Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
FLD2002-12045
Wedding Stephlen-s-on ??. & Ibarguen Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen, Architects, Inc 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Phone (727) 821-6610 Fax (727) 894-4216 Professional Registration #AA - 0002922 Letter of Transmittal TO Planner DATE: February 25, 2003 ;0103 sf ? ?l WE ARE SENDING YOU: Convenience Store 657 Court Street Case FLD2002-12045 y? 1r ( ) ATTACHED ( ) UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ( ) COPY CORRESPONDENCE ( ) CHANGE ORDER ( ) FIELD INSTRUCTION ( ) PRINTS/PLANS ( ) APPROVAL OF SUB'S ( ) CERTIF. SUBST. COMP. ( ) INVOICE ( ) CONTRACTOR REQUISITION ( ) OTHER (SEE BELOW) ( ) SPECIFICATIONS ( ) INSPECTION REPORTS NO. OF COPIES DESCRIPTION 1 Set Drainage Calculations THEY ARE BEING TRANSMITTED AS MARKED BELOW: ( ) FOR APPROVAL ( ) APPROVED FOR PAYMENT ( ) EXECUTION & RETURN ( ) FOR YOUR USE ( ) FOR YOUR INFORMATION ( ) PRICE QUOTATION FOR YOUR FILES ( ) FOR FURTHER PROCESSING ( ) FOR DISTRIBUTION AS REQUESTED ( ) FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ( ) OTHER (SEE REMARKS) REMARKS: RECEIVED FEBAJ)003 BY: C?V C.R. Wedding, President PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER COPY TO: File Wayne Wells, Senior Planning Department City of Clearwater November 1998 - csi/forms new/l.o.t. #2 WEST COAST DESIGN, INC. ................................................................................... . . FAX TRANSMITTAL ............................................................................................. ........... . . 10681 Gulf Blvd., Suite 205 Phone (727) 368-0491 Treasure Island, FL 33706 Fax (727) 368-0589 DATE: February 25, 2003 TO: Randy Wedding FAX No.: 894-4216 PAGES: Three incl. cover FROM David C. Littell RE: 657 Court St. PROJ.: 03-004 MESSAGE: onfiguration. olds 2,229 cu. ft. for a deficit of The current pon (6,400 - 2,229) ,171 cu. ft. r=4 VA C_-T STd P-J')G& RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Td WUTE:60 200E SE 'aad 68SO8922.zZ : 'ON Xdd ONI NJISBQ 1Sd00 1S3M : WOaA r PROJECT NAME 657 COURT STREET - N. POND PROJECT NUMBER 03-004 DESIGNER DCL DATE 2/17/2003 COMMENTS: STAGE-STORAGE FOR RETENTION POND AREA @ T.O.B. 776 EL............. 25.00 AREA @ DHW 682 EL.......... 24.50 AREA @ DLW 682 EL ........... 24.50 AREA BOTT.\NWL 398 EL.......... 23.00 SQ\FT CU\FT STAGE 23.00 398 0 24.02 591 504 23.04 405 16 24.06 598 527 23.08 413 32 24.10 606 551 23.12 420 48 24.14 613 575 23.16 428 65 24.18 620 599 23.20 435 82 24.22 628 624 23.24 442 99 24.25 635 648 23.27 450 116 24.29 643 673 23.31 457 134 24.33 650 699 23.35 465 152 24.37 657 724 23.39 472 171 24.41 665 750 23.43 480 189 24.45 672 776 23.47 487 208 24.49 680 803 23.51 494 227 24.53 687 830 23.55 502 247 24.57 694 857 23.59 509 267 24.61 702 884 23.63 517 287 24.65 709 912 23.67 524 307 24.69 717 940 23.71 531 328 24.73 724 968 23.75 539 349 24.76 732 997 23.78 546 370 24.80 739 1025 23.82 554 392 24.84 746 1055 23.86 561 414 24.88 754 1084 23.90 558 436 24.92 761 1114 23.94 576 458 24.96 769 1144 23.98 583 481 25.00 776 1174 Ed WUTZ:60 200E SE 'aad 68SO8922-EL : 'ON XHd ONI N9IS3G 1SH00 1S3M : WONA 'ROJECT NAME 657 COURT STREET - S. POND PROJECT NUMBER 03-004 DESIGNER DCL DATE 2/1712003 OOMMENTS: STAGE-STORAGE FOR RETENTION POND kREA @ T.O.B. 1558 EL ............. 25.00 kREA @ DHW 1313 EL.......... 24.50 kREA @ DLW 1313 EL........... 24.50 kREA 0 BOTT.\NWL 579 EL.......... 23.00 STAGE SQ\FT CU\FT 23.00 579 0 24.02 1078 845 23.04 598 23 24.06 1097 887 23.08 617 47 24.10 1116 931 23.12 637 72 24.14 1136 975 23.16 656 97 24.18 1155 1020 23.20 675 123 24.22 1174 1066 23.24 694 150 24.25 1193 1112 23.27 713 177 24.29 1212 1159 23.31 733 206 24.33 1232 1207 23.35 752 235 24.37 1251 1256 23.39 771 265 24.41 1270 1305 23.43 790 295 24.45 1289 1355 23.47 809 327 24.49 1308 1406 23.51 829 359 24.53 1328 1458 23.55 848 392 24.57 1347 1510 23.59 867 425 24.61 1366 1564 23.63 886 460 24.65 1385 1618 23.67 905 495 24.69 1404 1672 23.71 925 531 24.73 1424 1728 23.75 944 567 24.76 1443 1784 23.78 963 605 24.80 1462 1841 23.82 982 643 24.84 1481 1899 23.86 1001 682 24.88 1500 1957 23.90 1021 721 24.92 1520 2016 23.94 1040 762 24.96 1539 2076 23.98 1059 803 25.00 1558 2137 SUM MA RY:: ..................::...::::::: :N`Y '........................................ 4`i'': D!F`f€ ? ......:: .... ::::.:..::.....:..;. t a.?UN'TIONV-0, 'piL .................... Ed WUEE : 60 200E SE 'Dad 68S0892LEL : 'ON Xdd ON I NO I SSQ 1Sd0O 1S3M : WOZ IU ?I WEST COAST DESIGN, INC. 10681 Gulf Blvd., Suite 205 Treasure Island, FL 33706 January 24, 2003 Phone (727) 368-0491 Fax (727) 368-0,?Q Mr. Richard M. Alt, P. E. Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, FL 33637-6759 _ Re: Permit Inquiry 657 Court Street Clearwater, FL Project No. 03-004 Section 15/29S/15E, Pinellas County Dear Mr: Alt: WEDDING, STEPHENSOr- & IBARGUEN, ARCHITECTS, INC. Recd. JAN Route Copy To: File: We are forwarding the following items in support of a drainage permit exemption: • One site plan • One site survey our exemption request is based on a reduction in impervious surface as follows: BUILDING PAVEMENT GREEN SPACE TOTAL EMSTING 8,723 S.F./21.0% 27,136 S.F465.4% 5,614 S.F./13.6% 41.473 S.F./100% PROPOSED 3,200 S.F./7.7% 24,231 S.F./58.4% 14,042 S.F./33.9% 41.473 S.F./100% Please note that the vehicular use area will be reduced. Please do not hesitate to call us at (727) 368-0491 if you have any questions about this submittal. Sincerely, MEMBER ST. PETERSBURG AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MAY 2.0 2003 WEST COAST DESIGN, IN 10681 Gulf Blvd., Suite 205 Treasure Island, FL 33706 February 6, 2003 Mr. Richard M. Alt, P. E. Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, FL 33637-6759 Re: Permit Inquiry No. CT#110474 657 Court Street Clearwater, FL ne (727) 368-0491 (727) 368-0589 WEDDING, STEP ` - i? SON & IBARGUEN ffITECJ? INC. 03 Rec'd. Route Copy To: File: Project No. 03-004 Section 15/29S/15E, Pinellas County ya?Dear Mr. Alt: We are submitting the following in response to your 2/4/03 Request for Additional Information: 1. The property is owned by The CEPCOT Corporation 14480 62nd Street N. Clearwater, FL 33760 (727) 531-8913 2. A current aerial with the site highlighted is enclosed. Please do not hesitate to call us at (727) 368-0491 if you have any questions gut this submittal. Sincerely, WEST COAST DESIGN, INC. •G ? ?O David C. Littell, President cc: Mr. Randy Wedding MEMBER ST. PETERSBURG AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 4 South-Ast Florida `? - Water Management District An Equal Tampa Service Office Bartow Service Office Opportunity 7601 Highway 301 North 170 Century Boulevard Employer Tampa, Florida 33637-6759 Bartow, Florida 33830-7700 (813) 985-7481 or (863) 534-1448 or 1-800-836-0797 (FL only) 1-800-492-7862 (FL only) SUNCOM 578-2070 SUNCOM 572-6200 Ronnie E. Duncan Chair, Pinellas Thomas G. Dabney, 11 Vice Chair, Sarasota Heidi B. McCree Secretary, Hillsborough Watson L Haynes, 11 Treasurer, Pinellas Edward W. Chance Manatee Monroe "AI" Coogler Citrus Maggie N. Dominguez Hillsborough Pamela L. Fentress Highlands Ronald C. Johnson Polk Janet D. Kovach Hillsborough John K. Renke, III Pasco E. D. "Sonny" Vergara Executive Director Gene A. Heath Assistant Executive Director William S. Bileaky General Counsel February 4, 2003 2379 Broad Strorooksville, Florida 34604-6899 (352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only) SUNCOM 628-4150 TDD only 1-800-231-6103 (FL only) On the Internet at: WaterMatters.org Sarasota Service Office 6750 Fruitville Road Sarasota, Florida 34240-9711 (941) 377-3722 or 1-800-320-3503 (FL only) SUNCOM 531-6900 Lecanto Service Office 3600 West Sovereign Path Suite 226 Lecanto, Florida 34461-8070 (352) 527-8131 SUNCOM 667-3271 David C. Littell, P.E. West Coast Design, Inc. 10681 Gulf Boulevard, Suite 205 Treasure Island, Florida 33706 Subject: Project EvaluatiorVExemption Request for Additional Information Project Name: 657 Court Street Inquiry No.: CT#110474 County: Pinellas Dear Mr. Littell: District staff have reviewed information submitted on January 27, 2003 for the project referenced above. Additional information is required to complete the processing for the inquiry; therefore, please submit the following information: Please submit the owner's name, address, and phone number along with a current aerial with the site highlighted. Please reference Inquiry No. CT#110474 in future correspondence concerning the project. If you have any questions regarding the information, please contact me at the Tampa Service Office, extension 2045. Sincer JI-V Z/1 Richard M. AI P. E. Tampa Regulation Department RMA:dsw cc: Inquiry No.: CT#110474 Protecting Your Water Resources • - WEST COAST DESIGN, INC. 10681 Gulf Blvd., Suite 205 Treasure Island, FL 33706 DRAINAGE CALCULATION INDEX AND CERTIFICATION CONVENIENCE STORE 657 COURT ST. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA SECTION 15-29S-15E PINELLAS COUNTY PROJECT No. 03-004 DESCRIPTION Calculation Index and Certification Rational Method Drainage Calculations Stage-Storage for N. Pond Stage-Storage for S. Pond PAGE 1 2 3 4 Don D. Kreider, P.E. ate Fl. Reg. No. 21066 Phone (727) 368-0491 Fax (727) 368-0589 MEMBER ST. PETERSBURG AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS - RATIONAL METHOD PROJECT NAME 657 COURT STREET 0 2-YEAR PROJECT NUMBER 03-004 0 3-YEAR DESIGNER DCL 0 5-YEAR DATE JAN. 29, '03 0 10-YEAR 1 25-YEAR TIME OF CONCENTRATION 0 50-YEAR HIGH EL.= 26.9 T.O.C .................... 9.0 min. LOW EL. = 24.5 IF LESS THAN 10 MIN, USE 10 DISTANCE= 320 INTENSITY ................ 8.46 in/hr RUN-OFF COEFFICIENTS EXISTING AC. PROPOSED AC. IMPERVIOUS 0.823? IMPERVIOUS 0.6297 PERVIOUS 0.1289 PERVIOUS 0.2591 OTHER C= 0.20 0.0000 POND 0.0633 TOTAL 0.9521 OTHER C 0.90 0.0000 C= 0.81 TOTAL 0.9521 C"A= 0.68 HISTORIC DISCHARGE {Q} C= 0.72 DURATION INTENSITY INFLOW DISCHARGE REQ.STOR MIN. IN/HR CU.FT. 11111 CU.FT. 111 I'll" "I'llasnagm CU.FT. 111 10 8.46 3462 3892 0 15 7.25 4450 5837 0 20 6.44 5266 7783 0 30 5.35 6571 11675 0 40 4.64 7592 15566 0 50 4.12 8425 19458 0 60 3.72 9122 23349 0 75 3.25 9983 29187 0 90 2.90 10681 35024 0 105 2.62 11260 40861 0 120 2.39 11750 46699 0 135 2.20 12171 52536 0 150 2.04 12539 58373 0 SUMMARY REQUIRED ATTENUATION VOLUME 0 CU FT REQUIRED DER RETENTION VOLUME 1728 CU FT TOTAL REQUIRED VOLUME 1728 CU FT EXISTING RUN-OFF COEF. 0.81 INTENSITY 8.46 DISCHARGE {Q} = 6.49 SITE AREA / AC. 0.9521 PROJECT NAME 657 COURT STREET - N. POND PROJECT NUMBER 03-004 DESIGNER DCL DATE 1/29/2003 OMMENTS: STAGE-STORAGE FOR RETENTION POND AREA @ T.O.B. 908 EL ............. 25.00 AREA @ DHW 730 EL.......... 24.50 AREA @ DLW 730 EL........... 24.50 AREA BOTT.\NWL 195 EL.......... 23.00 AREA VOLUME AREA VOLUME STAGE SQ\FT CU\FT STAGE SQ\FT CU\FT 23.00 195 0 24.02 558 384 23.04 209 8 24.06 572 406 23.08 223 16 24.10 586 429 23.12 237 25 24.14 600 452 23.16 251 35 24.18 614 476 23.20 265 45 24.22 628 500 23.24 279 56 24.25 642 525 23.27 293 67 24.29 656 551 23.31 307 79 24.33 670 577 23.35 321 91 24.37 684 603 23.39 335 104 24.41 698 631 23.43 349 117 24.45 712 658 23.47 363 131 24.49 726 686 23.51 377 146 24.53 740 715 23.55 391 161 24.57 754 744 23.59 405 176 24.61 768 774 23.63 419 193 24.65 782 805 23.67 433 209 24.69 796 836 23.71 447 226 24.73 810 867 23.75 461 244 24.76 824 899 23.78 475 263 24.80 838 932 23.82 489 281 24.84 852 965 23.86 503 301 24.88 866 999 23.90 517 321 24.92 880 1033 23.94 531 341 24.96 894 1068 23.98 545 363 25.00 908 1103 `d • PROJECT NAME 657 COURT STREET - S. POND PROJECT NUMBER 03-004 DESIGNER DCL DATE 1/29/2003 [COMMENTS: STAGE-STORAGE FOR RETENTION POND AREA @ T.O.B. 1869 EL ............. 25.00 AREA @ DHW 1471 EL.......... 24.50 AREA @ DLW 1471 EL........... 24.50 AREA BOTT.\NWL 275 EL.......... 23.00 AREA VOLUME AREA VOLUME STAGE SQ\FT CU\FT STAGE SQ\FT CU\FT 23.00 275 0 24.02 1088 695 23.04 306 11 24.06 1119 738 23.08 338 24 24.10 1150 782 23.12 369 38 24.14 1181 828 23.16 400 53 24.18 1213 875 23.20 431 69 24.22 1244 923 23.24 463 87 24.25 1275 973 23.27 494 106 24.29 1306 1023 23.31 525 125 24.33 1338 1075 23.35 556 147 24.37 1369 1128 23.39 588 169 24.41 1400 1182 23.43 619 193 24.45 1431 1238 23.47 650 218 24.49 1463 1295 23.51 681 244 24.53 1494 1353 23.55 713 271 24.57 1525 1412 23.59 744 300 24.61 1556 1472 23.63 775 329 24.65 1588 1534 23.67 806 360 24.69 1619 1597 23.71 838 393 24.73 1650 1661 23.75 869 426 24.76 1681 1726 23.78 900 461 24.80 1713 1793 23.82 931 497 24.84 1744 1861 23.86 963 534 24.88 1775 1930 23.90 994 572 24.92 1806 2000 23.94 1025 612 24.96 1838 2071 23.98 1056 653 25.00 1869 2144 OJECT NAME 657 COURT STREET - OJECT NUMBER 03-004 SIGNER DCL TE 2/17/2003 ON PO AREA @ T.O.B. 776 EL ............. 25.00 AREA @ DHW 682 EL.......... 24.50 AREA @ DLW 682 EL........... 24.50 AREA BOTT.\NWL 398 EL.......... 23.00 STAGE SQ\FT CU\FT STAGE SQ1FT CUXFT 23.00 398 0 24.02 591 504 23.04 405 16 24.06 598 527 23.08 413 32 24.10 606 551 23.12 420 48 24.14 613 575 23.16 428 65 24.18 620 599 23.20 435 82 24.22 628 624 23.24 442 99 2425 635 648 23.27 450 116 24.29 643 673 23.31 457 134 24.33 650 699 23.35 465 152 24.37 657 724 23.39 472 171 24.41 665 750 23.43 480 189 24.45 672 776 23.47 487 208 24.49 680 803 23.51 494 227 24.53 687 830 23.55 502 247 24.57 694 857 23.59 509 267 24.61 702 884 23.63 517 287 24.65 709 912 23.67 524 307 24.69 717 940 23.71 531 328 24.73 724 968 23.75 539 349 24.76 732 997 23.78 546 370 24.80 739 1025 23.82 554 392 24.84 746 1055 23.86 561 414 24.88 754 1084 23.90 568 436 24.92 761 1114 23.94 576 458 24.96 769 1144 23.98 583 481 25.00 776 1174 Zd WdTZ :60 z00Z sz 'qa 68S0892LZL : 'ON XUJ ON I NJ I S8Q 1S000 1S3M : W0ZtU r? 'ROJECT NAME 657 COURT STREET - S. POND 'ROJECT NUMBER 03-004 )ESIGNER DCL )ATE 2/17/2003 :OMMENTS: STAGE-STORAGE FOR RETENTION POND e EA@T.O.B. 1558 EL ............. 25.00 kREA @ DHW 1313 EL .......... 24.50 kREA @ DLW 1313 EL........... 24.50 ?REA (9? BOTTANWL 579 EL.......... 23.00 STAGE 23.00 579 0 24.02 1078 23.04 598 23 24.06 1097 23.08 617 47 24.10 1116 23.12 637 72 24.14 1136 23.16 656 97 24.18 1155 23.20 675 123 24.22 1174 23.24 694 150 24.25 1193 23.27 713 177 24.29 1212 23.31 733 206 24.33 1232 23.35 752 235 24.37 1251 23.39 771 265 24.41 1270 23.43 790 295 24.45 1289 23.47 809 327 24.49 1308 23.51 829 359 24.53 1328 23.55 848 392 24.57 1347 23.59 867 425 24.61 1366 23.63 886 460 24.65 1385 23.67 905 495 24.69 1404 23.71 925 531 24.73 1424 23.75 944 567 24.76 1443 23.78 963 605 24.80 1462 23.82 982 643 24.84 1481 23.86 1001 682 24.88 1500 23.90 1021 721 24.92 1520 23.94 1040 762 24.96 1539 23.98 1059 803 25.00 1558 TT1;t!1ATO ........................... •. N[pL]NEE':' s ...... sii .:.........:.....:.:. ~LIJ{A '?4'? 