: DVA2005-0001
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road. Cleanvater
COB Hearing Date: July 15, 2008
Dear Mr. Malone:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Clearwater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the la\\>yer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. I am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain.
As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 feet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
1
The me plan md agreemem approved bv the CDB in \Ltv 2005 "lso mdudes 225 parking spaces, d
pmctCV \vall along the north property boundarv (:\shbnd Heights south boundary-) "nd a privacy fence alortg
the propem-'s somh boundan'line, The restrictions on the location of the parking and rraffic circulation on
the north part of the property was restricted in 2005 to address compatlbilitv issues with residents in vour
.-\ssocidtion, In "ddltion, architectural features such as translucent windows on the north fa~ade of the
budding to ensure privacy for your Associations' residents was required and approved, These essemial
resrrictions to address compatibilitv with Ashbnd Height residems remain unchanged in the modification to
the Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard next Tuesdav, Julv 15,11 bv the CDB,
In fAd, the modlfications to the Developmem Agreemem tllat are the subject of the hearing are a
direct result of several meetings beQ,\:een mv diem and Ashland Height represematives beginnmg last
Summer 2007prior to re-activating the pendmg applications, Brietlv, a representative of mv dient Equity" Mr
Sean S\valin, requested through the Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, a meeting to discuss resuming
the project with any res idem who wanted to attend, \1r. Swalin met with residents on at leasr three occasions,
\1t. Lapin, President of the Association, presented issues and concerns on behalf of the .Association members,
Mr. Carmme Grastataro, former President of the .Association, presented a laundn' list of specific issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots directly abutting the project to
the south. My dlem engaged a certified arborist who re-sLll\'eyed the site and joined me in meeting with eitv
Staff to discuss even' viable option available to mCLximize the presen'ation of quality on-site trees, particularly
along the northern property boundan' while at the same time accommodating relocation of the privacy wall at
the request of the Association.
As a result of those meetings and several telephone conversations, several changes were made to the
Development Agreement and previouslv approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented to and ultimately agreed to as acceptable by Mr. Lapin and \1r. Grastataro. In fact, both of those
gentlemen were present to support the project at the initial Citv Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April ITh In addition. the site plan previously approved by the CDB in May 2005 was
revised to retlect the changes requested on behalf of the A.shland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively approved in May 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the ,Association in the
Development Agreement.
A. Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit Ashland
Heights residents are:
..,
1. Ashland Heights Owners ,Association added as a third party. benefician' to the Development
Agreement which gives the Association the right to enforce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall privacy wall located along the boundary benveen the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback trom the property' line to allow maintenance of the side facing ,Ashland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved by the abutting lot owners
with the intent to presen'e the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City.'s rating
system. Sectlon 6.1.3.6.
The duration of the original Development Agreement approved bv the CDB in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration is 20 vears. Section 5.3.
3.
B. Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address Ashland Heights residents concerns are:
2
1
T ree~ 8-10 helghr will be pl,mted south of the 6 foot privacv wall on the north property boundarY to
provlde privacy, screening and buffering. Section 61.3.10
Hours of operation and types of operations are restricted. Sections 6.1.3.11 and 61.3.12.
Parking spaces on the north side of the building are tor staff onlv, secured bv ct gate and limited to no
more than 15 space~. Section 6.1.34.
All windows on the north and west sides of the building must be translucent to provide privacy for
Ashland Helghts residents. Section 61.35.
.,
3
4
[ hope thtS informcttion hcts been helpful. [f YOll have any additlonal q llestions or need additional
lnformatlon, please email or call me at the address and/or numbers located above. In the event the
information [ have provided reduces or eliminates vour concerns, we would appreciate if you would contact
Mike Remolds, the Clrv Planner asslgned to this case to withdraw vour objection. He can be reached at 727-
562-4836 or r:",~.:.r::\;,,'",-L'(,.J1T:.'de,,~.,",lre!-'~clm. Alternativelv, vou can email me at
.i'111r",)h:e:',)m"rr+d,l'y\..','m and state th,lt you no longer object to the application. Please include vour full
name and address /;7
&~// /
smcep f if /
! ,~t ," , ~
I ,'J
~/
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
\\v\ w. ma rtohuela\v.com
Telephone: 727.321.LAu'\JD
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
d martoh ue@martohuelaw.com
July 8, 2008
Mr. Chas Johnson
3090 Doxberry Court
Clearwater, FL 33761
RE: DV A2005-000 1
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Clearn:ater
COB Hearing Date: July 15, 2008
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Clearwater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the la1Nyer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or aU of your concerns. I am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain.
l\s vou may be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 feet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
1
The sire plan and agreemenc approved by the COB in Mav 2005 "Iso includes 225 p"rking spaces, a
prlVaCy wall along [he north propertY" boundary (Ashland Heights south boundary) and a privacy tence along
the propem"'s south boundary line The restrictions on the loca[ion of the parkmg and traffic circuLHlon on
the north part ot the propertY" was restricted in 2005 to address compatibility issues with residents in your
Association In addition, architectural teatures such as [ranslucent windows on the north fa~ade of the
building co ensure privacy for vour Associations' residents was required and apprm;ed. These essential
resrrictions co "ddress compatlbility with Ashland Helght residencs remam unchanged in the moditkation to
the Developmenc Agreement tlut lS scheduled to be heard next Tuesdav, Julv 15'1< bv the COB.
[n fact, [he modlflcatlons [Q [he Development Agreement tlHt Me the subject of the hearmg are a
direct resul[ of several meetings bet\veen my client and !\shland Height representatives beginning last
Summer 2007pnor co re-activating the pendmg applications. Brietlv, a representative of my client EqUltv, Mr.
