01/19/2010
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
January 19, 2010
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Thomas Coates Vice Chair
Jordan Behar Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Brian A. Barker Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Acting Board Member
Absent: Richard Adelson Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: December 15, 2009
A scrivener’s error on page 6 was noted.
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of December 15, 2009, as corrected. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (Item 1) (Continue to February 16, 2010):
1. Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443 & 463 East Shore Drive Level Two Application
Owner/ Applicant: Louis Developments, LLC, Elias Anastopolous.
Agent: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting, (1714 County Road 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL
34698; phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email:
terriskapik@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 0.98 acre located on the east side of East Shore Drive approximately 10 feet
north of the intersection of Papaya Street and East Shore Drive.
Atlas Page: 267A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval in the Tourist (T) District to permit the construction of a
7,142 square-foot 50-slip dock of which 38 slips will be used as a marina facility to be rented to
the public and the remaining 18 slips will be used as commercial dock accessory to an existing
hotel under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-803.E, 3-601 and 3-603.
Community Development 2010-01-19 1
Proposed Use: Marina.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II.
In his January 4, 2010 memorandum, Planner II Matthew Jackson reported the applicant
had requested a continuance.
Member Coates moved to continue Case FLD2009-02009 to February 16, 2010. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting: (Items 1-2)
1. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2009-10040 - 740 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/ Applicant: Michael and Amanda Modano.
th
Agent: Todd Bramuchi, Chancey Design Partnership, (1228 East 7 Ave, Tampa, FL
33605; phone: 813-248-9258; fax: 813-247-3507; email: tbramuchi@chanceydesign.com).
Location: 0.15 acre located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 125 feet
south of Bohemia Circle S.
Atlas Page: 249A.
Zoning: LMDR.
Request: Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new single family detached
dwelling within the Low Density Medium Residential District (LMDR) with a lot area of 6,534
square-feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front (East) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to
structure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Coastal
Construction Control Line) for an in-ground swimming pool and deck at existing grade as a
Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E.
Proposed Use: Single Family Detached Dwelling
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Matthew Jackson, Planner II.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-10040 2010-01-19.
Sandra Britton requested Party Status and for Anne Garris to speak on her behalf.
Member Behar moved to grant Sandra Britton Party Status with Anne Garris speaking
on her behalf. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Behar moved to accept Matthew Jackson as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Planner II Matthew Jackson reviewed the application. He said the applicant worked with
neighbors and will extend and widen the driveway to resolve parking concerns. A four-foot fence
along the edge of the swimming pool will prevent people from entering the dune area.
Community Development 2010-01-19 2
Representative Greg Jones reviewed the project. He said all construction will be
eastward of the CCCL and will not impact any dunes. The 12-foot wide pool will abut the
seawall. No pavers will be west of the CCCL.
Anne Garris, on behalf of Party Status Holder Sandy Britton, said the code is too
subjective. She recommended that the house be set back 18 feet from the sidewalk, similar to
the setbacks of nearby new homes, and that infill standards be reviewed for neighborhood
compatibility, as the owners live out-of-town and a vacation use is not compatible with adjacent
residential uses. She said nearby houses do not have solid walls facing the street. She
requested information showing that setbacks for nearby houses are similar to this request.
Ellen Hardgrave requested Party Status.
Member Behar moved to grant Ellen Hardgrave Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Party Status Holder Ellen Hardgrave said she has lived next door to the subject property
for 31 years and requested that her view of the Gulf of Mexico not be obstructed.
Mr. Jackson said front setbacks are measured from the property line and do not consider
a building’s design.
One resident said while concerns regarding illegal parking on Eldorado were resolved,
he recommended that the pool be moved several feet landward from the seawall and that Code
variations be rarely approved.
Mr. Jones said the application mimics development along the beach. He said the
applicant plans to use the property up to five months a year. He said the site will accommodate
six vehicles. He said Mrs. Hardgrave’s gulf views should improve; the pool will not have a cage
and the deck will be level with the pool. He said it makes sense to locate the pool next to the
seawall with a safety fence along the CCCL.
Ms. Garris, on behalf of Party Status Holder Sandy Britton, requested that the item be
tabled so that staff could review approval criteria more carefully to verify that this request meets
the intent of the code.
Board discussion ensued with comments that the applicant had addressed neighbor
concerns, no construction will occur seaward of the CCCL, and the house’s size is similar to
neighboring homes. It was stated that staff had done a great job and that the City welcomes
out-of-state residents to enjoy Clearwater’s beautiful beaches.