9` Gll3F'T`;.: T-A C 845 887 931 975 1020 1066 1112 1159 1207 1256 1305 1355 1406 1458 1510 1564 1618 1672 1728 1784 1841 1899 1957 2016 2076 2137 Ed WUEE:60 200E SE '9a? 68S989£2-E- : 'ON XUA ONI NOIS3G 1S000 1S3M : Wow = South est Florida 2 41 - Water Management District An Fqua Tampa service Office Bartow ScMoe Oftc 7601 Highway 301 North 170 Century boulevard Tampa, Florida 336378759 Bartow, Florida 33830-7700 (813) 98S-7481 or (863) 534-1448 or 1800.8364797 (R. only) 1.800.492.7862 (R. only) SUNCOM 578.2070 SUNCOM 512-6200 ltoarde E Duncan Chair, Pinellas Thom" 6. Dabney, 0 Vice Chair, Sarasota Hem B. McCrea Secretary, Hillsborvugh Watson L. Haynes, a Treasurer. Pinellas Edward W. chancre- Manatee Vionroe 'Al" coomla Citrus m8we N. Doren guez Hillsborough Pamela L Fentress Highlands Ronald C. loansan . Polk JAgot D. Kovach Hillsborough 30kn X. Ronk,% UI • Pasco E D. "SonW" Vergwa 'Executive Director acne A. Heath Assistant Executive Dlroctor will6m S. Bgeaw General Counsel Protecting Yotir Water Resources February 17, 2003 Fred A. Thomas The CEPCOT Corporation 14480 62nd Street North Clearwater, FL 33760 Subject. 2379 Broad so, Brooksville. Florida 34604-6899 (352) 796-7211 or 1.800-423-1476 (FL only) SUNCOM 6284150 TDD only 1$00-231-6103 (FL only) On the Iriternet at WaterMatters.org Sarasota Service Office Lecanto Service Office 6750 Fruitville Road 3600 West Sovereign Path Sarasota. Florida 34240-9711 Suite 226 (941) 377.3722 or . Lecanto, Florida 34461-so7o 1800-3203503 (R. only) (352) 52743131 SVNCOM 531.6900 SUNCOM 667-3271 CG RL4 r'l A-4 Project tVahilWon - No'Perinft Requiired Project Name: 657 Court Street Inquiry Number. 110474 County: ' Pinellas Sec/Twp/Rge: 15/29S/15 F Latitude/Longitude: 27°57'40.85"/82°47'] Reference: Rule 4OD-4.041, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Dear. Mr. Thomas: The District has reviewed the information you submitted on January 27 and February 7, 2003'for•the project referenced above and has determined that an Environmental Resource Permit will not be required for the site.renovation resulting in a 8;428 square foot increase in open area. The information received by the District will be kept iri the Tampa Service Office to support 'the: District's determination regarding your project. The District's determination that your project does not . require an ERP is only applicable pursuant to the statutes and rules in effect at the time the information was submitted and may not be valid in the event subsequent changes occur in the applicable 'rules .and statutes. Additionally, this notification does not mean that the District has determined that your project is permanently exempt from permitting requirements. Any subsequent change you make in the project's operation may necessitate further evaluation or permitting by the District. Therefore, you are advised to contact the District before beginning the project and before beginning any activity which is not specifically described in your submittal. Your timEtypursuit ofthisactivity Js encouragedty^avoid_- any potential rule changes that could affect your request. This letter constitutes notice of final agency action of the project referenced above. You or any person whose substantial interests are affected by the District's action regarding a permit may request an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., and Chapter 28-106, F.A.C., of the Uniform Rules of Procedure. A request for hearing must: (1) explain how the substantial interests of each person requesting the hearing will be affected by the District's action, or proposed action, (2) state all material facts disputed by the person requesting the hearing or state that there are no disputed facts, and (3) otherwise comply with Chapter 28-106, FA-C. Copies of Sections 28-106.201 and 28-106.301, F.A.C. are enclosed for your reference. A request for hearing must be filed with (received by) the Agency Clerk of the District at the District's Brooksville address within 21 days of receipt of this notice. Receipt is deemed to be the fifth day after the date on which this notice is deposited In the United States mail. Failure to file a request for hearing within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right you or such person may have to request a hearing under Sections Td Wd9Z:60 200E TZ 'qaj 68S089UZZZ : 'ON XUA ONI NOISEIQ 1Sd0O iS3M : WM:U 1. Fred A. Thomas Page 2 February 17, 2003 C] • 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. Mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, F_S., to settle an administrative dispute regarding the District's action in this matter is not available. Enclosed is a "Noticing Packet" that provides information regarding District Rule, Section 4013-1.1010, F.A.C., which addresses the notification of persons whose substantial interests may be affected by the District's action in this matter. The packet contains guidelines on how to provide notice of the District's action, and a notice that you may use. If you have questions regarding this determination, please. contact Richard M. Alt, P.E., at-the Tarnpa.Service office, extension 2045. Please reference the Project Name and Number in future comrnunicaiions coriceming this project Sincerely;.. r Alba E. Mas, P.E., Director Tampa Regulation Department AEM:dsw Enclosures: Noticing Packet (42.00-046) Sections 28-106.201 and 28-106.301, F.A.C. Cc. Inquiry No. 110474 USACOE David C. Littell, P.E., West Coast Design, Inc. Td Wti8Z:60 200E TE 'aad 68S089UZZ2- : 'ON Xtid ONI NOISEIQ 1Sd09 1S8r1 : WOaJ PINELLAS COUNTY FLA. OFF.REC.BK 9493 PG 666 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Party of the First Part has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above writ- ten. Signed, led and je;.&7ed iDo-CSr resencet (( / Print Ifa' me rTZ J,?? Print Name /(STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS I HEREBY CERTIFY, that.on this day personally.appeared before me, an officer duly authorized to ad ster oat and take acknowledgments, DALTON R. JONES, to me onall known or who has produced as identi is tion and who did take an oath, and known to me to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged before me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official se 1 at Clearwater, said-County and State, this 'i day of -? 1996. Notar Public l%,,, / SA Print Name My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL THOMAS CHARLES NASH II NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO CC424705 MY COMMISSION EXP AN 4,1999 7("073881 PAD 10-14-1996 01 CED-THE CE-COT CORP RECORDING 04C STAMP - DR219 TOTAI_..n "HECK AMT. TENDERED: CHANGE: i7: AP}246 ?? I?x Cfl $1114 4, r rtir 5 ; $1,144.50 t 1111) -2- INS 96-282146 OCT 14, 1996 5:30PM PREPARED BY AND RETURN TO: THOMAS C. NASH, II, Esquire Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen IRECORDING 400 Cleveland Street CCT Post Office Box 1669 ODE Clearwater, Florida 34617 EC ?C R2h9 S iT WARRANTY DEED 0 PINELLAS COUNTY FLA. OF.F.REC.BK 9493 PG 665 ERT --- . • EES ___......___?_ . TF THIS INDENTURE made this 14th day of October 1996, by aT ! T?7f7C???-and between DALTON R. JONES, an unmarried person of the County of ??Pinellas, in the State of Florida, Party of the First Part, whose mailing address is 1064 Glenwood Drive, Dunedin, FL 34698, and THE CEPCOT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, of the County of Pinellas, in the State of Florida, Party of the Second Part, whose mailing address is Post Office Box 6025, Clearwater, FL 34618 0• iocumentary Tax Pd. Intangible Tax P4. W I T N E S S E T H Carlopn F De Blaker, lesk, Pinellas County 3y Deputy Clerk That the said Party of the First Part, for and in consider- ation of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) to him in hand paid by the said Party of the Second Part, the receipt, whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Party of the Second Part, and their assigns forever, the following described land, situate lying and being in the County of Pinellas, State of Florida, to-wit: The East 8 inches of Lot 6, all of Lot 7 and the West 30 feet of Lot 8, Block 13, COURT SQUARE, as recorded in Plat Book 5, page 53, together with the North 1/2 of the alley abutting the East 8 inches of Lot 6, all of Lot 7 and the West 30 feet of Lot 8, situate and lying in Pinellas County, Florida. Subject to 1996 real estate taxes', restrictions, reserva- tions and easements of record. Parcel I.D. No. 16/29/15/18648/b13/0070% And the said Party of the First Fart does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. ST # 96-282147 14, 1996 5:30PM . PREPARED BY AND RETURN TO: THOMAS C. NASH, II, Esquire Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 400 Cleveland Street Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, Florida 34617 1: MAY 2.0 2003 I ? I L? Qt REC0PDM? WARRANTY DEED REC DS lh"1' FEES THIS INDENTURE made this 14th day of October , 1996, by MTF -wc_ and between DALTON R. JONES, an unmarried person of the County of _ , in the State of Florida, Party of the First Part, whose TOTA? a? ?'fnailing address is 1064 Glenwood Drive, Dunedin, FL 34698, and CLEARWATER DEPOT, INC., a Florida corporation, of the County of Pinellas, in the State of Florida, Party of the Second Part, whose mailing address is Post Office Box 6025, Clearwater, FL 34618 0711 Documentary Tex Pd. $ , Lv Intangible Tax,ft W I T N E S S E T H: Karleen F De Blaker, cler P nellas. COUntr By Deputy: Ch3rf , That the said Party of the First Part, for and in consider- ation of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) to him in hand paid by the said Party of the Second Part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Party of the Second Part, and their assigns forever, the following described land, situate lying and being in the County of Pinellas, State of Florida, to-wit: PARCEL I: All of Lot 10 and the East 27 feet of Lot 11. Block 13, MAGNOLIA PARK, as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 43, public records of Pinellas County, Florida, LESS right-of-way for Chestnut Street together with that part of the South 1/2 of the alley abutting Lot 10 and the East 27 feet of Lot 11. PARCEL II: The West 23 feet of Lot 11 and the East 30 feet of Lot 12, Block 13, MAGNOLIA PARK, as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 43, public records of.Pinellas County, Florida, LESS right-of-way for Chestnut Street, together with that part of the South 1/2 of the alley abutting the West 23 feet of Lot 11 and the East 30 feet of Lot 12. Subject to 1996 real estate taxes, restrictions, reserva- tions and easements of record. Parcel I.D. No. 15/29/15/54450/013/0100 15/29/15/54450/013/0120 REV Pinellas • PINELLAS COUNTY FLA. OFF.REC.BK 9493 PG 6E v PINELLAS COUNT PG 668 OFF.REC.BK 9493 And the said Party of the First Part does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Party of the First Part has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above writ- ten. Sig ealed and 1' er in Ou Presence: Print Name TTIbMnA Print Name STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day personally appeared before me, an officer duly authorized to y1w nn ster and take acknowledgments, DALTON R. JONES, to me onally kripwfi or who has produced as ident i MM i and who did take an oath, and known to me to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged before me that he executed the same for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official se 1 at Clearwater, s C unty and State, this day of 96. Notary ublic Print Name_ My Commission Expires: THOMAS CH OR ES NASH II LNA RYPUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO CC424705 COMMISSION EXP AN 4 1999 1G07,5W82 PAD 10-14-1996 17 : 2)t]' 013 01 DED-CL ARWATER DEPOT IN" : RECORDING 1 $1!1..50 -2- DOC '-STAMP - DR-219 3 V66101 € r t, DE CHEC K Ai9Ta I EMRED1° P7 r) 1Q i A h??' a + i" I :P, U e 0 0! FLD2002-12045 657 COURT ST 3r/o3 Date Received: COURT STREET CONVENIENCE STORE ZONING DISTRICT: D LAND USE: CBD ATLAS PAGE: 286B CLWCoverSheet • r FLD2002-12045 657 COURT ST Date Received: 12/26/2002 COURT STREET CONVENIENCE STORE ZONING DISTRICT: D LAND USE: CBD ATLAS PAGE: 286B CLWCoverSheet r Line Items: Case No Receipt #: 1200200000000017983 Date: 12/20/2002 12/20/2002 12:22:25PM Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid FLD2002-12045 04 Flexible Commercial 010-341262 Line Item Total: 1,205.00 $1,205.00 Payments: Method Payer Bank No Account No Confirm No How Received Amount Paid Check PINCH A PENNY INC 2215 In Person 1120-1 Payment Total: $1,205.00 r "A CK. NO. N la av oa-- . DATE E THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. cReceipt.rpt Page 1 of 1 -1 .1 K t. J5 1. K -1 1. I Iv.u I I EXIST. 2-STO WILOIRY ----------- COURT STREET ..,.. -1' r; I r r----i S I of ------H ------- II CHESTNUT STREET IT i a-AY I I I EXIST. BU}ILDIN mi I I 1 I an u. 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1.1 sine. r•za'-o- 5 SOUTH ELEVATION STATION /1 NOTE: NOBTH ELEVATION OPPOSITE HAND %Fu 6 SOUTHELEVATION STATION 02 SCALE, B IM .P.o[ NOTE: NORTH ELEVATION DPPOSITE HAND ru[?m O:T A._ 7 EAST ELEVATION STATION 01 SCALE: 1/B'-f'-0' T- TI-IT- $ uorc ,..°i i} '} ?Y IMF w }, M 7 M TJ, 1 WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/B'-1'-0' ? rrie wv Irtw.c°r,.1 I 'ILL. r77? 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: i/B'•1'-0' 3 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: _?" TIP -1 1ILLI 06 -?a a? In ?--? [al ?F W-. ¢w o `-U0 -w a U) ¢ g wm 4 f N Z Q W H w •1 1 jZ W U = UZn w O ISO d u N O a. w § J W - O Q W W SHEET N0. A3.1 8 EAST ELEVATION STATION 02 3. SCALE. 1/S- -0' 4 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: • rwater .. ...,,fig. U 0 Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 P= ? L ? SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ? SUBMIT 12 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION including 1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site plans ? SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ CASE #: Ill""" DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): ATLAS PAGE #: ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: SURROUNDING USESOF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: NORTH: SOUTH: WEST: EAST: * NOTE: 13 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLANS SETS) MAY 9 A 20n.l FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLWWEPTMENT Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (RevisI611T(00MLEARWATER ^- PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT--- use additional sheets as necessary A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: E-MAIL ADDRESS: leisch@cepcot.us PHONE NUMBER: _ 727-531-8913 \Y"- _i'.1 l CELL NUMBER: 813-205-5300 FAX NUMBER: 727-536-8066 PROPERTY OWNER(S): THE CEPCOT .0 PO ATTON- t^.T.F.ARWATF.R TRAIN STATION, TNr (f/k/a (Must include ALL owners) CLEARWATER DEPOT, INC.) AGENT NAME(S): RANDY WEDDING MAILINGADDRESS: 300 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE ..402., ST. PETERSBURG. FL 33701 E-MAIL ADDRESS: randy@weddingar hit-er rc rnm PHONENUMBER:_727-821-6610 CELL NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: 727-894-4216 I B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: STREET ADDRESS of subject site: 657 COURT STREET, CT.F.ARWATF.R, FT. 31759 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "All (f not listed here, please note the location of this document in the submittao PARCEL NUMBERS: 16/29/25/18648/01 3/00711- 1 5/29/1 5/5L 490/t11 3101 00.1 5 /29/ 1 5/5445n/0l 3 /111 211 PARCEL SIZE: 0.95A;.41, 341 SQ. FT. _ (acres, square feet) PROPOSED USE AND SIZE: CONVENIENCE STORE (3200 S Q, FT.) AND FUEL. DISPENSARY (number of dwelling units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST(S): SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR RETRO FIT FIT OF EXISTING SITE (include all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) i. Page 1 of 7 - Flexible Development Application - Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project- City of Clearwater DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUS APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES - NO (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Section 4-202.A) M SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see I page 6) COPIES OF DEEDS ATTACHED. D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 3-913A) M Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The surrounding commercial warehouse, light industrial, office and utility substation uses are all compatible with the proposed development. The height and bulk of the proposal are less than any of the adjacent uses. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. Our appraiser has told us that the use proposed is the highest and best use for this speck tract. Keep in mind that there is an existing railroad track to the east of the site and that this facility will sit across from a warehouse to the east. What is proposed will represent an upgrade to the properties both to the east and south. No harm will be done to the properties to the west or north. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. There is no immediate residential use adjacent to the site. Indeed no residential properties abut or are across from this site. The Pinellas Trail to the east will be buffered along at least 80% percent of its length along East Street and thus not adversely affected by the proposal. Entry to the site will be from the north and the south from Court Street and Chestnut Street both being one-way thoroughfares. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. Court Street adjoins the site to the north and is one-way to the west. Chestnut Street which adjoins the site to the south is one-way east. Thus the North and South ingress and egress creates no turning problems in connection with the flow of traffic. Delivery vehicles will be able to pass through the site without backing up into or blocking either Chestnut or Court Streets. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The site presently is bounded by a railroadAight industrial area to the east. There is a utility substation under construction to the night and there are commercial properties, banks, office buildings and the like, to the south and west. What is proposed here is completely consistent with the surrounding environment. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The design proposed will improve the site visually and there will be adequate buffering from properties to the west. Since no residential properties face the site or exist in the immediate vicinity there is no adverse impact on residential uses. O Provide complete responses to the ten (10) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA (as applicable) -Explain how each criteria is achieved in detail: 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. No variances other than the use itself are being requested in connection with this application. The project's low F.A.R. is well below the intensity standards set forth in the Clearwater City Codes. ?sage 2 of 7 - Flexible Development Application - Comprehensive Inf ill Redevelopment Project- City of Clearwater 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project or residential infill project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. (Include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements.) Again, our appraisal indicates that the proposed use is the highest and best for this site. If that be true then the development will increase and not adversely impact the property values of surrounding sites. 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. The uses proposed here are permitted in the City of Clearwater and they are not prohibited within the downtown district zone. 4. The uses or mix of use within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses. Surrounding properties (warehouse and railroad tract to the east, light manufacturing to the south, utility building to the north and offices to the west with no residential immediately adjacent) dictates that the proposal is compatible with its surroundings. 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the, uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. The suitability of the site is its availability to the traveling public. Court Street being one-way to the west and Chestnut Street being one-way to the east (both streets abut this site) makes it particularly suitable for the public convenience. There are no other known such sites between Chestnut and Court Streets. 6. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The excessive landscaping and the use of Mediterranean architectural style are intended to create a visually pleasant and compatible environment and will upgrade the immediate vicinity. 7. The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Care has been taken to use a style of architecture with strong reference to traditional historical character of downtown Clearwater. That design effort creates a form and ambiance that enhances the community character of the site. 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking 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. No lot width, setback, height and off-street parking variances have been requested, thus no justification is called for. 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of parcel proposed for development. All code required parking will be contained on-site and there will be no on-street parking resulting from the development of the site. Loading/unloading will be accomplished entirely within the site. 10. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District or Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3 (as applicable). Use separate sheets as necessary. The project is specifically designed to meet the design guidelines of the Downtown District and with this design we believe we have accomplished that purpose. 4 Page 3 of 7 - Flexible Development Application - Comprehensive Inf ill Redevelopment Project- City of Clearwater - E.SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL RECOEMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A) IM SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 12 copies; ? TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site. by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed); IN LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; SEE COVER SHEET. - ? PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; ? GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ? PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ? COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; F. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) M SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): X All dimensions; X North arrow; x Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; X Location map; g Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; g Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; X Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; , W All required setbacks; X All existing and proposed points of access; T All required sight triangles; XtA Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; X Location of all public and private easements; X- Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; -x- Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines; X All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas, including handicapped spaces; X Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; X Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening (per Section 3-201(D)() and Index #701); X Location of all landscape material; SEE LANDSCAPE SHEET. ?- Location of all jurisdictional lines adjacent to wetlands; Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities; REQUEST PAYMENT IN LIEU. g Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and g Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks M SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form: X Land area in square feet and acres; NVA Number of EXISTING dwelling units; X Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; X Gross floor area devoted to each use; X Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; x Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces and driveways, expressed in square feet and percentage of the paved vehicular area; X Size and species of all landscape material; X Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; x Building and structure heights; X Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and X Floor area ratio (F_A.R.) for all nonresidential uses Of REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8'/2X 11) and color rendering if possible ? FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: NJ One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); Structural overhangs; Tree Inventory; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees _s Page 4 of 7 - Flexible Development Application - Comprehensive Inf ill Redevelopment Project- City of Clearwater G. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section-4-1102.A) IN LANDSCAPE PLAN: X All existing and proposed structures; X Names of abutting streets; X Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; REQUEST PAYMENT IN LIEU. X Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; x Sight visibility triangles; g Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Proposed and required parking spaces; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including dripline (as indicated on required tree survey); Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; X Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and protective measures; X Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; J Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes M REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 % X 11) (color rendering if possible) N/A IRRIGATION PLAN (required for Level Two and Three applications) 153/A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable H. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) D STORMWATER PLAN including the following requirements: REQUEST PAYMENT IN LIEU. _ Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; _ Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; _ All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; _ Stormwater calculations for attenuation and water quality, Signature of Florida registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations ? COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable ? COPY OF STATE AND COUNTY STORMWATER SYSTEM TIE-IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS, if applicable 1. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202A.23) Required in the event the application includes a development where design standards are in issue (e.g. Tourist and Downtown Districts) or as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project or a Residential Infill Project. IN BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - all sides of all buildings including height dimensions, colors and materials M REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - four sides of building with colors and materials to scale (8'A X 11) (black and white and color rendering, if possible) as required SEE RENDERING INCLUDED WITH APPLICATION. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806) SEPARATE APPLICATION WILL BE FILED LATER.- • All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ? All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing ? Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ? Reduced signage proposal (8 %X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. 7 Page 5 of 7 -Flexible Development Application - Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project- City of Clearwater K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) O Include as required if proposed development will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip General Manual. Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. L. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application. of property owner or representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS S m to and subscribed before me this day of D. 20A-9,,., to me and/or by who is personally known has produced as identification_ Nota public, My commission expires: MV COMMISSION # CC855415 EXPIRES August 7, 2003 110ND11D IHAU T110Y F4N INSURANCE INC 4 Page 6 of 7 - Flexible Development Application - Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project- City of Clearwater M. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: The Cepcot Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc. (Names of all property owners) 1. ' That (I amtwe are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 657 Court Street (Clearwater Train Station Restaurant) 651 Court Street (UPARC Thrift Store) 640-642 Chestnut Street (Freedom Park) 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) Flexible Development Application - Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment- Projent City of Clearwater 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: C-Rnndnl: h WeddinglEd Armstrong, Fsinire as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 3. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 4. That the applicant acknowledges that all impact fees (parks and recreation, traffic, eta) will be paid PRIOR to the issuance of a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or other mechanism, whichever occurs first; 5. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 6. That (Uwe), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the forego' true d corre Owner, James P. Eisch, COO P rty Owner STATE ORIDA, COUNTY OF PINE-LAS Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned b the laws of the State of Florida, on this I7^' day of aW personally appeared -j ( to F-I.st who having been first duly sworn Deposes says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. My Commission Expires: +" µ Koren S. Mcleod .: MY COMMISSION i CC855415 EXPIRES Notary Public August 7,7M3 'Z%:?',:? BONOM THRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE. INC SARanning DepartmentlApplication Formsldevelopment review 12002 Formslcomprehensive infill application 2002.doc Page 7 of 7 - Flexible Development Application - Comprehensive Inf ill Redevelopment Project- City of Clearwater 0 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR _ APPLICATION FOR FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Parcel No. 15/29/'15/54450/013/0100 All of Lot 10 and the East 27 feet of Lot 11, Block 13, MAGNOLIA PARK, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, LESS right-of-way for Chestnut Street, together with that part of the South %Z of the alley abutting Lot 10 and the East 27 feet of Lot 11. Parcel No. 15129/15/54450/013/0120 The West 23 feet of Lot 11 and the East 30 fleet of Lot 12, Block 13,. MAGNOLIA PARK, as recorded in Plat Book S. Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, LESS light-of-way for Chestnut Street, together with that part of the South '% of the alley abutting the West 23 feet of Lot 11 and the East 30 feet of lot 12. Parcel No. 15/29/15/18648/013/0070 The East 8 inches of Lot 6, all of Lot 7 and the West 30 feet of Lot 8, Block 13, COURT SQUARE. as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 53, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with the North % of the alley abutting the East 8 inches of Lot 6, all of Lot 7 and the West 80 feet of Lot 8, situate and lying in Pinellas County, Florida. Parcel No. 16/29/15/18648/013/0090 Lot 9 and the East 20 feet of Lot 8, Block 13, MAGNOLIA PARK, as recorded in Plat Book 3. Page 43, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. #284902 v1 - Cepcot/Legal Descdptic n EXHIBIT A Wedding MEMO TO: WAYNE WELLS SENIOR PLANNER PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER VIA HAND DELIVERY FROM: C.RANDOLPH WEDDING FAIA/ASLA RE: CASE FLD2002-12045- 657 COURT STREET SUBJ: RESPONSE TO DRC COMMENTS. DATE: 05/20/03 DEAR MR. WELLS, THERE FOLLOWS OUR RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SENT TO US VIA E- MAIL IMMEDIATELY AFTER OUR MEETING WITH THE DRC ON MAY 15. AS WE HAVE RESPONDED SO MANY PREVIOUS TIMES, WE NOW BELIEVE WE HAVE EVERY THING COVERED ON THE DRAWINGS, WITH THE FOLOWING TWO EXCEPTIONS: 1- THE OPERATING HOURS OF THE FACILITY ARE TO BE FROM 7:OOAM TO 11:00 PM. 2- ATTORNEY E.D. ARMSTRONG IS REPLYING UNDER SEPARATE COVER TO YOUR INQUIRY CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION OF THE EXISTING RAILROAD TERMINAL BUILDING. WEDDING ARCHITECTS APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THIS PROJECT, AND APPLAUDS THE PROFESSIONAL MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HANDLED. BEST REGARDS, CTR?EDDI?NG??? PRESIDENT .?.. _ - 11 IXMMAY 2 o Zaos Wedding, Stephenson & Ibargiien 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 • St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Architects, Inc. (727) 821-6610 FAX: (727) 894-4216 PROF. REG. #AA - 0002922 JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, P.A.?? ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW E. D. ARMSTRONG 111 BRUCE H. BOKOR JOHN R. BONNER, SR.* GUY M. BURNS JONATHAN S. COLEMAN MICHAEL T. CRONIN ELIZABETH J. DANIELS BECKY FERRELL-ANTON COLLEEN M.FLYNN MARION HALE SCOTT C. ILGENFRITZ FRANK R. JAKES TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON, JR SHARON E. KRICK ROGER A. LARSON JOHN R. LAWSON, JR* LEANNE LETIZE MICHAEL G. LITTLE MICHAEL C. MARKHAM STEPHANIE T. MARQUARDT ZACHARY D. MESSA . A.R. "CHARLIE" NEAL TROY J. PERDUE F. WALLACE POPE, JR. ROBERT V. POTTER, JR. AUDREY B. RAUCHWAY DARRYL R. RICHARDS PETER A. RIVELLINI DENNIS G. RUPPEL* CHARLES A. SAMARKOS PHILIP M. SHASTEEN JOAN M. VECCHIOLI STEVEN H. WEINBERGER JOSEPH J. WEISSMAN RECEIVED PLEASE REPLY TO CLEARWATER MAY 2 0 200,1NO. May 20, 2003 Mr. Wayne Wells City of Clearwater, Planning Department 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Cepcot-Train Station Application Case No. FLD2002-12045 Dear Wayne: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER At the DRC meeting last week, staff requested an elaboration of the applicants position with respect to the train depot building currently located at the property. The applicants response is as follows: "The applicant has offered to donate the train depot building to the City of Clearwater. We are currently awaiting a response. In the event the City decides not to accept the offer of the train depot building, the applicant intends to enter into discussion with other interested parties, such as the Clearwater Historical Society." We trust this is responsive to your request. We look forward to having this heard on June 17, 2003. If you have any questions, please contact me or Jayne Sears. Very truly yours, E DA/I rc cc: Mr. Fred Thomas Mr. Randy Wedding Ms. Ethel Hammer 293331 JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, P.A. E. D. Armstrong III SIGNED IN ATITORN[Y'S ABSENCE TO PEVENT DELAY IN MAILING ?P) CLEARWATER OFFICE TAMPA OFFICE 911 CHESTNUT ST. 100 N. TAMPA ST. POST OFFICE BOX 1368 SUITE 1800 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33757-1368 POST OFFICE BOX 1100 TELEPHONE: (727) 461-1818 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601-1100 TELECOPIER: (727) 462-0365 TELEPHONE: (813) 225-2500 TELECOPIER: (813) 223-7118 } • Wedding M E M O R A N D U M TO: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner City of Clearwater FROM: C. Randolph Wedding, AFIA/ASLA RE: Convenience Store Infill Project SUBJ: Compliance with Design Guidelines DATE:. January 29, 2003 Dear Mr. Wells: • RECEIVED JAN. 1.21003 PLANI\m u bLVELOPMENT. SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER The application of the Design Guidelines to this project is somewhat difficult since it is not part of an existing street facade or nestled-between existing buildings. As a stand-alone structure, perhaps the most significant application described in the guidelines is . . ."Newer buildings need to be sensitive and responsive to the scale and proportions of neighboring buildings." This facility is essentially a one-story small building with two adjacent canopies of similar size. The neighboring buildings to the south and east on two sides are one and two story structures which are best described as architecturally bland. The north and west side neighbors are 1960's office structures and a utility sub-station of,undetermined style which is under construction. Recognizing that . . . "Design review should be broadly oriented and encourage the creative application of design principles to a specific site. . our approach was to. examine the mature stand-. 11, alone buildings existing in the downtown area, and to derive our design palette from them. Our selection of a mediterranean revival motif was selected as the most suitable to the scale and ambience of this project. The materials, colors and trim details are all intended to reflect many of the better examples found ion and around the downtown of Clearwater. The very nature of this use is to create a large expanse of hard- scape for vehicles. While this design has it's share, we have actually reduced the paved area existing on this"site dramatically. This has allowed a significantly larger amount of landscaped perimeter to be created and soften the visual impression of this corner. Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarglien 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 • St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Architects, Inc. (727) 821-6610 FAX: (727) 894-4216 PROF. REG. #AA - 0002922 Wedding Mr. Wayne Wells Design Guideline Memo January 29, 2003 Page Two This approach, coupled with the stringent application of the signage ordinance at, the appropriate time, will yield a unique facility which will not only blend happily with the neighborhood but will establish.a significant aesthetic benchmark in the future retro-fit of the mostly industrial buildings which surround it. This facility exemplifies the careful application of the Design Guidelines and being cognizant of important features, elements and materials. Since "Design review values creativity .", this approach to an auto service facility should receive very high marks. Best regards, C. Randolph Wedding, FAIA/ASLA . President p 4 .n LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW June 30, 2005 C I'I'I' OF C LEARWAT'E R PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 -Mr. E. D. Armstrong III 911 Chestnut St. Clearwater, FL 33757-1368 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street Dear Mr. Armstrong: I am in receipt of your letter requesting an extension of time relative to the above referenced Development Order and hereby approve of a one-year extension to March 22, 2007. As you are aware, the current allowable use as established by the development order is a prohibited use per the Downtown Plan. As a result, in the event that said use is established, it is our opinion that it would be a non-conforming use. In granting the one-year extension, it is our hope that additional time will be afforded the property owner to pursue a use of the property that would reflect consistency with uses envisioned in the downtown plan. I believe that such an opportunity to establish a consistent future use is in the public interest thereby justifying the extension of time. Sincerely, Michael e P Planning Director CC: Gary Brumback, Assistant City Manager Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney Gina Clayton, Assistant Planning Director BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER BILL. JONSON, COMMISSIONER "EQUAi. EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW E. D. ARMSTRONG III BRUCE H. BOKOR JOHN R. BONNER, SR.* GUY M. BURNS JONATHAN S. COLEMAN MICHAEL T. CRONIN ELIZABETH J. DANIELS BECKY FERRELL-ANTON COLLEEN M.FLYNN RINAT HADAS MARION HALE SCOTT C. ILGENFRITZ FRANK R. JAKES TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON, JR. SHARON E. KRICK ROGER A. LARSON LEANNE LETIZE ANGELINA E. LIM MICHAEL G. LITTLE MICHAEL C. MARKHAM ZACHARY D. MESSA A.R. "CHARLIE" NEAL TROY J. PERDUE F. WALLACE POPE, JR. ROBERT V. POTTER, JR. AUDREY B. RAUCHWAY DARRYL R. RICHARDS PETER A. RIVELLINI DENNIS G. RUPPEL* CHARLES A. SAMARKOS PHILIP M. SHASTEEN JOAN M. VECCHIOLI STEVEN H. WEINBERGER JOSEPH J. WEISSMAN STEVEN A. WILLIAMSON *OF COUNSEL PLEASE REPLY TO CLEARWATER FILE No. 43953.106375 June 23, 2005 Mr. Michael Delk City of Clearwater Planning Director Municipal Services Building, 2nd Floor 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 JUN 2 8 2005 1 D1._)) L._ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CI7Y OF CLEARWATER - Re: Development Order - Case FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street Dear Michael: On behalf of the property owner, The Cepcot Corporation, we hereby request a one-year extension of the time during which an application for building permit must be made under the development order (Case No. FLD2002-12045) issued April 11, 2005, a copy of which is enclosed ("Development Order"). The Development Order states that an application must be made by March 22, 2006. The owner requests an extension of that date to March 22, 2007. As you know, The Cepcot Corporation has contracted to sell the Property to a developer interested in a residential/mixed use project, which, if approved, will be built instead of the gas station approved by the Development Order. In the event Cepcot is able to extend the Development Order to March 22, 2007, it will give both seller and buyer time to evaluate the viability of this development alternative. Section 4-407 of the Clearwater Community Development Code provides that "an extension of time to initiate a building permit may be granted by the community development coordinator provided it is for a period not to exceed one year, is for the project originally approved and provided good cause is shown and documented in CLEARWATER OFFICE TAMPA OFFICE 911 CHESTNUT ST. 403 EAST MADISON STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1368 (ZIP 33757-1368) SUITE 400 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756-5643 POST OFFICE BOX 1100 (ZIP 33601-1100) TELEPHONE: (727) 461-1818 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 TELECOPIER: (727) 441-8617 TELEPHONE: (813) 225-2500 TELECOPIER: (813) 223-7118 JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW Mr. Michael Delk June 23, 2005 Page 2 writing within the original period of validity." We believe this request for extension meets the criteria set forth in the code and respectfully request your approval of the extension. Very truly yours, JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL S, LLP i l E. D. Armstrong I I I EDA/js encl. cc: Mr. Fred Thomas #348866 v1 ?'' •°' ? CITY OF C LEARWATE R a -? PLANNING DEPARTMENT ?AA•''??1?r POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 ?pd*'s r f;0+ MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW April 11, 2005 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street Dear Mr. Wedding: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On March 22, 2005, the Community Development Board reviewed your request to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. The Community Development Board (CDB) APPROVED the application, pursuant to the Sixth Judicial Circuit grant of writ of certiorari on January 19, 2005, thereby reversing the prior decision of the CDB and the City's hearing officer, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That this approval is for site plans and related materials as provided to the CDB for their review and consideration on June 17, 2003. 2. Future development of the parcel shall occur in a manner materially and substantially in conformance with the site plan and related materials as provided to the CDB for their review and consideration on June 17, 2003. Non-material or minor changes shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 4-406 of the Code. 3. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 4. That a complete permit application including site plans be submitted within 1 year of the purchase date; 5. That the Certificate of Occupancy be issued within 1 year of the issuance of building permit; 6. That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 7. That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 8. That all utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 9. That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future under grounding of existing utilities within the abutting right(s)-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR FRANK HIBBARD, VICE MAYOR HOYC HAMILTON, COUNCILMEMBER BILL JONSON, COUNCILMEMBER CARLEN A. PETERSEN, COUNCILME:MBER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EmIPLOYER" 0 0 April 6, 2005 Wedding - Page Two conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 10. That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any sign permits which includes: a. All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color, font style and size.; b. All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; c. All attached signs consist of channel letters; and d. Any freestanding sign be designed as a monument-style at a maximum height of four feet. Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (March 22, 2006). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within one year of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The Community Development Board may approve one additional extension of time after the community development coordinator's extension to initiate a building permit application. The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4-502.13 by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of the CDB meeting. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on April 5, 2005 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Michael Delk, AICP, Assistant Planning Director, at 727-562-4561. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.myclearwater.com/ og v/depts/planning. *Make Us Your Favorite! Sin erely, Cynthia H. Tarapani, AICP Planning Director S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)Unactive or Finished Applications lCourt 0657 Auto Service Station (D) - ApprovedlCourt 657 Development Order #2 4.11.05.doc Jan 21 05 11:46a City Attorney 7275624021 P.1 Sk ? '? 2QOa JAN i PLAN.yC - -?? CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Phone Number (727) 5624010 Fax Number (727) 562-4021 FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM To: Cyndi Tarapani, Planning Director From: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Asst. City Attorney Fax: 4865 Pages: 3W f Re: Cepcot Corp. v City 03-005083-AP-,88B Date: 1/21/2005 CC: ? Urgent X For Review ? Please Comment ? Please Reply ? Please Recycle s Comments: Attached for your information and file is a copy of the Order Granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari entered 1119105. Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this facsimile message is privileged and confidential, intended for the use of the addressee above. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this telecopy in error, please notify counsel above immediately by telephone to arrange for return of the original documents to the counsel named above. 0 0 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCffC CCc I V E D IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA C APPELLATE DIVISION JAN 2 9 2005 CEPCOT CORPORATION and CLEARWATER TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioners, vs. CITY OF CLEARWATER, Respondent. CITY ATTORNF Appeal No. 03-5083AP-88B UCN 522003AP0050083XXXXCV ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Response and the Reply. Upon consideration of the same and being otherwise fully advised, the Court grants the Petition as set forth below. Petitioners Cepcot Corporation and-Clearwater Transportation (Cepcot) seek review of the Final Order entered December 2, 2003, by the City of Clearwater's (City) hearing officer, Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Meale.' This Order found that Cepcot had not met its burden of showing that the "decision of the community development cannot be sustained by the- evidence before the board, or that the decision of the board departs from the essential requirements of the law." Clearwater, Fla., Community Development Code (Code) § 4-505.C (2002) (setting forth the standard of review of decisions entered by the Community Development Board (Board)). Consequently, this Order affirmed the Board's June 20, 2003, Order, denying Although Judge Meale is an Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings, he was not acting in that capacity in this matter. Instead, he was sitting as a hearing officer under § 4-505 of the City's Community Development Code. See Clearwater, Fla., Community Development Code § 4-505 (2002) (setting forth first level of appeal process from decisions of the Community Development Board ). . I Z' al T ZO?1Z9SLZL RauJo44d 8413 e9?,s T T s0 j a ueC • . • Cepcot's Flexible Development Application to build a convenience store with two islands for pumping gas. Cepcot owns real property located at 657 Court Street in the downtown zoning district of the City. The property is actually on the "fringe" of downtown and surrounding uses include offices, warehouses, and a utility plant. At the time Cepcot acquired the property, it housed a restaurant, thrift store and park. Cepcot, however, desired to replace the existing uses with a 3,200-square foot convenience store with two gas pump islands. A large impetus for this desire was the pending completion of the Memorial Causeway Bridge between the mainland and Clearwater Beach, which would bring a dramatic increase in traffic to the two streets bordering the property to the east and west. Because an automobile service station is not a permitted use within the downtown zoning district, Cepcot filed a Flexible Development Application for a comprehensive infill redevelopment project (CIRP) on December 17, 2002. In support of its application, Cepcot submitted detailed plans outlining the proposal's aesthetic features and consideration of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the nearby recreational Pinellas Trail. However, after reviewing Cepcot's plans, the City's Planning Department issued a Staff Report recommending that the application be denied. At the close of a public hearing on the application on June 17, 2003, the Board denied the application by a 4-2 vote. Cepcot then appealed the Board's decision to the City's hearing officer, who upheld the Board's determination. Cepcot then filed the present Petition. In reviewing the hearing officer's Final Order and the administrative action taken by the City, this Court must consider three factors: (1) whether Cepcot was afforded procedural due process; (2) whether the Board observed the essential requirements of the law; and (3) whether 2 E'al TZOb29SLZL ROUJO44U R4T3 e9bsTi So 12 Uer • • the Board's action is supported by competent substantial evidence. Haines City Cmty. Dev. v Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995) (setting forth standard of certiorari review of administrative action). As the first factor is not at issue in this matter, the Court's analysis will focus solely on the second and third factors. Cepcot claims that the Board departed from the essential requirements of the law by forcing it to bear the ultimate burden of establishing that the property could not be developed without the requested use deviation. Indeed, where a special exception is sought, the petitioner bears only the initial burden of showing that its application meets the pertinent statutory criteria. Florida Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089, 1091 (Fla. 2000). If petitioner meets its burden, then the burden shifts to the party opposing the special exception to demonstrate, by competent substantial evidence presented at the hearing and made part of the record, that the special exception does not meet the standards and that granting it would be adverse to the public interest. Id. at 1091-92. z The City contends that burden shifting was not appropriate because CEPCOT never met its initial burden of showing that it met the statutory criteria. This Court, however, finds that Cepcot met its prima facie burden; therefore, the Board erred in failing to present competent substantial evidence to refute Cepcot's showing. Section 2-903.C of the Code sets forth the following criteria for evaluating a CIRP: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; In its Response, the City briefly argues that Cepcot's application was for a conditional use rather than a special exception, apparently in an effort to persuade the Court that the burden would remain on Cepcot at all times. See Redner v. City of Tampa, 827 So. 2d 1056, 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (indicating that in application for a variance, burden remains on applicant at all times). However, the City cites no law in support of its contention, and this Court agrees with Cepcot that its application was in the nature of a special exception. See id. (while a variance seeks relief from literal enforcement of a zoning ordinance to permit a use otherwise prohibited upon finding of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, a special exception involves a departure from the general provisions of a zoning ordinance granted by the legislative process under the express provisions of the ordinance). tr•d Tzoira9SLZL ROUJO44U R4iO eLt,=TT so TZ uer • • 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; 4. The uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses; Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater; The development of the parcel proposed for development as an comprehensive infill redevelopment projectvill upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 7. The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking 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; 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on- street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 10. The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. Code § 2-903.C. While the Planning Staff's report maintained that Cepcot failed to meet several of these criteria, Judge 1bleale found that Cepcot had failed to meet numbers 1 and 7 only, and the City has not argued the applicability of any other criteria. Therefore, this Court will focus on the first and seventh criteria as well. 4 S-d T20b29SL2L RaUJOIJd R4TO eL-IP=TT SO To Uer • L_J Cepcot maintained before both the Board and Judge Meale that it did not have to comply with the first criterion because it was not seeking a deviation from use, intensity and development but from use only. However, the Board certainly considered the other uses to which the property could be put, and Judge Meale specifically found that although the criterion uses the conjunctive "and," it should instead be interpreted as a disjunctive "or." Otherwise, the City would be unable to regulate certain uses at certain intensities. While an "or" reading other than an "and" reading might allow for a greater range of regulation, this Court cannot agree with Judge Meale that the City's use of "and" was inadvertent and should hence be disregarded. In evaluating statutory language, a court must first examine the provision's plain meaning. Moonlit Waters Apartments Inc. v Cauley, 666 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla. 1996). "When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation and construction; the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning." Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217, 219 (Fla. 1984) (quoting A.R Douglass, Inc. v. McRainev, 102 Fla. 1141, 1144, 137 So. 157, 159 (Fla. 1931)), Here, the plain and obvious meaning of the first criterion is that the applicant does not have to present evidence that development is otherwise impractical unless it seeks a deviation from use, intensity, and development. While this might be a rare situation, it is certainly within the realm of possibility, and it is equally possible that the City intended to limit this criterion to applicants seeking a wide variety of deviation from the Code. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record justifying a contrary interpretation. Therefore, this Court finds that by imposing this criterion upon Cepcot, the Board and the hearing officer failed to observe the essential requirements of the law. 5 9'd T20*,29SL2L Rau,aoggd R4TO eLb:ii SO TZ Uer • • Judge Meale also found that Cepcot had failed to meet the seventh criterion, which provides that the proposed project must enhance the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and of the city as a whole. On this provision, he noted: The immediate vicinity of the Property is occupied by offices, warehouses, and a small utility plant. A gas station and convenience store would serve the beach-bound traffic, although it would serve as well the nontransportation functions of surrounding uses. Additionally, the proposed project, as a nonurban convenience store with a couple of gas pumps, would cover little of the Property, and [the Board] may lawfully determine that the proposed project would appear disharmonious with the surrounding bulkier structures. However, a review of the transcript of the Board's hearing on Cepcot's Petition contains absolutely no discussion on whether the convenience store would be "disharmonious" with existing structures in the area. Further, a review of the record establishes that Cepcot met its prima facie burden as to the seventh criterion by, inter alia, presenting the testimony of Ethel Hammer, a noted urban planner, whom the Board recognized as an expert. Ms. Hammer testified that numerous urban areas allow for the type of development proposed by Cepcot and that furthermore, Cepcot's plan would provide the most pedestrian-friendly venue for users of the Pinellas Trail As provided in Dania, once Cepcot met its prima facie burden of showing that its plan satisfied the seventh criterion, it was incumbent upon the Board to find by substantial competent evidence placed in the record that the criterion was indeed not satisfied. However, a review of the record shows that no such finding was made. Therefore, once again this Court determines 6 L•d T20?1299LZL RaUJOIqu R4T3 eLb=11 90 TZ Uer • • that by placing the ultimate burden of proof regarding the seventh criterion upon Cepcot, the Board and the hearing officer failed to observe the essential requirements of the law.3 As this Court has determined that the Board failed to observe the essential requirements of the law, it need not consider whether the Board's determination was supported by substantial, competent evidence. For purposes of clarity on remand, however, this Court will address three additional issues. First, the Court is troubled by the Board's heavy reliance upon the planning report. While such a report may constitute competent, substantial evidence for or against approval of a proposal, see generally ABG Real Estate Dev. Co. v. St Johns County, 608 So. 2d 59, 63 (Fla. 5`h DCA 1992), in the present matter a great deal of the report was based upon pending changes to the Downtown Plan that would expressly prohibit gas pumps. However, Florida law specifically provides that revisions to a land use plan shall not take effect until they are adopted by`the local government. § 163.3197, Fla. Stat. (2004); Gardens Country Club, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 590 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 4`h DCA 1991) (finding that county's review of special exception request under pending rather than existing land use plan was erroneous). In the present matter, no such adoption had yet occurred, and the Board was bound to follow the existing land use plan.4 3 Cepcot has also argued that the Board failed to observe the essential requirements of the law by insisting that it satisfy all 10 CIRP criteria. However, this Court is to give great deference to an agency's interpretation of its own provisions. See Golfcrest Nursing Home v. State 662 So. 2d 1330, 1333 (Fla. 0 DCA 1995) (appellate court will give deference to any interpretation by an agency that falls within the permissible range of statutory interpretations). Without any language in the Code as to how these provisions are to be weighed, this Court cannot conclude that it would be unreasonable for the Board to determine that all 10 need be met. 4 In contrast to pending land use plan changes, pending zoning changes may be considered when reviewing a land use application. Smith v. City of Clearwater, 383 So. 2d 681, 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Gardens Country Club explained this difference in treatment by noting that while a land use plan is "a statutorily mandated legislative plan to control and direct the use and development of property within a county or municipality," zoning "is the means by which the comprehensive plan is implemented, and involves the exercise of discretionary powers within limits imposed by the plan." 590 So. 2d at 490 (quoting Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So. 2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 3`d DCA 1987)) (citations omitted). 