Sean Swalin, requested through [he Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, a meeting to discuss resuming
[he prOject with any resident who wanced to attend" Mr. Swalin met with residents on at least three occasions.
\fr. Lapin, President of the Association, presented issues and concerns on behalf of the Association members.
\1r. Carmine Grastataro, former President of the Association, presented a laundry list of specific issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots directly abutting the project to
the south. Mv client engaged a certified arborist who re-surveyed the site and joined me in meeting with City
Staff to discuss every viable option available to maximize the preservation of quality on-site trees, particularly
along the northern property boundary while at the same time accommodating relocation of the privacy wall at
the req uest of the Association.
,As a result of those meetings and several telephone conversations, several changes were made to the
Development Agreement and previouslv approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented to and ultimately agreed to as acceptable by Mr. Lapin and \1r. Grastataro. [n fact, both of those
gentlemen were present to support the project at the initial City Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 1 rh [n addition, the site plan previously approved by the COB in Mav 2005 was
revised to retlect the changes requested on behalf of the Ashland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively approved in May 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the ,Association in the
Development Agreement"
A" Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit ,Ashland
Heights residents are:
1
,Ashland Heights Owners Association added as a third party. beneficia[\" to the Development
Agreement which gives the ,Association the right to enforce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall privacy wall located along [he boundary bet:\\"een the property" and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback trom the propem" line to allow maintenance of the side facing ,Ashland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved bv the abutting lot owners
with the intent to prese[\"e the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City's rating
system. Section 6.13.6.
The duration of the original Development Agreement approved by the COB in 2005 was 10 years
and [he proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
.,
3.
B Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address ,Ashland Heights residents concerns are:
2
.,
Trees 8-10 helght will be planted south of the 6 foot privacv wall on the north property boundarv to
pravde privacv, screening and buffering Section 6.1 3.10.
Hours of operation and rvpes of operations are restricted Sections 6.13.11 and 6.1.3.12.
Parking spaces on the north side of the building are for staff onlv, secured lwa gate and limtted to no
more than 15 spaces. Section 6.1.3.4.
A.ll windows on the north and west sides of the buddmg must be translucent to provide privrtcv for
Ashland Helghts residents. Section 6.1.3.5
3
4
I hope this information hrts been helpful. If you have rtny rtddttional questions or need additional
tnt'ormarion, please emall or call me rtt the rtddress and/or numbers located rtbove. In the event the
informrttion I have provided reduces or eliminates your concerns, we would apprecirtte if you would contact
\{tke Remolds, the eltv Planner rtsslgned to this case to withdraw VOLl[ objection. He Crtn be rertched at 727-
562-4836 or n::k<:r:\:i,..lcU,:J'1:...d<:d:""\,F;?r'~,)rr.. Alternativelv, vou can emad me at
_i"'n)~~<"'c:<:);,,,;-~ +eL1".c'.'111 and state that you no longer object to the application. Please include vour full
name rtnd address
3
LAND USE LA~r GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
W\\ vV. ma rtohuela\\',com
Telephone: 727.321.LAND
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
d marroh ue@martohlle!a\.\'.com
July 8, 2008
Mr. William Kirpatrick
3078 Doxberry Court
Clearn:ater, FL 33761
RE: DV A2005-000 1
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Clearn'ater
COB Hearing Date: July 15, 2008
Dear Mr. Kirpatrick:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Clearwater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the la\\yer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. I am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss anv questions or issues that remain.
i\s you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of historv and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last FalL However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 feet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
1
The site pLm md ctgreement ctpproved by the CDS in Mct'. 2005 ,,[:;0 [ncludes 225 p"rking spaces. ct
privacy ,-vall along the north propem boundary (Ashlctnd Heights south boundary-) o-lnd a prlv::\C\ fence along
[he propem-'s south boundaf\ Une. The restrictions on the location of the parking and trafftc circulation on
the north part of the propem' was restricted in 2005 to address compatibiliry issues with residents in vour
.-\ssociation. In ctddltion, architectural features such as translucent windows on the north fa~ade of the
building to ensure privacv for vour Associations' resldents was required and approved. These essential
restrictlons to address compatibilit\ with A.shl"nd Height residents rem"in unch"nged in the modification to
the Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard next Tuesdav, Julv 15'" bv the CDS.
In r'act, the modifications to the Development Agreement that are the suGJect of the hearing are "
direct result of several meetings bern;een mv client and Ashland Height represent"tives beginning last
Summer 2007prior to re-ctctivating the pending "pplications. Brierlv, a representative of mv client Equirv, Mr.
Sean Swalin, requested through the Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, a meetmg to discuss resuming
the project with emv resident who \'.anted to attend. \1r. Swalin met with residents on ctt least three occasions.
\fr. Lapin, President of the l-\ssociation, presented issues and concerns on behalf of the l-\ssociation members.
.\1r Carmine Grastataro, former President of the .Association, presented a laundry' list of specific issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots directLv abutting the project to
the south. \1y client engaged a certified arborist who re-sLlf\'eyed the site and joined me in meeting with Ciry'
Staff to discuss evef\- viable option available to ma..ximize the presef\'ation of quality on-site trees, particularly
along the northern propem' boundaf\' while at the same time accommodating relocation of the privacv wall at
the req uest of the i-\ssociation.