Member Coates moved to approve Case FLD2009-10040 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report with conditions of
approval as listed, plus 8) That the distance from the face of the garage to the back of the
sidewalk will be 18 feet; and 9) That the driveway width will be increased to the maximum
possible to provide sufficient onsite parking. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Community Development 2010-01-19 3
2. Level Three Application
Case: TA2009-12009 Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code to amend side setback standards
for commercial or multi-use docks on non-residentially zoned property adjacent to residentially
zoned property.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Lauren Matzke, Planner III
See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2009-12009 2010-01-19
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Case TA2009-12009 on today's
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Behar was thanked for his service on the board.
F. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1 :58 p.m.
Community Development 2010-01-19
4
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-10040 2010-01-19
CDB Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Case Number: FLD2009-10040
Agenda Item: D.1.
Owner/Applicant: Michael and Amanda Modano
Agent: Todd Bramuchi – Chancey Design Partnership
Address: 740 Eldorado Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new
single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,534 square feet, a
lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front (East) setback from 25
feet to 10 feet (to building) and a reduction to the rear (west)
setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Costal Construction Control
Line) for an inground swimming pool and deck at existing grade as
a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-204.E.
CURRENT ZONING: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
CURRENT FUTURE Residential Urban (RU)
LAND USE CATEGORY:
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Single-Family Detached Dwelling
Proposed Use: Single-Family Detached Dwelling
EXISTING North:Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District
SURROUNDING Detached Dwellings
ZONING AND USES:
South:Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
East: Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
West: Preservation (P) District
Water
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 125
feet south of Bohenia Circle South. The property is presently developed with a detached dwelling
which is going to be demolished. The properties to the north, south and east are zoned Low
Community Development Board – January 19, 2010
FLD2009-100470 – Page 1 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-10040 2010-01-19
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings. Land
to the west is zoned Preservation (P) District and is the Gulf of Mexico.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to redevelop the subject property with single-family detached dwelling. The
request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested rear (west) setback
reduction to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for pool and decking. The main
structure will maintain a 20-foot setback from the CCCL which is consistent with both houses
immediately adjacent to the subject property. As pursuant to Section 3-905.C.2 of the
Community Development Code (CDC), any requests to modify setback requirements from the
CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the CDC is
discussed below.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban
(RU) land use category, the allowable ISR is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an ISR of 0.38 is
proposed.
Density: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban (RU) land use category,
the allowable density is 7.5 units per acre. As the lot area is 6,600 square feet (0.15 acres), one
dwelling unit is allowed and therefore, the proposed density is in compliance.
Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is
no minimum lot area. The lot area of the subject property is 6,660 square feet which exceeds the
detached dwelling minimum standard of 5,000 square feet found in Table 2-202.
Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is
no minimum lot width. The subject property lot width is 60 feet which exceeds the detached
dwelling minimum standard of 50 feet found in Table 2-202.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential
Infill Projects shall have a front setback between 10 – 25 feet, a side setback between zero to five
feet, and a rear setback between zero to 15 feet. The proposal includes a front (east) setback of
10 feet and a rear (west) setback of zero feet with no reductions to side setbacks and is therefore
compliant with the above referenced requirements.
The reduction in front and rear setbacks allows for a development consistent with the
surrounding and emerging development pattern. The existing detached dwellings immediately
adjacent to the subject property to the north and south are setback 10 feet or less from the east
property lines. With regard to the rear setback reduction, the development pattern along
Eldorado is moving from typical ranch style Florida homes toward larger homes occupying a
greater portion of lot area than the existing homes. In addition, a site visit and review of aerial
photographs show that several existing waterfront detached dwellings in the vicinity of the
subject property appear to have up to zero foot structural and building setbacks to the CCCL.
Therefore, the rear setback reduction to provide a typical amenity of a pool and decking for a
beachfront detached dwelling is justified and consistent with the emerging development pattern.
Community Development Board – January 19, 2010
FLD2009-100470 – Page 2 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-10040 2010-01-19
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill projects,
the maximum building height in the LMDR District is 30 feet. The building height of the
detached dwelling will maintain a maximum building height of 30 feet as measured to flat roof
height, which is consistent with the above.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill
projects, two parking spaces are required. The proposal is to provide two parking spaces for the
dwelling, which is consistent with the above.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.H.1, air conditioning and similar
mechanical equipment is exempt from the side and rear setback requirements, but such
equipment must be screened from view from streets and adjacent property. Outside condensing
units for air conditioners as well as pool equipment will be placed adjacent to the side of the
dwelling. Compliance with screening requirements will be reviewed at time of building permit
submittal.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1908.A, all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas,
water, wastewater collection, electric, telephone and television cables, except major transmission
lines and transformers, shall be located underground. This proposal will comply with this
requirement.