7 B -d 120b29SL2L R8u.ao7,4U R110 eL?,e T T SO TZ Uer This Court recognizes that the Board expressed concern over considering the pending changes and actually voted to eliminate those changes as a stated basis for its denial of Cepcot's proposal. However, the planning report was so rife with references to these changes, and the City Planner cited them so many times during the Board meeting on Cepcot's application, that it is difficult to conclude that they played no role in the Board's deliberations. Therefore, this Court would suggest that the Planning Office prepare a new report eliminating all consideration of the pending downtown plan. Second, the parties dispute whether the Board may consider the general applicability requirements in Section 3-913 of the Code in deciding whether to approve an application. Cepcot contends that Section 3-913 places no additional requirements on applicants, but instead merely lists requirements that the Board must meet if it places any conditions on an approval. The City, however, maintains that since § 2-903 states that proposed uses are subject to the criteria set forth and other applicable provisions of Article 3, Article 2 "captures" the Article 3 requirements. This Court agrees with Cepcot that, under the plain language of the provisions, § 3-913 does not impose requirements on the applicant. Under § 2-903, qualifying uses are Level 11 permitted uses, and § 3-913 states that "[c]onditions which are imposed by [the Board] pursuant to a. . . Level Two approval shall ensure that" the listed criteria are met. Therefore, § 3-913 imposes requirements on the Board only; furthermore, these requirements do not come into play until the Board has approved an application but desires to place conditions on its approval. In deciding whether to approve the application in the first instance, however, the Board must limit its review to the criteria of § 2-903. 8 6'd T20*129SGZG Rauuolgd R4TO egb:TT SO To uer • • Finally, the Court notes that the Board made no specific findings of fact in its Order. However, special exceptions may require that the Board enter specific findings of fact upon which its action is taken. See Redner v. City Council, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 84a (Fla. 13`h Cir. Ct. Dec. 5, 2002) (stating that "due process and equal protection requires [sic] every final order entered by an administrative agency in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions to contain specific findings of fact upon which its ultimate action is taken"); see also Vichich v. DHSMV, 799 So. 2d 1069, 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (finding that, in the quasi-judicial context, certiorari review works best when the lower tribunal creates and maintains. case-specific evidentiary records). For both ease of review and due process concerns, the Court recommends that any subsequent orders of the Board make specific findings of fact. Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Final Order dated December 2, 2003, is quashed and this cause is remanded for action consistent with this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida, this day of January, 2005. ORIGINAL SIGNED TRUE COPY JAN 19 2005 DAVID A. DEMERS Circuit Judge Copies furnished to: DAVID A. DENIERS Circuit Judge, Appellate Division Darryl R. Richards, Esq. Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, PA Post Office Box 1100 Tampa, FL 33601-1100 9 01-d Taoira9SLZL Raujolgd R4TO egl.: T T So TZ Uer Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758 The Honorable Robert E. Meale Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 10 ii•d i20-lpz9SLZL RaUJOIJd Rgt3 eBl?:ii SO iZ Uer Wells, Wayne From: Dougall-Sides; Leslie Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:01 PM To: Tarapani, Cyndi Cc: Akin, Pam; Brumback, Garry; Wells, Wayne Subject: The CEPCOT Corporation and CW Train Station v. City, DOAH Case No. 03-2585 Importance: High The Administrative Law Judge's decision has been posted to the DOAH website. ALJ Meale UPHELD the CDB's decision to DENY approval for a convenience store with gas pumps. There was sufficient evidence before the CDB that the applicant did not meet the criteria for impracticality of alternative development and for design [CDC Section 2-903C.1. and 7.]. Thanks to Planning staff for their assistance in presenting this case! The Final Order may be found at: http://www.doah.state.fl.us/ros/2003/03-2585.PDF The applicant has 30 days to appeal to Circuit Court for a record review if it so desires. STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THE CEPCOT CORPORATION AND CLEARWATER TRAIN STATION, INC., Petitioners, VS. Case No. 03-2585 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Respondent. FINAL ORDER Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted the appeal hearing in Clearwater, Florida, on October 9, 2003. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: Darryl R. Richards Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A. 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 For Respondent: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The issue on appeal is whether, pursuant to Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 4-505, to sustain or reverse, with or without conditions, the decision of the Community Development Board on June 20, 2003, denying Cepcot Corporation's application to build a convenience store with two islands for pumping gas. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On May 20, 2003, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent for approval of a development. Respondent's Development Review Committee examined the application, and Respondent's Community Development Board published notice that it would consider the application at its meeting of June 17, 2003. At the meeting, the Community Development Board denied the application and issued its Development Order to this effect on June 20, 2003. On June 25, 2003, Petitioners timely filed a Notice of Appeal of the determination of the Community Development Board. Respondent transmitted the appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which conducted the hearing pursuant to City of Clearwater Community Development Code Section 4-505. At the hearing, the parties did not present witnesses. Instead, they presented Joint Exhibits 1-5 and Petitioner Exhibits 1-2, all of which were admitted. The court reporter filed the transcript on October 29, 2003. The parties filed their Proposed Final Orders on the same date. 2 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioner The Cepcot Corporation (Cepcot) owns real property located at 657 Court Street in the downtown zoning district of the City of Clearwater (Property). On December 17, 2002, Cepcot filed a Flexible Development Application for a comprehensive infill redevelopment project (Application) on the Property. 2. At the time of the proposal, the Property, which comprises 0.95 acres, was developed with a restaurant in a building that was the former Clearwater train station, a thrift store, and a park. The Application proposes the demolition of these improvements and their replacement with a 3200 square-foot convenience store and two gas pump islands. 3. The Property fronts Chestnut Street to the south, East Avenue to the east, and Court Street to the north. The surrounding area is developed with office uses to the west and south, a privately owned utility plant to the north, and warehouse uses to the east. Upon the completion of the Memorial Causeway bridge, which is presently under construction, traffic to the beach will use Court Street and traffic from the beach will use Chestnut Street. 4. In response to questions and suggestions from Respondent's staff, Cepcot revised the proposed site plan several times. The Application is presently complete. 3 Respondent's Planning Department prepared a Staff Report, which finds that the proposed project does not meet certain requirements and recommends denial of the Application on several grounds. 5. On June 17, 2003, Respondent's Community Development Board (CDB) considered the Application. CDB denied the Application and issued a development order explaining the reasons for denial as follows: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. 2. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the downtown district. 3. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to downtown redevelopment. 4. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project per Section 2-803. 5. The proposal is not in compliance with the other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria for Section 3-913. 6. Most of the reasons cited for denial involve Respondent's Community Development Code (CDC), which is the land development regulations. The Property is in the Downtown District. CDC Section 2-901 states: "The intent and purpose of 4 1 0 0 the Downtown District is to establish a mixed use downtown where citizens can work, live, and shop in a place which is the economic, governmental, entertainment and cultural focal point of a liveable city." 7. CDC Section 2-902 sets forth the permitted uses within the Downtown District, and CDC Chart 2-100 lists permitted uses by zoning district. The proposed uses are not among the permitted uses for the Downtown District (or the Tourist District, to which portions of the record refer). CDC Section 2-903.C sets forth the following ten criteria to be applied in determining if the proposed use qualifies as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (CIRP) that may qualify an otherwise non-permitted use: 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; 4. The uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses; 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment 5 project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater; 6. The development of the parcel proposed for development as an comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 7. The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking 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; 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; 10. The design of all buildings complies fr with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. 8. CDC Section 3-913.A sets forth the General Applicability criteria. CDC Section 3-913.A.1 states: "The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located." CDC Section 3-913.A.5 states: The proposed development is consistent with the 6 community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Section 120.569, Fla Stat. (2003), and CDC Sections 4-501 and 4-505. 10. CDC Section 4-505.B provides that the hearing officer conducting this appeal shall receive "the record before [CDB]" and "oral argument." Absent a factual dispute concerning the contents of the record before CDB, the hearing officer does not receive evidence at the appeal hearing. 11. There is no material factual dispute as to the contents of the record before CDB in this case. The inclusion and consideration of Petitioners' exhibits as part of the record before CDB does not dictate a different result. 12. CDC Section 4-505.D directs the hearing officer to enter findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a determination approving, approving with conditions, or denying the Application. The appellate nature of this proceeding commands a greater level of deference to the actions of CDB than would apply if this case were de novo. The findings of fact thus consist of undisputed direct facts, largely culled from the Application, CDB's development order, and Respondent's planning documents. Based upon these findings of fact, the hearing 7 officer then reviews the ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law of CDB. 13. CDC Section 4-505.C provides: The burden shall be upon the appellant to show that the decision of [CDB] cannot be sustained by the evidence before the board, or that the decision of the board departs from the essential requirements of law. 14. The reference to "evidence" in CDC Section 4-505.C is to "competent, substantial evidence." See Sobeliski v. City of Clearwater and Mariani, DOM Case No. 02-3637 (January 13, 2003). Compare DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957) ("Substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred. . . . [T]he evidence relied upon to sustain the ultimate finding should be sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached. To this extent, the 'substantial' evidence should also be 'competent.'") 15. Petitioners do not cite any procedural irregularities as grounds for their challenge in this case. Instead, they challenge CDB's substantive determinations that the proposed project was inconsistent with various planning documents. Because CDB's determination that the proposed project was inconsistent with the CDC is sustained, it is unnecessary to 8 consider the other planning documents, with which CDC found inconsistencies. 16. CDB's determination that the proposed project is inconsistent with the CDC is supported by competent, substantial evidence and does not depart from the essential requirements of law. 17. Stressing the literal wording of the first CIRP criterion, Petitioners argue that their proposed project satisfies this criterion because it would deviate only from the use standard of the CDC, not the "use, intensity and development standards" of the CDC. CDB applied this requirement in the disjunctive, so that the failure of the proposed project to satisfy the use standard meant that it failed the first CIRP criterion, absent evidence that the redevelopment of the Property is otherwise "impractical." 18. CDB's application of the first CIRP criterion is supported by competent, substantial evidence and does not depart from the essential requirements of law. Common sense suggests that the CDC's use of the conjunctive," rather than the disjunctive, was inadvertent; otherwise, the attempt to designate certain uses at certain intensities would fail, as partial compliance would satisfy the language of this regulation. Moreover, the redevelopment of the Property is not impractical without deviations from the applicable use, 9 intensity, or development standards. Permitted uses are numerous, and the Property appears suitable for any number of them. 19. The proposed project satisfies the second, third, fifth, eighth, and ninth CIRP criteria. Respondent did not contend to the contrary at the appeal hearing or in its proposed final order. Although Respondent argued at the appeal hearing that the proposed project fails to satisfy the fourth criterion, based in part on a strained reading of this criterion to apply to future rather than existing land uses, Respondent has not so argued in its proposed final order. Likewise, Respondent has abandoned its argument that the proposed project is not consistent with the sixth criterion. 