,-\s " result of those meetings and several telephone conversations, several changes were made to the
Development Agreement and previouslv approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented to and ultimatelv agreed to as acceptable by Mr. Lapm and Mr. Grastataro. In fact, both of those
gentlemen were present to support the project at the initial Cirv' Commlssion hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 17'h In addition, the site plan previously approved by the COB in May 2005 was
revised to rerlect the changes requested on behalf of the Ashland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively approved in May 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the Association in the
Development Agreement.
A. Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit l-\shland
Heights residents are:
,
1. Ashland Heights Owners .Association added as a third pam' beneficiary' to the Development
Agreement which gives the ,Association the right to enforce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall privacy wall located along the boundary ber<,veen the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback tTom the propem' line to allow maintenance of the side facing .A.shland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved by the abutting lot owners
with the intent to preserve the maximum number of trees rctted 3 or higher under the City's rating
system. Section 6.1.3.6.
The durcttion of the original Development Agreement approved by the CDS in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
3.
B. Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to ctddress Ashland Heights residents concerns are:
2
1. Trees 3-10 heigh, will be planted sourh or' the 6 foot privac\ 1kall on the north propem bounda", to
prO\lde prlvacv, screenlng and buffering. Section 6.1 J 10
Hours of operation and types of operations are restricted Sections 6.1.3.11 and 613.12.
3 P"rking spaces on the north side of the buildlOg are for staff onlv, secured b\ a gate and limited to no
more than 15 spaces. Section 6.1.3.4
4 All 'klOdows on the north and 1,vest sides of the buddlng must be translucent to provide privac\ for
.:.\.shland Helghts residents. Section 6.1.35.
[ hope this lnformation has been helpful. If vou have an\ addltiona.l questions or need additional
lnformation, please emat! or call me a.t the Jddress and/or numbers located "bove. [n the event the
lOr'ormation [ h"ve provided reduces or eliminates vour concerns, we would a.ppreciate if vou would contact
\{lke Remolds, the Cirv Planner a.ssigned to this ca.se to \\lthdrc"'v vour objection. He ca.n be rea.ched at 727-
562-4336 or r"'"er::\:,,;lcL+Jn:"L'~C:'i:'\drer',,'rT: Alternativelv, vou can email me a.t
_[".lrr.h,.ef")':.-,.,~r'l:ei;.1,(,'m and state that VOll no longer object to the a.pplication. Please lOclude vour full
name a.nd address.
~
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
\\v\w. ma rtohuela\y.com
Telephone: 727.321.L~l\JD
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.843 ]
dmartoh ue@martohuelaw.com
July 8, 2008
Mr. Yalcin Ekren
3061 Doxberry Court
Cleaf\\:ater, FL 33761
RE: DV A2005-000 1
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Cleaf\\.ater
COB Hearing Date: July 15, 2008
Dear Mr. Ekren:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Clearwater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the lawyer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. I am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain.
.As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) teet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) teet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 teet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 teet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
The site plcln clnd clgrcement clpproved by the CDS tn \1clv 2005 cllso lrH.:ludes ::5 parking spclces, cl
pr~\-ctcv wall along the n,:)tth proper,,- boundary (Ashland Heights south boundclrv-) and a priv:1cv fence along
the propem's sOllth boundclrv-linc_ The restncrions on the location of the pclrking and traffic circulation on
the north part of the property was restricted in 2005 to address compatibilm issues with resldems in vour
Associdtion_ In addition, architectural fedtures such ets translucem windows on the north fa~dde of the
budding ro ensure privacv for vour Associations' resldems was required and approved_ These essemicll
restrictions to address compatibdirv with A.shland Helght residems remdin undHnged in the modification to
the Development Agreement tlldt is scheduled ro be heard next Tuesdclv, Julv 15rh bv the CDB_
In t~1Ct, the modificcltions to the Developmem Agreemem that clre the subject of the hednng are a
direct result of several meetings be!:',veen mv diem and A,shLmd Height represematives beginning last
Summer 2007prior to re-activating the pending clppltcations. Bnetlv, a representclti"e of mv client Equirv-, Mr
Sean Swalin, requested through the Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, a meeting to discuss resuming
the prOject with ;mv res idem who wamed ro etttend_ \1r. Swalin met with residents on at least three occasions.
\1r. Letpin, President of the Association, presemed issues etnd concerns on behalf of the Association members
\1r. Cctrmine Grastataro, former President of the Association, presemed a laundry list of specific issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the Ql,vners of the lots directly abutting the project to
the south_ My client engaged a certified ctrborist who re-surv'eyed the site and joined me in meeting with City
Staff ro discuss everY' viable option avadable to maximize the preserv'ation of quality on-site trees, particularly
along the northern property boundary- while at the Sclme time accommodating relocation of the privacy wall dt
the request of the Association.
As cl result of those meetings and several telephone conversations, several dHnges \vere made to the
Development Agreemem dnd previouslv approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented ro and ultimately dgreed ro as dcceptable bv Mr. Laptn and \1r. Grastataro. In fact, both of those
gentlemen were presem to support the project at the initial Cirv' Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed ro April 1 r. In addition, the site plan previouslv approved by the COB in Mety 2005 was
revised to reHect the changes requested on behalf of the A.shland Heights tesidents and those changes were
administratively etpproved in Mety 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested bv the i\ssociation in the
Development Agreement.
A. Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit Ashland
Heights residents are:
1.
Ashland Heights Owners Association added as a third pam- beneficiarv- to the Development
Agreement which gives the Association the right to entorce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated_ Section 6.1.4.
The six foOt tall privacy wall located along the boundary' bet\veen the property. and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setbclck from the property line to allow maimenance of the side facing A,shIand
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved by the abutting lot owners
with the imem to preserv'e the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City's rating
system. Section 6.1.3.6.