Solid Waste: The dwelling unit will be provided a black barrel for solid waste disposal which
will be stored exterior to the dwelling. CDC Section 3-201.D.1 requires these black barrels to be
screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. Provisions for walls, fences or other
appropriate screening materials will be reviewed at time of building permit submittal.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the detached dwelling subdivision proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables
2-201.1 and 2-204:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 7.5 du/ac 1 du/ac X
ISR 0.65 0.38 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 6,600 square feet X 1
Minimum Lot Width N/A 60 feet X 1
Minimum Setbacks Front: 10 - 25 feet East: 10 feet X 1
Side: 0 - 5 feet North: 5 feet X
South: 5 feet X
Rear: 0 - 10 feet West: Zero feet X 1
Maximum Height 30 feet 30 feet X
Minimum Off-Street 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces X
Parking
1
See Analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board – January 19, 2010
FLD2009-100470 – Page 3 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-10040 2010-01-19
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-204.E
(Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity
or other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which X
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, X
acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of December 3, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.That the 0.15 acres is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 125 feet
south of Bohenia Circle South;
2.That the property is developed with a detached dwelling which is to be demolished;
3.That the proposal is to redevelop the subject property with a single-family detached dwelling;
Community Development Board – January 19, 2010
FLD2009-100470 – Page 4 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-10040 2010-01-19
4.That the proposal includes a reduction of the rear setback from the Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL) of 10 feet to zero feet;
5.That pursuant to CDC Section 3-905.C.2, any requests to modify setback requirements from
the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; and
6.That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2-
204 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
204.E of the Community Development Code; and
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application for the construction of a new single-family detached
dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,600
square feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet
(to building) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Costal
Construction Control Line) for an inground swimming pool and deck at existing grade as a
Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-
204.E with the following conditions of approval:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That the final design and colors of the dwelling unit be consistent with the elevations
approved by the CDB;
2.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a separate right-of-way permit must be
approved for the installation of the brick paver drive apron;
3.That there are no obstructions in the waterfront site visibility triangle;
4.That pool and deck not be constructed higher than 12 inches above existing grade;
5.That vehicles cannot be parked in the driveway blocking the pedestrian access to the concrete
sidewalk;
6.That black barrels stored exterior to the dwelling and outdoor mechanical equipment
including air conditioning and pool equipment be screened from view from adjacent streets
and properties; and
7.That all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, water, wastewater collection,
electric, telephone and television cables, except major transmission lines and transformers,
shall be located underground, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Matt Jackson, Planner II
Attachments: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – January 19, 2010
FLD2009-100470 – Page 5 of 5
Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-10040 2010-01-19
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Eldorado 740 Modano Residence (LMDR) -
01.19.10 CDB - MJ\Staff Report 2010 01.14.doc
Community Development Board – January 19, 2010
FLD2009-100470 – Page 6 of 5
Staff Report: Case: TA2009-12009 2010-01-19
CDB Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Case Number: TA2009-12009
Ordinance Number: 8132-10
Agenda Item: E-1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
COMMERCIAL/MULTI-USE DOCK SETBACKS AMENDMENT
REQUEST: Amendments to the Community Development Code (Ordinance No.
8132-10) to amend side setback standards for commercial or multi-use
docks on nonresidentially zoned property adjacent to residentially
zoned property.
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater Planning Department
BACKGROUND:
City Council requested that staff prepare a text amendment to amend the required side setbacks
for commercial docks located on non-residentially zoned property adjacent to waterfront
residentially zoned property. The proposed concept was presented to City Council for discussion
on November 30, 2009. At that time, staff was instructed to prepare an ordinance incorporating
the proposed language.
ANALYSIS:
This amendment proposes an additional standard addressing setbacks for commercial and/or
multi-use docks, to be applied to those properties located on non-residentially zoned property
that are adjacent to any waterfront residentially zoned property. If a commercial or multi-use
dock is constructed on such a property, the required side setback adjacent to the residentially
zoned property will be a minimum of twenty percent of the applicant’s waterfront property
width. This provides for greater separation between commercial or multi-use docks and
residential properties by increasing the existing side setback provisions for this subset of
commercial docks from ten percent.
The remainder of the existing setback standards was restructured to provide additional clarity
and consistency when reviewing applications.
Community Development Board – January 19, 2010
TA2009-12009 – Page 1
Staff Report: Case: TA2009-12009 2010-01-19
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Community Development Code Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for
reviewing text amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following:
1.The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Goal and Policy
which will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments:
Goal A.3 The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment
initiatives meet the safety, environmental and aesthetic needs of the City
through consistent implementation of the Community Development Code.
Policy A.6.7.1 Encourage the preservation of recreational and commercial working
waterfronts and marinas and other water-dependent facilities.
Findings
The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Providing additional
separation between residential and commercial dock uses ensures that safety, environmental and
aesthetic needs pertaining to waterfront property will be met. These standards will also
encourage the preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts and marinas and
other water-dependent facilities by minimizing conflicts between competing uses.