20. Respondent continues to contend that the proposed project fails to satisfy the seventh and tenth CIRP criteria. The immediate vicinity of the Property is occupied by offices, warehouses, and a small utility plant. A gas station and convenience store would serve the beach-bound traffic, although it would serve as well the nontransportation functions of surrounding uses. Additionally, the proposed project, as a nonurban convenience store with a couple of gas pumps, would cover little of the Property, and CDB may lawfully determine that the proposed project would appear disharmonious with the surrounding bulkier structures. Under these circumstances, 10 CDC's determination concerning the seventh CIRP criterion is supported by competent, substantial evidence and does not depart from the essential requirements of.law. 21. However, it is unclear how the proposed project fails to satisfy the tenth CIRP criterion. In its proposed final order, Respondent did not expand upon its claim that the project fails to satisfy this criterion. The basis for this claim seems to involve off-street parking, but, if the proposed project satisfies the ninth CIRP criterion, it should also satisfy the tenth CIRP criteria, after that criterion is reduced to off- street parking concerns. Under these circumstances, CDC's determination concerning the tenth CIRP criterion is not supported by competent, substantial evidence and departs from the essential requirements of law. 22. Petitioners argue that Respondent must balance the ten CIRP criteria, so that the failure to satisfy any single criterion does not preclude qualification as a CIRP. CDC applied these ten criteria in the conjunctive, so that the failure to satisfy any single criterion precludes qualification as a CIRP. As the practical reading of the first CIRP criterion supported CDB's application of this criterion's three requirements in the disjunctive, so does the practical reading of the ten CIRP criteria support CDB's application of these requirements in the conjunctive. Failing to satisfy the first 11 and seventh CIRP criteria, the proposed project therefore does not qualify as a CIRP. 23. It is unnecessary to consider CDB's determination that the proposed project fails to satisfy the first and fifth General Applicability criteria, or Petitioners' argument that the General Applicability criteria are inapplicable. These General Applicability criteria emphasize the form and appearance of adjacent properties and are incorporated into the part of the seventh CIRP criterion covering form. ORDER It is ORDERED that the decision of the Community Development Board to deny the Application is sustained. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us 12 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Cynthia Tarapani, Planning Director City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Darryl R. Richards Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A. 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Leslie K. Dougall-Sides City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO. JUDICIAL REVIEW Pursuant to Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 4-505.D, a party may obtain judicial review of this Final Order by filing an application for a writ of common law certiorari in the appropriate circuit court. 13 0 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW June 20, 2003 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street Dear Mr. Wedding: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On June 17, 2003 the Community Development Board reviewed your Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C at 657 Court Street. The Community Development Board (CDB) DENIED the application with the following bases: Bases for Denial: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines; 2. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the Downtown District; 3. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to Downtown redevelopment; 4. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803; and 5. The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER ED HART, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER BILLJONSON, COMMISSIONER ,? "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" r / 0 . June 20, 2003 Wedding - Page Two Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4-502.13 by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of this Development Order. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on July 7, 2003 (14 days from the date of this Development Order). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner, at 727- 562-4504. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.clearwater-fl.com. Very truly yours, 4"Z Cynthia Tarapani, AICP Planning Director Cc: Mr. E. D. Armstrong IIMS5cIPDSIPlanning DepartmentlCD BIFLEXIInactive or Finished Applications I Court 657 Auto Service Station - DeniedlCourt 657 Development Order.doc • • Wells, Wayne From: Chase, Susan Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:06 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Fred Thomas's offer to the City Wayne - At the May 15th Commission Meeting the item was discussed, the following info is from the minutes of that meeting. The minutes should be approved at tonight's Commission meeting. Assistant City Manager Garry Brumback reported Heritage Village has no interest in relocating to the park the railroad station offered by Fred Thomas. Heritage Village will be in touch with Pinellas County regarding possible use of the building as a Trail Head. The City has no nearby properties available for this structure's relocation. Tom Sehlhorst requested consideration of fees in order for him to relocate the railroad station onto his property. Mr. Brumback said that request would not be prudent and recommended Mr. Sehlhorst contact Mr. Thomas regarding this issue. The City Manager will send a letter to Mr. Thomas, declining his offer. Susan Chase Official Records & Legislative Services (727)562-4099 Case Activity Listing 5/27/2003 --?? 5:51:52PIvi' T I D E M A R K Case #: FLD2002-12045 COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. 657 COURT ST :assigned' Done Updated Activity Description Date I DMe 2 Date 3 hold Disp To By B? Notes FLDA008 Amendment Application 4/15/2003 None DONE WW 5/2/2003 Received WW FLDD080 Engineering Review 12/20/200: 5/9/2003 5/9/2003 None DONE FLDA245 Documents attached in 12/20/200: PPlan None FLDA235 Letter To Abutting Prop 12/20/200: Owner FLDA230 Letter of Completeness 12/20/2W FLDA244 D.O. Mailed Out 12/20/200: FLDA018 Tree Survey Recd 12/20/200: FLDA130 Map Created 12/20/200: FLDA016 Drainage Calculation 12/20/200: Recd FLDA015 Verify Traffic Impact 12/20/200: Fees FLDD060 Legal Review 12/20/2002 None 4/29/2003 None DONE None 2/18/2003 HwO DONE 2/27/2003 None DONE 2/4/2003 HwO DONE HwO 1/6/2003 None DONE S_R 5/9/2003 5/9/03 - Dumpster enclosure meets city standards. S_R 1) Dumpster enclosure to be constructed per City Standards Detail #701, 1 thru 3 of 3. 12/20/2002 WW • 12/20/2002 WW WW 5/2/2003 WW 12/20/2002 WW WW 3/4/2003 WW WW 3/4/2003 WW RJM MTP 2/4/2003 RJM 12/20/200: WW 1/6/2003 MTP 0 Page 1 of 7 CaseActivity..rpt 5-13-03;15:58 ;CITY CLERK DEPT. ;727 562 4086 YC 1/ 2 r r ?f Clearwater City of Clearwater, Florida Official Records and Legislative Services Department Phone (727) 562-4090 Fax (727) 562-4086 FAX MESSAGE TO: Cyndi Tarapani LOCATION: Planning FAX NO.: 4865 COMMENTS: Sue Phillips requested that I fax the attached letter for your file. FROM: Lois Norman, (727-562-4091) DATE: 5/13/2003 NUMBER OF PAGES THIS MESSAGE (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 2 ?` ?P? 1•? 103 ?M?N? P? P G? OF ?R 5-13-03;15:58 ;CITY CLERK DEPT_ ;727 552 4086 # 2/ 2 j1AY. -01' 03(WED) 1544 1011 aJb Mb t'. uul ,j ?J' PIMCNeAoPENNY P00L*PAT10*SPA 1400 62nd Sc. N. • Clearwater, FL 33760 i P.O. Box 6025 • Clcarwacer, F.. 33758 Ph; (727)531-8913 0 F.w (727)536•8066 May 7, 2003 Bill Horne, City Manager City of Clearwater 112 S. Osceola Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Dear Bill, r.i fqj SS 7" k4k 1 20© 9N? i grrCIs, r This is a formal offer to give to the City of Clearwater the building known as the Clearwater Train Station, You have 30 days in which to make a decision as to whether you want to accept this offer or not. The conditions are the following: The building must be used for non-profit purposes, even its lessees. There is to be no rent paid on the building - a true non-profit, As I said earlier, you have 30 days in which to accept this offer and 90 days in which to remove the structure that is located at East Street & Court Street in downtown Clearwater. If you decline the offer, the structure will be demolished in order to develop the property. Your immediate attention to this would be most appreciated. Sincerely, A. Thomas Cc: Brian Aungst, Mayor-Commissioner Frank Hibbard, Commissioner Hoyt Hamilton, Commissioner Whitney Gray, Commissioner Bill Jonson, Commissioner PV's pF CL? DEPART RWATER G Porpoise Pool & Ncacy Inc. • Pinch A Penny, Inc. + Sun Wholesele Supply, Inc. ? Titc Cepcoc Corporation poolGeor P1yc • Srineoast Tran me,mirinn I .Romer-,ct ? re n:r<le (`nn.n .... FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: FAX: $1 4- _ l6r2-1 \_, / to Z . Phone: % Z ? " (9 k01 D FROM: 2115 Phone: S b 2' 4 S 0 `? ?,o vr?' S'?'r DATE:_ b3 RE: ?e J -7 MESSAGE: a i ;, ? -x Us- 2- ZSIo? 6\- 1%l t NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) 3 RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 05/09/2003 13:47 NAME PLAN FAX 7275624576 TEL 7275624567 DATE DIME 05/09 13:43 FAX NO./NAME 94620365 DURATION 00:03:06 PAGE(S) 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD 1 10 TO BED i `RELOCATED- DRIP LINE ! " -D1 i j CEO P))SLVS I EXIST. j 24 "OAK( 1 ?l1G?J/f?grc tfG-rc j i i r L EXIST. i 2-STORY I `°% BUILDING] I ?. j °0D; EXIST. " 110 PALM i (EXIST. jII" PALM ' EXIST. 112" PALM 50.0 (P) j I EXIST. 135" OAK I I DRIP LINE I N EXIST. t,S"PAL +%J3611 ACARANDA TO BE REMOVED C DRIP I I I I??III`?I I 1 2 III -, I I I l I? ``?: I I I '? I I I t 4128 1" . *K/ I `? III : ? 42 Pp LM IEMOV?D II I I ? I I I I I A n I ?1 I I I I 1 1 I r. ? 1 I -1 4 y:>t P ? I I 1 I I I I I I I I SIGHT TRIANGLE 4) 6,1 1 II 11 f i I I ® iVPALM -- --- L 1 1 1 6 I X12"PALM I TO BE 150.57' (06S) REMOVED ?y7 fl x J I _V ? l\, J( 6 13----I- SIGHT i I TRIANGLE --c 4 O ? i 3 5 4 2 0 \ cli IN% ? IN?_/ " T?n,? o 5) ...- 4 . EXIST. T BUILDING 20.67' (D) 20.14' (M) C r EXIST. x 23"OAK - - - IEXIST. 3 70.00' NI i - / I 4 / \ Ia Icc i ? \ \ \ I / I cn WCC \ / I c ? ROOSED a CONVENIENCE S ; I i. E c I / -?-- ------ ------- ---- n n 0 I I I r I 1 I I 3 I I: I ; 7 I I i I I I I I I n . ii • Wedding April 30, 2003 Wayne M. Wells, AICP Senior Planner City of Clearwater P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 0 RECEIVED MAY 0 2.2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Re: Application for Flexible Development approval (Case FLD2002-1.2045) to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, at 657 Court Street. Dear Mr. Wells: Enclosed you will find revised site elevations and other drawings made in response to the items you set out in your April 29th letter to this office. These should pave the way for a full, frank and candid discussion at the scheduled May 15th meeting with you and others of the City's Planning Staff. Ed Armstrong will cover your item #9, the existing train station. We look forward to that meeting and to getting this matter to the Community Development Board on June 17, 2003. Yours very truly, ??. Willi F. Davenport, Enclosures cc: Jim Eisch Ed Armstrong, Attorney Wedding, Stephenson & Ibargiien 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 - St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Architects, Inc. (727) 821-6610 FAX: (727) 894-4216 PROF. REG. #AA - 0002922 r1 Am Wedding, Stephenson & Wedding Ibarguen, Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue S. Suite 402 , St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Ste enson Phone (727) 821-661 Fax (727) 894-4216 6 & Iliarguen Professional Registration //AA - 0002922 Letter of Transmittal TO: Mr. Wayne Wells, Senior Planner DATE: April 29, 2003 Planning Department City of Clearwater RE: (Court Str eet Convenience Store 100 South Myrtle Avenue WSI 40211 1.00) Clearwater, FL 33756 Case No. FLD202-12045 Automotive Service Station WE ARE SENDING YOU: ( ) ATTACHED ( ) UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ( ) COPY CORRESPONDENCE ( ) CHANGE ORDER ( ) FIELD INSTRUCTION ( ) PRINTS/PLANS ( ) APPROVAL OF SUB'S ( ) CERTIF. SUBST. COMP. ( ) INVOICE ( ) CONTRACTOR REQUISITION ( ) OTHER (SEE BELOW) ( ) SPECIFICATIONS ( ) INSPECTION REPORTS NO. OF COPIES DESCRIPTION 13 Sets Civil Drawings (One original Sign & Sealed & 12 copies) THEY ARE BEING TRANSMITTED AS MARKED BELOW: (X) FOR APPROVAL ( ) APPROVED FOR PAYMENT ( ) EXECUTION & RETURN ( ) FOR YOUR USE ( ) FOR YOUR INFORMATION ( ) PRICE QUOTATION ( ) FOR YOUR FILES ( ) FOR FURTHER PROCESSING ( ) FOR DISTRIBUTION ( ) AS REQUESTED (X) FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ( ) OTHER (SEE REMARKS) REMARKS: I , BY: MAY 0 2 2003 ? € s C.R. Wedding COPY TO: File r - ??-_ - November 1998 - csi/forms new/l.o.t. N2 0 TO.- FAX:- Phone:- FROM: FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 /&AL AA164 IC-J Ams4ravu 4-2-1 G +02-- 03(oS 2.1 - DATE:_ '-t Z MESSAGE: ?4(0 1 Phone• J 6 Z' 444E 0 RTi • (.S-7 l e LiC 4 1?4 eel. NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) 3 RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT 0 p TIME 0412912003 11:38 NAME : PLAN FAX 7275624576 TEL 7275624567 DATE DIME 04129 11:36 FAX NO./NAME 98944216 DURATION 00:01:34 PAGE{S} 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM 1 • • CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 . TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 LANG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW April 29, 2003 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Application for Flexible Development approval (Case FLD2002-12045) to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, at 657 Court Street. Dear Mr. Wedding: The Planning staff has reviewed your application for Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, at 657 Court Street. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete (Case FLD2002-12045), however, the following must be submitted or addressed: 1. Address compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines with the new site/building design. A memorandum was previously submitted detailing how you felt the project complied (dated January 29, 2003). 