The duration of the origindl Development Agreement approved bv the COB in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration lS 20 vears. Section 5.3.
.,
3.
B Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement tildt were approved in 2005 dnd remain
undunged to dddress Ashland Heights residents concerns (tre:
2
.,
Trees 3-10 height will be pldnted sourh of the 6 foot pnV8CV wall on the north propern bounddr\ to
provide pri\acv, screening and buttering Section 613.10.
Hours of operation drld (yves of operations are res([[cted Secrions 6. L311 and 6.1.3.12.
PJrking spaces on the north side of the building are for stdtf onlv. secured bv d gate and limited to no
more thdn 15 spaces. Section 61.3.4
All wmdows on the north and west sides of the building must ue translucent to proVIde privacv for
:\shldnd Helghts resldents Section 61.35.
3
1-
I hope thls informdtion has been helpfuL If vou haw am; addltional questions or need additional
~nformdtlOn, pledse emdLl or call me dt the dddress ,md/or numbers located duove. In the event the
informdtion I hdve provided reduces or elimindtes vour concerns, we would appreciate if you would contact
\{ike Remolds. the eltv Planner Jsslgned to this case to wlthdraw vour objection, He can ue reached Jt 727-
562-4836 or r,~cr~\:(,.,lcl.,('.;n". cle!C\\,Fer.~,'rr.. Alterndtiwlv, VOll can email me at
_~--:-'.!~r,i"c":'-,,~~ 'l,e!l'\C'''''. and state tIldt you no longer object to the appllcation. Please include vour full
name and Jddress.
3
LAND USE LA\V GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
Sr. Petersburg, Florida 33713
w\\.w. ma rtohue la\\. .com
Telephone: 727 .321.LAt'JD
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
d martoh lle@martohllelaw.com
J ulv 8, 2008
Mr. & Mrs. Sihweil
3053 Doxberry Court
Clearvvater, FL 33761
RE: DVA2005-0001
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Clearn:ater
CDB Hearing Date: July 15, 2008
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sihweil:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Clearwater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the lavvyer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of vou has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. I am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain.
As you mav be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or CDB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirry
(30) teet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 teet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
The site plan and Jgreement approved by the CDB in \bv 2005 also mdudes 225 parking spaces, a
privacy 'A'all a.long the north propem' boundary' (Ashland Heights south boundary) and a privacy fence along
the propem"s south boundary line The restrictions on the location of rhe parking and traffic circularion on
the north part of the propem' was restncted in 2005 to address compatibllit\; issues with residents in your
Association In addition, architectural features such as translucent windows on the north fa<;:ade of the
building to ensure priyacy for your Associarions' residents wa.s required and approved. These essential
resrnctions to address compatibility with Ashland Height residents remain unchanged in rhe modification to
rhe Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard next Tuesdav, Julv 15,h bv the COB.
In her, rhe modlt'lcarions to the Development Agreemenr thar are rll.e subject of the hearing are a
direct result of several meetings between mv diem and ,A.shland Helght representatives beginning last
Summer 2007prior to re-activating the pending appllcarions. Brietlv, a representative of mv cltent Equitv, Mr.
Sedn Swaltn, requested through the Ashland Heighr Homeowner's Associarion. a meeting to discuss resuming
the project with anv resident who wanted to attend. \1r. Swalin met "vith residents on at least three occasions.
\lr. Lapin, President of the .A.ssociation, presented issues and concerns on behalf of the .A.ssociation members.
~vlr. Carmine Grastataro. former President of the ,A.ssociation, presented a laundry list of specific issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots direcdv abutting the project to
the south. \lv diem engaged a certified arborist who re-surveyed the site and joined me in meeting with City
Staff to discuss everv' viable option available to maximize the preserv'ation of quality on-site trees, particularly
along the northern property. boundarY while at the same time accommodating relocation of the privacy wall at
the req uest of the .A.ssociation.
As a result of those meetings and seyeral telephone conversations. several changes were made to the
Developmem Agreement and preYiouslv approved Slte Plan to address rhe issues raised. These changes were
presemed to and ulrimatelv agreed to as acceptable bv Mr. Lapin and \lr. Grastataro. In fact, both of those
genrlemen were present to support the prOject at the initlal City Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 17'h. In addition, the site plan previously approved by the CDB in Mav 2005 was
revised to reHect rhe changes requested on behalf of the .Ashland Heights residems and those changes were
administratiyely approved in Mav 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the .A.ssociation in the
Development Agreement.
A. Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit Ashland
Heights residents are:
1
Ashland Heights Owners Association added as a third party beneficiarv to the Development
Agreement which gives the Association the right to enforce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violared. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall priyacy wall located along the boundary bet\\'een the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback trom the propertv line to allow maintenance of the side facing Ashland
Heights on-sire. The final location will be set in the field and approved bv the abutting lot owners
with the intent to preserv'e the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City.'s rating
svstem. Section 6.13.6.
The duration of the original Development Agreemem approved by the COB in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
.,
3.
B. Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address ,A..shland Heights residents concerns are:
2
Trees 8-10 height \vill be [)lanted south of the 6 foot [)rivacv wall on the north [)ro[)ertv boundal' to
[)rovlde privacy, screening and buffering. Section 61 3.10.
Hours of O[)ercttlon and types of operations are restricted Sections 6.1.311 and 6.1.3.12.
Parking spaces on the north side of the building are for stafr onlv, secured bv a gate and limited to no
more than 15 spaces. Section 6.1. 3 4
4. All windows on the north and west sides of the building must be translucent to [)rovide [)rivacv tor
Ashland Heights residents. Section 61.3.5.