2.The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed text amendment will further the purposes of the Community Development
Code in that it will be consistent with the following purposes set forth in Section 1-103:
?
Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the
value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and
redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties (CDC Section 1-
103.B.2).
?
Protect and conserve the value of land throughout the city and the value of buildings and
improvements upon the land, and minimize the conflicts among the uses of land and
buildings (CDC Section 1-103.E.3).
?
Coordinate the provisions of this Development Code with corollary provisions relating to
parking, fences and walls, signs, minimum habitable area and like supplementary
requirements designed to establish an integrated and complete regulatory framework for
the use of land and water within the city (CDC Section 1-103.E.12).
Community Development Board – January 19, 2010
TA2009-12009 – Page 2
Staff Report: Case: TA2009-12009 2010-01-19
Findings
These amendments are consistent with the Community Development Code because establishing
greater separation between commercial docks and residential properties will preserve the value
of land and buildings, while the changes in language to the existing provisions will serve to
enhance the regulatory framework of the City.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are not inconsistent with the
goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development
APPROVAL
Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of Ordinance
No. 8132-10 that amends the Community Development Code.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________
Lauren Matzke, Planner III
ATTACHMENT:
?Ordinance No. 8132-10
S:\Planning Department\Community Development Code\2009 Code Amendments\TA2009-12009 - Commercial Dock Setbacks\Staff
Reports\Ordinance No 8132-10 CDB Staff Report 2010 01-19.Doc
Community Development Board – January 19, 2010
TA2009-12009 – Page 3
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda ~~s for
DATE: January r, 2?1O
CDB packets being distn?Z1ed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-10 0- 740 Eldorado Avenue
Yes
No
2.
February
Yes
1.
2009- Amendments to the Community Development Code
Yes
No
Date:~ /1
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\20l0IOl January 19,201011 Cover MEMO 20l0.doc
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda !t~s for
DATE: Januaryr,2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
/q
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-10040- 740 Eldorado Avenue
Yes
\>\
No
2.
Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443 &463 East Shore Drive - Memo only being continued to the
February 16,2010 meeting.
No
~
Yes
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: T A2009-12009- Amendments to the Community Development Code
Yes
No
Signature:
ersonal site visit to the
I have conducted a
Date:
~/ )~' tiP>
2J 0 YUf) J)! Cf361rMvL.
PRINT NAME
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2010101 January 19,201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; !Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda I~s for
DATE: January 14,2010
CDB packets being distrilqted on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-10040- 740 Eldorado Avenue
Yes
No
2.
Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443 &463 East Shore Drive - Memo only being continued to the
February 16,2010 meeting.
Yes
No
/
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: TA2009-12009- Amendments to the Community Development Code
Yes No n/a
Signature:
Date: 0 1- (b~ lD
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBl2010101 January 19,201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for
DATE: January )<2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Jq
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-10040- 740 Eldorado Avenue
Yes
K
No
2. Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443 &463 East Shore Drive - Memo only being continued to the
February 16,2010 meeting.
K
Yes
No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: TA2009-12009- Amendments to the Community Development Code
Yes No K--.
PRINT NAME
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI20iOlOi January i9, 20iOl1 Cover MEMO 20iO.doc
; Clearwater
()
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda It~s for
DATE: January )A: 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
/q
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-10040- 740 Eldorado Avenue
No ''---.J
Yes
2.
Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443 &463 East Shore Drive - Memo only being continued to the
February 16,2010 meeting..
NO~
Yes
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: T A2009-12009- Amendments to the Community Development Code
Yes
No
Sign~tuIf:
~ C ~ 0Uc)Ct
PRINT NAME
Date: ( ( ('7, fa
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\201OI01 January 19,201011 Cover MEMO 201O.doc
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda~te s for
DATE: January, 2010
CDB packets being distri uted on contain the following items:
Iq
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1.
Case: FLD2009-10040-740 Eldorado Avenue
XJ
No
Yes
2.
Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443 &463 East Shore Drive - Memo only being continued to the
February 16,2010 meeting.
Yes
No
fJ
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: T A2009-12009- Amendments to the Community Development Code
Yes
No
XJ
Signature:
\--\~- \0
PRINT NAME
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2010101 January 19,201011 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda I~~s for
DATE: January)4, 2010
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
,q
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-l0040- 740 Eldorado Avenue
Yes
No
NO
2. Case: FLD2009-02009 - 443 &463 East Shore Drive - Memo only being continued to the
February 16,2010 meeting.
Yes
No
I/o
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS atem 1):
1. Case: T A2009-l2009- Amendments to the Community Development Code
Yes
No
NO
Signature: Date:
JfY'/Ah J11J<f'ker
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2010101 January 19, 2010\1 Cover MEMO 2010.doc