..,
~
).
1 hope this lnformatlon has been helpful. If vou have anv additional questions or need additional
rnr"ormatlon, please emall or call me at the address and/or numbers located above. In the event the
information I have provided reduces or eliminates vour concerns, we would appreciate if vou would contact
\1lke Reynolds, the Citv Planner assigned to this case to withdraw vour objection. He can be reached at 727-
562-4836 or r'.l~c:r~\:l,.,U.,(~ihTrclC:ll"\\,l";:::l'.c,)rr.. Alternativelv, vou can email me at
i"n ,_t <~"'~{~-'}".-,!ri+ :c:l,!'\cc'tn and state that vou no longer object to the application. Please include vour full
name and address.
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
\\V\ 'W. ma rtohuelaw.com
Telephone: 727.321.LAND
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727 .460.84 31
d martoh ue@martohllelaw.com
Julv 8, 2008
Ms. Lisa Areroff
3317 Waterford Drive
Cleanvater, FL 33761
RE: DVA2005-000 1
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Clearv,;ater
COB Hearing Date: July 15,2008
Dear Ms. Arerotf:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Clearwater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the la"'yer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. I am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain.
.As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 feet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
1
The sire plaf' and agreemenr approved lw dle COB in Mav 2005 also indudes 225 parking spaces, a
[.'ri\~cv wall along dle north propem boundary (Ashland Heighrs somh boundarv-) and a privricv tence along
dle propem's somh boundarv- line. The rescricrions on dle lacHlan of rhe parking and rrarhc circularion on
dle nonh pan of dle propem- was resnicred in 2005 [0 address compatibtlicv issues with residems in vour
Associarion_ In addltion, architeccural teatures such as rranslucem windows on the north fa-;:ade of the
building co ensure privacv for your AssoClarions' residems was required and approved. These essemial
restrictions to address comparibilicv with Ashland Height residents remain unchanged If\ rhe modification to
the Development Agreemem that lS scheduled co be heard next Tuesdav, ]ulv 15'11 bv the COB.
In fact. the modlflcaCtons to the Develo[.'mem Agreemem that are the subject of the hearing are a
direct resulr of sewral meetings benveen mv diem and Ashland Height representatives beginnmg last
Summer 2007pnor to re-activating the pending applications. Bnetlv. a representatiw or- mv dient Equitv, Mr.
Seem Swalin, requested through the Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, il meeting to discuss resuming
the project 1,vith iI::1V resldent who wamed to attend. \{r. Swalin met with resident.s on at least three occasions.
\1r. Lapin, Presldem of the Association, presemed issues ilnd concerns on behalf of the Association members.
Mr. Carmme Grastataro, former Presidem of the Association, presemed a laundry list of specitk issues and
concerns th"t he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots direcdy abutting the project co
the south. \1y diem engaged a certified arborist who re-surv-eyed the site "nd joined me in meeting with Cicy
St"tt co dISCUSS everv- vi"ble option "vailable to maximize the preserv-ation of quality on-site trees, particularlv
along the nonhern propeny boundarY' while at the same time dccommodating relocation of the privacv wall dt
the request of the Association.
As a result of those meetings and sewral telephone conversations, sewral changes were made co the
Developmem Agreement and previously "pproved Site Plan to address the issues raised_ These ch"nges were
presemed to and ultimately agreed to as acceptable bv Mr. Lapin and Mr. Grastataro_ In fact, both of those
gentlemen \vere presem to support the project at the initidl City Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 1 rh In addition, the site plan previously approved bv the COB in MdV 2005 was
revised co retlect the changes requested on belulf of the Ashland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively "pproved in May 2008 to be consistem with the changes requested bv the Association in the
Development Agreement.
A_ Critical ch"nges m"de to the Development Agreement dt the request of and CO benefit Ashland
Heights residents dre:
.,
1. Ashland Heights Owners Association added as d third pam- beneficiary to the Development
Agreement which gives the Association the right to entorce the Agreement should the Agreement be
viol"ted. Section 6_1.4_
The 5lx tOOt tall privacv wall located along the boundary- bet\\;een the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback trom the propem- line to allow maintenance of the side facing Ashland
Heights on-5ire. The final location will be set in the field and approved bv the "butting lot owners
with the intent to preserv-e the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City's rating
svstem. Section 6_1.3_6_
The duration of the original Development Agreement approved by the COB in 2005 was 10 years
"nd the proposed duration is 20 vears_ Section 5.3.
3
B. Critical restnction5 in the Development Agreement that were approwd in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address A.shLmd Heights residents concerns are:
2
1. Trees 8-10 helght will be planted south ot' the 6 foot 9rivacv wall on the north propert',; boundarv' to
provide privacy, screening and buffering. Section 6.13.10.
Hours of operation and types of operations are restricted. Sections 6.l.3.11 and 6.1.3.12.
3. Parking spaces on the north side of the buiiding are for staff onl~., secured by a gate and limited to no
more than 15 spaces. Section 6134
4 All windows on the north and west sides of the budding must be translucent to provide privacv for
Ashland Heights residents. Section 6.1.3.5
I hope this tnt'ormation has been helpful. If you have any addltional questions or need additional
in.formation, please emad or call me at the address and/or numbers located above. In the event the
informatlon I have provided reduces or eliminates vour concerns, we would appreciate if vou would contact
\ftke Revnolds. the Cit\, Planner assigned to this case to wlthdraw vour objection, He can be reached at 727-
562-4836 or ~,:~c:r::\n,.,U,'('Jnl'.(lc,I,-W,i~e[c,)m, Alternativeh.-. vou can email me at
.hl.! r'.,hi'':(';;l~,,1 r" +,dIT(., 'm and state tlut you no longer object to the application. Please include vour full
name and address.
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH 1. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St, Petersburg, Florida 33713
\\ 'W\\'. ma rrohue law.com
Telephone: 727.321.LAND
Facsimile: 727,321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
dmarro h uc@marrohuelayv.com
July 8, 2008
Ms. Barbara Bilgutay
3070 Doxberry CT
Cleanvater, FL 33761
RE: DVA2005-0001
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road. Cleanvater
COB Hearing Date: July 15, 2008
Dear Ms. Bilgutay:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Cleanvater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the lav"yer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns, I am also available to speak with you by
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain,
As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation. the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet with the exception of the elevator
shaft. not the 43 feet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
1
The slte plan md agreement approved by the COB in Mav 2005 also lncludes 225 parking s[:'aces, a
princv wall along the north property boundary (A.shland Helghts south boundarv-) and a privacy tence along
the propem;' s south boundar\ line The restrictions on the location of the parking and traffLc circulation on
the north part of the propem' was restricted in 2005 to address compatiblllty issues with residents in your
A.ssociation. In addition, architectural teatures such as translucent windows on the north td~ade of the
building to ensure princ\ for vour Associations' residents was required and approved. These essential
restrictLons to address companbtlirv with Ashland Helght residents remain unchanged in the modification to
the Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard next Tuesdav, Julv 15'h bv the COB.
In fact, the modlflcations to the Development Agreement that are the subject of the hearing are a
direct result of several meetings bet'A-'een mv client and Ashland Height representatives beginning last
Summer 2007prior to re-actLvating the pending applications. Brieth-, a representative of mv dlent Equin;, Y{r
Sean SW"llln, requested through the Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, a meeting to discuss resuming
the project with anv resident who wanted to attend. :'vfr. Swalin met with residents on at least three occasions.
Yfr. Lapin, President of the Association, presented issues and concerns on behalf of the Association members.
:\Ifr. Carmine Grastataro, former President of the Association, presented a laundry list of specific issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots directlv abutting the project to
the south. My client engaged a certified arborist who re-surveyed the site and joined me in meeting with City
Staff to discuss every viable option available to maximize the preservation of quality on-site trees, particularly
along the northern property boundary while at the same time accommodating relocation of the privacy wall at
the request of the Association.
As a result of those meetings and several telephone conversations, several changes were made to the
Development Agreement and previous Iv approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented to and ultimatelv agreed to as acceptable bv Mr. Lapin and Mr. Grastataro. In fact, both of those
gentlemen were present to support the project at the initial Citv Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April1Th In addition, the site plan previouslv approved by the COB in May 2005 was
revised to retlect the changes requested on behalf of the Ashland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively approved in :\Ifay 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the Association in the
Development Agreement.
A. Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit ,A..shland
Heights residents are:
.,
1. Ashland Heights Owners Association added as a third party beneficiarv to the Development
Agreement which gives the Association the right to entorce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall privacy wall located along the boundary bet'A-'een the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback from the propem- line to allow maintenance of the side facing Ashland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved bv the abutting lot owners
with the intent to preserve the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City's rating
system. Section 6.1.3.6.
The duration of the original Development Agreement approved bv the COB in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
~
J.
B. Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address ,A..shland Heights residents concerns are:
2
1
Trees 8- 10 height will be planted south or the 6 root privacv wall on the north propem' boundarv to
provide pri\acv, screening and buffering Section 61 J .10.
Hours or operation and tv-pes of operations are restricted. Sections 6.13.11 and 6 13.12.
Parking spaces on the north side or the building are ror starf onlv, secured bv a gate and limited to no
more than 15 spaces. Section 6.13.4.
All windows on the north and west sides of the building must be translucent to provide privacv for
.'\.,;hLmd Helghts resldenrs. Section 6.1.3.5
..,
3
4
[ hope thtS inrormation has been helprul. [r vou have any additional questions or need additional
lnrormacion, please email or call me at the address and/or numbers located above. In the event the
mrormation I have provided reduces or eliminates vour concerns, we would appreciate if Vall wOLlld contact
~like Revnolds, the C itv Planner assigned to thls case to withdraw vour objection. He can be reached at 72 7-
562-4836 or "'.~<:r::\""'kl.~('Ym-'cie,,,'x,)~e!-~,'IT'.. Alternativelv, you can emall me at
.l"'::lrr"h'ei':'l''.:gr ,i-"e["\c(-,,,-: dnd state tlcdt you no longer object to the application. Please include vour full
ndme and address_
/-
3
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
\\,\ w. ma rtohuelaw .com
Telephone: 727.321.LAND
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
dmartoh ue@martohuela\v.com
July 8, 2008
Mr. & Mrs. Heidt
3062 Doxberry CT
Clearwater, FL 33761
RE: DVA2005-000 1
Applicant; Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Clear\vater
COB Hearing Date: Julv 15, 2008
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Heidt:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Cleanvater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook which included a petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with your signature on that petition. I am the la\\yer representing the Applicant
in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the property and Equity which is the
contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition signers and abutting property
owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application proposed. My intent is to be
sure each of vou has current and accurate information and my hope is that such information will answer any
questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. I am also available to speak with you bv
phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain.
As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(0) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) teet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 teet with the exception of the elevator
shaft, not the 43 teet stated in Mr. Cook's objection letter.
1
The site plan and agreement approved bv the COB in .'vL\\ 2005 also includes 225 parking spaces, a
privacv ,,vall along the north property boundary (Ashland Heights south bounda[\,;) and a privacy tence along
che propem"s south boundar.v'line. The restrictions on the location of the parking and traffic circulation on
the north part of the property was restricted in 2005 to address compatibility issues with residents in vour
Association. [n addition, architectural features such as translucent windows on the north fas:ade ot the
building to ensure privacv tor your Associations' residents was required and approved. These essential
restrictions to address compatibilitv with Ashland Height residems remdin unchanged in the modification to
the Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard nexc T uesddv, J ulv 15,h bv the COB.
[n faG, the modlticdcions to the Development Agreemem chat dre the subject of the hearing dre a
dLrect result ot several meetings bet',veen mv diem and l\Shlctnd Height representatives beginning last
Summer 2007prior to re-dctivating the pending applicdtions. BrieHv, a representative of mv client Equity., Mr.
Sedn Swalin, requested through the Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, a meeting to discuss resuming
the project with any resident who wanted to attend. ,'v1r. S\valin met with residents on at least three occasions
\{r. Lapin, President ot the Association, presented issues and concerns on behalf of the Association members
,'vir. Carmine Grastataro, former President ot the .A..ssociation, presented a laundry list of specitic issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots directly abutting the project to
the south. My dient engaged a certitied arborist who re-sur.v'eved the site and jOined me in meeting with City
Staff to discuss ever.v" viable option available to maximize the preser.v'ation of quality on-site trees, particularly
along the northern propem' boundar.v' while at the same time accommodaeing relocation of the privacy wall at
the req uest of the Association.
.A..s a result of those meetings and several telephone conversations, several changes were made to the
Development Agreemem and previously approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented to and ultimately agreed to as acceptable bv Mr. Lapin and \fr. Grastataro. [n fact, both of those
gentlemen were present to support the project ae the initial Cir.v' Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 17'h. In addition, the site plan previously approved by the COB in May 2005 was
revised to reHect the changes requested on behalt of the Ashland Heights residents and those changes were
administrativelv approved in Mav 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the ,A..ssociation in the
Development Agreement.
A. Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit ,A..shland
Heights residents are:
.,
L. ,A..shldnd Heights Owners Association added as a third party benetkiar.v' co the Development
Agreemem which gives the Association the right to entorce the Agreemem should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall privacy wall located along the boundary bet\veen the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback tTom the propem' line to allow maintenance of the side facing ,A..shland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved by the abutting lot owners
with the intent to preserve the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City's ra.ting
system. Section 6.1.3.6.
The duration of the original Development Agreement approved by the COB in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
3.
B. Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address .Ashland Heights residents concerns a.re:
2
.,
T ree~ 8-10 helghr ",...ill be planced south of the 6 foot privacv wall on the north propertv boundat\. to
provide privacy. ~creening and buffering Section 6.13.10.
Hours of operation <tnd types of operation~ are restricted. Sections 6.1.3.11 and 6.1.3.12.
Parking spaces on the north side of the building are for st<tff onlv. secured bv <t g<tte <tnd limited to no
more th<tn 15 spaces. Section 6.1.3.4
All windows on the north and west sides of the building must be translucent to provide privacy tor
.-\shl<tnd Heights residencs. Section 6.1.3.5.
3
4
[ hope thi~ information h<ts been helpful. [f vou h<tvc anv additional questions or need additional
mformation. please emall or call me at the address and/or numbers locdted above. In the event the
information I h<tve provided reduces or elimin<ttes 'lour concerns, we would appreciate if you would contact
\ftke Revnolds, the eltv Planner assigned to this ca~e to withdraw 'lour objection. He can be reached at 727-
562-4836 or r.<(c:."~\ "._,lcL('i!nl'clc'!~"X:irC!'c,'rr,. Alternati\-elv, vou can email me at
_h'.1F,h"~{';;r-:l,l rr >l,. C!l'Y(' 'm and state th<tt vou no longer object to the <tpp!ication. Please include vour full
~/
3
Deborah Martohue
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Deborah Martohue [dlmart@tampabay.rr.com]
Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:45 PM
'rlapin@tampabay.rr.com'
'Sean Swalin'; 'Robert Pergolizzi'
Letter to Mr & Mrs Rasmussen
Letter to Ashland residents Rasmussen 070908..pdf
Dear Mr. Lapin
The City received an updated petition today from Mr. Cook with the Rasmussen's name added. Attached is my response
letter to them for your consideration and file. Please let me know if I can answer any questions you or your membership
may have regarding this application. Thank you.
Best regards,
Deborah L. Martohue
Martohue Land Use Law Group, P.A.
Villages on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: 727.321.5263
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
Email: dmartohue@martohuelaw.com
Website: www.martohuelaw.com
******************************************************************************
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT, WORK PRODUCT, OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGE,
IS CONFIDENTIAL, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT ANY DIS~EMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, COPYING OR USE OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE NOTIFY THE AUTHOR AT
THE ABOVE ADDRESS OR EMAIL ADDRESS AND DESTROY THIS COMMUNICATION IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
1
LAND USE LAW GROUP P.A.
DEBORAH L. ~RTOHUE, ESQUIRE
Attorneys & Counselors At Law
Village Center on Grand Central
2429 Central Avenue, Suite 203
St. Petersburg, Florida 33713
www.martohuelaw.com
Telephone: 727.321.LA..""lD
Facsimile: 727.321.8584
Mobile: 727.460.8431
dmartoh ue@marrohuelaw.com
July 9, 2008
Mr. & Mrs. Rasmussen
3086 Doxberry Court
Clearn,ater, FL 33761
RE: DVA2005-000 1
Applicant: Spinecare Properties LLC/ Equity
Property Location: 3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth Road, Cleat\vater
COB Hearing Date: July 15, 2008
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rasmussen:
The Planning Department Staff of the City of Clearvvater has provided me a copy of the letter signed
by Mr. John Cook and an updated petition objecting to the above-referenced application for modification to
a Development Agreement with Mrs. Rasmussen's signature on it signing for Mr. Rasmussen. I am the la'Nyer
representing the Applicant in this matter which is both Spinecare Properties LLC as the owner of the
property and Equity which is the contract buyer for this property. I am contacting each one of the petition
signers and abutting property owners to provide each of you a brief history and summary of the application
proposed. My intent is to be sure each of you has current and accurate information and my hope is that such
information will answer any questions you may have and address some or all of your concerns. I am also
available to speak with you by phone to discuss any questions or issues that remain.
As you may be aware, this project has quite a bit of history and began back in 2004. Litigation placed
the project on hold for several years and was formally re-activated for processing last Fall. However, prior to
the litigation, the Community Development Board or COB had approved a site plan and Development
Agreement for a 45,000 square foot medical building with a "maximum building height not to exceed thirty
(30) feet to the top of roof deck, with a five (5) foot parapet wall for screening, and forty-three (43) feet to the
top of the elevator/stair tower." Thus, the height of the building is 30 feet or DNO stories with the exception
of the elevator shaft consistent with the residential character of your neighborhood, not the 43 feet stated in
M r. Cook's objection letter.
1
The site plan and agreement approved by the COB in May 2005 also includes 225 parking spaces, a
privacy wall along the north property boundary (Ashland Heights south boundary) and a privacy fence along
the property's south boundary line. The restrictions on the location of the parking and traffic circulation on
the north part of the property was restricted in 2005 to address compatibility issues with residents in your
Association. In addition, architectural features such as translucent windows on the north fa<;:ade of the
building to ensure privacy for your Associations' residents was required and approved. These essential
restrictions to address compatibility with Ashland Height residents remain unchanged in the modification to
the Development Agreement that is scheduled to be heard next Tuesday, July 15th by the COB.
In fact, the modifications to the Development Agreement that are the subject of the hearing are a
direct result of several meetings between my client and Ashland Height representatives beginning last
Summer 2007prior to re-activating the pending applications. Briet1y, a representative of my client Equity, Mr.
Sean Swalin, requested through the Ashland Height Homeowner's Association, a meeting to discuss resuming
the project with any resident who wanted to attend. Mr. Swalin met with residents on at least three occasions.
Mr. Lapin, President of the Association, presented issues and concerns on behalf of the Association members.
Mr. Carmine Grastataro, former President of the Association, presented a laundry list of specific issues and
concerns that he stated he compiled from talking with the owners of the lots directly abutting the project to
the south. My client engaged a certified arborist who re-sut\.eyed the site and joined me in meeting with City
Staff to discuss every viable option available to maximize the preset\.ation of quality on-site trees, particularly
along the northern property boundary while at the same time accommodating relocation of the privacy wall at
the request of the Association.
As a result of those meetings and several telephone conversations, several changes were made to the
Development Agreement and previously approved Site Plan to address the issues raised. These changes were
presented to and ultimately agreed to as acceptable by Mr. Lapin and Mr. Grastataro. In fact, both of those
gentlemen were present to support the project at the initial City Commission hearing on April 3, 2008 which
was later postponed to April 17th. In addition, the site plan previously approved by the COB in May 2005 was
revised to ret1ect the changes requested on behalf of the Ashland Heights residents and those changes were
administratively approved in May 2008 to be consistent with the changes requested by the Association in the
Development Agreement.
A. Critical changes made to the Development Agreement at the request of and to benefit Ashland
Heights residents are:
..,
1. Ashland Heights Owners Association added as a third party beneficiary to the Development
Agreement which gives the Association the right to enforce the Agreement should the Agreement be
violated. Section 6.1.4.
The six foot tall privacy wall located along the boundary between the property and Ashland Heights
subdivision will be setback horn the property line to allow maintenance of the side facing Ashland
Heights on-site. The final location will be set in the field and approved by the abutting lot owners
with the intent to preserve the maximum number of trees rated 3 or higher under the City's rating
system. Section 6.1.3.6.
The duration of the original Development Agreement approved by the COB in 2005 was 10 years
and the proposed duration is 20 years. Section 5.3.
3.
B. Critical restrictions in the Development Agreement that were approved in 2005 and remain
unchanged to address Ashland Heights residents concerns are:
2
1. Trees 8-10 height will be planted south of the 6 foot privacy wall on the north property boundary to
provide privacy, screening and buffering. Section 6.1.3.10.
Hours of operation and types of operations are restricted. Sections 6.1.3.11 and 6.1.3.12.
Parking spaces on the north side of the building are for staff only, secured by a gate and limited to no
more than 15 spaces. Section 6.1.3.4.
4. All windows on the north and west sides of the building must be translucent to provide privacy for
Ashland Heights residents. Seerion 6.1.3.5.
'"l
3.
I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any additional questions or need additional
information, please email or call me at the address and/or numbers located above. In the event the
information I have provided reduces or eliminates your concerns, we would appreciate if you would contact
Mike Reynolds, the City Planner assigned to this case to withdraw your objection. He can be reached at 727-
562-4836 or rnike.revnl'kb@mvc[e;u\\.,lter.curn. Alternatively, YOll can email me at
dm,lrr,)hue(c.iJm,lrtohueLnv.cum and state that you no longer object to the application. Please include your full
name and address.
3