2. Note: A Unity of Title will be required to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Note: Staff is not supportive of the use, as it is not permitted under the Downtown District or the underlying land use classification of Central Business District. The policy directive from the City Commission is not to support auto-oriented uses within the Downtown District. 4. Place the note on Sheet A3.1 that the bands and accents on structures will be two shades darker than the general wall color (buff yellow). 5. Signage, since not shown, may be required in the future to be reviewed by the Community Development Board when submitted. 6. The dumpster enclosure must be finished and painted to match the main retail building. Place notes on Sheet A1.1 for this purpose. BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER ED HART, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER ® BILL JONSON, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" W 0 0 April 29, 2003 Wedding - Page Two 7. A minor detail relates to the truck turning path from Chestnut Street on Sheet T1.1, as it assumes that the truck will be turning from the southernmost traffic lane across the other east bound traffic lanes to access the site. There will probably be sufficient area for the truck to access the site with the truck in the northernmost traffic lane of Chestnut Street. 8. Provide the amount of interior green space (minimum of 10 percent of the paved vehicular use area) as part of the site data on Sheet Al. 1. 9. Provide a narrative as to the developer's intentions of the existing train station, as to whether it will be completely destroyed, relocated or why it could not be incorporated into the site design. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on May 15, 2003, in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue in Clearwater. Please call Sherrie Nicodemus at 562-4582 one week prior to the DRC meeting to obtain the time of the day on May 15th for the sufficiency review by the DRC. Responses to the above comments may be helpful at the DRC meeting, however, additional comments and requirements may result from that meeting. You or your client must be present to answer any questions that the committee may have regarding your application. Please be aware that 15 additional sets of the complete resubmittal of all required information, to include copies of the application, survey, site plan (with any required changes as applicable), affidavit of authorization, etc. will be required by noon on May 20, 2003, in order to be placed on the June 17, 2003, Community Development Board (CDB) agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727-562-4504. Sincerely, Waynno M. Wells, AICP Senior Planner Cc: Ed Armstrong IIMS5clPDSIPlanning DepartmentlCD BIFLEXIPending casesl Up for the next DRCICourt 657 Auto Service StationlCourt 657 Complete Letter #3.doc F/ 0 C] CITY OF C LEARWATE R POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865 PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 19, 2003 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Application for Flexible Development approval (Case FLD2002-12045) to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, at 657 Court Street. Dear Mr. Wedding: The Flexible Development application to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 903.C, at 657 Court Street was continued to a date uncertain by the Community Development Board (CDB) on Tuesday, March 18, 2003. Once a revised application has been submitted for review, the Planning staff will determine whether the revised application will need to be reviewed by the Development Review Committee prior to being scheduled for the next available CDB meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Senior Planner, at 727-562-4504. Sincerely k? Frank Gerlock Development Services Manager Cc: Ed Armstrong IIMS5cTDSIPIanning Departmen6CD BIFLEXIPending caseslReviewed and PendinglCourt 657 Auto Service StationlCourt 657 CDB 3.18.03 Decision Letter. doc BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER ® BILL JONSON, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL. EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" • • .pFS i ove April 11, 2003 Mr. Mike Sanders, Vice President Clearwater Historical Society 411 Orangeview Ave Clearwater, FL 33755 Dear Mike, I'm not interested in going back in time. The Historical Society is dedicated to history I'm dedicated to the future. That's where I'm living the rest of my life. At some point in time, I will develop the property and whether I donate the Train Station building to the Historical S?oc?'e_tEy_or t ie-C-it-&f-&fmakes no difference to me. Whoever takes it musVV ove it or it will be destroye the redevelopment of property. Thank you for your help with the photos in the Train Station. I'll put them somewhere, right now, I'm sure where. regards, 657 Court St. Clearwater, Florida 33756 Corporate Office 14480 62nd St. Forth Clearwater, FL 33760 (727) 531-8914 L? 0 UD4, ju+?5 Wedding APR 1 5 2003 APRIL 10, 2003 .W_.?I I'YL? r, s ?r{dtiFfi? MR. WAYNE WELLS, AICP SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF CLEARWATER VIA HAND DELIVERY RE: CASE NO.FLD202-12045- AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION DEAR MR. WELLS, ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND OUR RE-SUBMISSION OF THIS REQUEST FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW comA TTEE AT THEIR MEETING OF MAY 159 2003. KINDLY ADVISE THE TIME WE SHOULD APPEAR TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMITTEE. AS YOU WILL SEE, WE HAVE COMPLETELY REVISED. THE SITE PLAN TO ADDRESS THOSE CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF THE STAFF REPORT OF MARCH 13TH. WE PERCEIVE THOSE ELEMENTS TO BE: * FAILURE TO MEET THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. * PERCEIVED TRAFFIC BOTTLENECKS AT THE NORTH END OF THE SITE * STORM DRAINAGE SOLUTION WHICH DID NOT ADDRESS TREATMENT IN THE DESIRED FASHION. TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS, WE HAVE MODIFIED THE SITE ARRANGEMENT AS FOLLOWS; 1. THE CONVENIENCE STORE HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE EAST EDGE OF THE SITE, CREATING PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY ACCESS FOR THOSE TRAVERSING THE PINELLAS TRAIL. ACCESS, BIKE RACKS, AND REST AREAS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. PARKING AND TRAFFIC HAS BEEN REMOVED TO THE REAR OF THE SITE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. 2. PUMPING STATIONS HAVE BEEN RELOCATED TO PROVIDE DIRECT FLOW THRU THE SITE UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. Wedding, Stephenson & Ibargden 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 • St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Architects, Inc. (727) 821-6610 FAX: (727) 894-4216 PROF. REG. #AA - 0002922 MR. WAYNE WELLS CASE NO. FLD2002-12045 APRIL 10, 2003 PAGE TWO Wedding Fj 3. WE HAVE REVISED THE ROUTING OF STORM WATER TO CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH OUR OPEN TREATMENT PONDS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO THE STORAGE TANK AND THENCE TO THE OUTFALL ON CHESTNUT. STREET. THIS TANK, OF COURSE WILL BE STRUCTURALLY DESIGNED FOR TRUCK AND AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC TO CROSS IT AT ANY POINT. IT WILL NOW SATISFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS EXPRESSED. WE TRUST THESE ADJUSTMENTS WILL REDUCE THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN THE STAFF REPORT OF MARCH 13TH. HOWEVER, IF I MAY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS OR INFORMATION PRIOR TO YOUR MEETING, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD AT THEIR JUNE 17 MEETING. BEST REGARDS, iRANDOLP WEDDING, FAIA/ASLA PRESIDENT • CLEARWATER HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC. 1380 SOUTH GREENWOOD AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX 1?5 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34617 v °;--o 3 „l G?6`°'1le` t° G"'`X` ?a?u d`z``.t iu?s/t? o ?. ? ? s rr?.?j ?ynp?tr?co? ?• rise y li? ? Ge?c! v saw, ? lill(v coo ccsrdn- may„ U 01P, T/I a`tf /t,roo,.? (A? S R,Lwr•Q O, / ,te) i kut-su-G 1 d ?? U TO: FAX: Phone: ? Z ( (9 (o FROM: I/\JU DATE:_ /13 L MESSAGE: Phone: s? zJ, 7 Lj yr 1-- )4-, c -4- -h r l-7-DZB0 7- - a? FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 C-„ J.. WQAC1:? NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE)-/ Z--- • CITY OF C LEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 7, 2003 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Application for Flexible Development approval (Case FLD2002-12045) to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, at 657 Court Street. Dear Mr. Wedding: The Flexible Development application to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 903.C, at 657 Court Street has been scheduled to be reviewed by the Community Development Board on Tuesday, March 18, 2003. The meeting will take place at 2:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers, 3rd floor of City Hall at 112 S. Osceola, Clearwater. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727-562-4504. Sincerely, M• 1..? o& Wayne M. Wells, AICP Senior Planner Cc: Ed Armstrong IIMS5clPDSIPlanning DepartmentlCD BIFLEXIPending casesTeviewed and PendinglCourt 657 Auto Service StationlCourt 657 CDB Letter.doc BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER ® BILLJONSON, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL. EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMAmF. ACTION EMPLOYER" Ah Am .41W dd 19W Wedding, Stephenson & We ing Ibarguen, Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Ste enson Phone (727) 821- 1 42 Fax (727) 894-4216 6 & iliarguen Professional Registration #AA - 0002922 Letter of Transmittal TO: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner DATE: February 25, 2003 Planning Department RE: City of Clearwater : Convenience Store 657 Court S treet Case FLD2002-12045 WE ARE SENDING YOU: ( ) ATTACHED ( ) UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ( ) COPY CORRESPONDENCE ( ) CHANGE ORDER ( ) FIELD INSTRUCTION ( ) PRINTS/PLANS ( ) APPROVAL OF SUB'S ( ) CERTIF. SUBST. COMP. ( ) INVOICE ( ) CONTRACTOR REQUISITION ( ) OTHER (SEE BELOW) ( ) SPECIFICATIONS ( ) INSPECTION REPORTS NO. OF COPIES DESCRIPTION 1 Set Drainage Calculations THEY ARE BEING TRANSMITTED AS MARKED BELOW: ( ) FOR APPROVAL ( ) APPROVED FOR PAYMENT ( ) EXECUTION & RETURN ( ) FOR YOUR USE ( ) FOR YOUR INFORMATION ( ) PRICE QUOTATION FOR YOUR FILES ( ) FOR FURTHER PROCESSING ( ) FOR DISTRIBUTION AS REQUESTED ( ) FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ( ) OTHER (SEE REMARKS) REMARKS: RECEIVED FEB j 2003 BY. PLANNING DEPARTMENT C.R. Wedding, President CITY OF CLEARWATER COPY TO: File November 1998 - csi/forms new/l.o.t. #2 WEST COAST DESIGN.r.,..INC. ....... .................................................................. ................ . .............. FAX...TRANSMITTAL.... .... . .. ...... .......... .... .................... ..... ....... .. ,. . ........... . 10681 Gulf Blvd., Suite 205 Phone (727) 368-0491 Treasure Island, FL 33706 Fax (727) 368-0589 DATE: February 25, 2003 TO: Randy Wedding FAX No.: 894-4216 PAGES: Three incl. cover FROM: David C. Littell RE: 657 Court St. PRO].: 03-004 MESSAGE: The current pon configuration olds 2,229 cu. ft. for a deficit of (6,400 - 2,229) = 4,171 cu. ft. V4 U C_'T 5-r'o PJ?GE RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Td WdTZ:60 200e Se 'qad 68S08922-ZZ 'ON XUA ONI NJISBQ 1Sd03 1S3M WOaA PROJECT NAME 657 COURT STREET - N. POND PROJECT NUMBER 03-004 DESIGNER DCL DATE 2/17/2003 COMMENTS: STAGE-STORAGE FOR RETENTION POND REA @ T.O.B. 776 EL ............. 25,00 AREA @ DHW 682 EL.......... 24.50 AREA @ DLW 682 EL ........... 24.50 AREA BOTT.\NWL 39$ EL.......... 23.00 CU\FT STAGE SQ\FT CU\FT 23.00 398 0 24.02 591 504 23.04 405 16 24.06 598 527 23.08 413 32 24.10 606 551 23.12 420 48 24.14 613 575 23.16 428 65 24.18 620 599 23.20 435 82 2422 628 624 23.24 442 99 24.25 635 648 23.27 450 116 24.29 643 673 23.31 457 134 24.33 650 699 23.35 465 152 24.37 657 724 23.39 472 171 24.41 665 750 23.43 480 189 24.45 672 776 23.47 487 208 24.49 680 803 23.51 494 227 24.53 687 830 23.55 502 247 24.57 694 857 23.59 509 267 24.61 702 884 23.63 517 287 24.65 709 912 23.67 524 307 24.69 717 940 23.71 531 328 24.73 724 968 23.75 539 349 24.76 732 997 23.78 546 370 24.80 739 1025 23.82 554 392 24.84 746 1055 23.86 561 414 24.88 754 1084 23.90 568 436 24.92 761 1114 23.94 576 458 24.96 769 1144 23.98 583 481 25.00 776 1174 Ed WHTE:60 200E SE 'aa8 68S08MLEL : 'ON XUA ONI NOISBQ 1SdO3 1S3M : WOdJ . I PROJECT NAME 657 COURT STREET - S. POND PROJECT NUMBER 03-004 DESIGNER DCL DATE 2/17/2003 [COMMENTS: STAGE-STORAGE FOR RETENTION POND EA @ T.O.S. 1558 EL ............. 25.00 [AREA @ DHW 1313 EL.......... 24.50 REA @ DLW 1313 EL........... 24.50 REA BOTT.\NWL 579 EL.......... 23.00 STAGE SQ1FT CU\FT STAGE 23.00 579 0 24.02 1078 23.04 598 23 24.06 1097 23.08 617 47 24.10 1116 23.12 637 72 24.14 1136 23.16 656 97 24.18 1155 23.20 675 123 24.22 1174 23.24 694 150 24.25 1193 23.27 713 177 24.29 1212 23.31 733 206 24.33 1232 23.35 752 235 24.37 1251 23.39 771 265 24.41 1270 23.43 790 295 24.45 1289 23.47 809 327 24.49 1308 23.51 829 359 24.53 1328 23.55 848 392 24.57 1347 23.59 867 425 24.61 1366 23.63 886 460 24.65 1385 23.67 905 495 24.69 1404 23.71 925 531 24.73 1424 23.75 944 567 24.76 1443 23.78 963 605 24.80 1462 23.82 982 643 24.84 1481 23.86 1001 682 24.88 1500 23.90 1021 721 24.92 1520 23.94 1040 762 24.96 1539 23.98 1059 803 25.00 1558 V:s :: ; CU1. E; Et R N N iU4:I:iM ....:': 4 9 Gll? ' : : ... a7'A1 fb U Vf : : : .` ', '`' ' " " : `.1419 : CU1FT ; Ed WdZZ:60 200E SE 'aad 68S08922-Z2- : 'ON XdJ CU1FT 845 887 931 975 1020 1066 1112 1159 1207 1256 1305 1355 1406 1458 1510 1564 1618 1672 1728 1784 1841 1899 1957 2016 2076 2137 ONI NOISSQ 1Sd0O 1S3M : WONJ 02/21/2003 FRI 11:52 FAX ZooI/003 1 • • 11 Weddffig MEMO TO: MR. WAYNE WELLS SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF CLEARWATER VIA FAX TRANSMISSION FROM: C.RANDOLPH WEDDING FAIA/ASLA RE: COURT STREET CONVENIENCE STORE SUBJ: APPROVAL OF INFILL PROJECT DATE: 02/21/03 DEAR MR. WELLS, RECEIVED Ft B 2 1 2003 NLANlvlivu & ULVELOPMENT b&wiCES (ATY Ur uLt-k(WATER ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WHICH EXEMPTS THIS SITE FROM SECURING AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT. SINCE THE NEED FOR THIS PERMIT WAS ONE OF THE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS, I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR INCLUDING A COPY 'OF THIS INFORMATION IN OUR FILE, AND REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT' FROM OUR APPROVAL HURDLES. BEST REGARDS, .PRESIDENT Wedding, Stephenson & Ibargiien 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 • St_ Petersburg, Florida 33701 Architects, Inc. (727) 821.6610 FAX: (727) 894-4216 1410F. REG. OAA ()()(12922 02/21/2003 FRI 11:52 FAX Southwest Florida a WaterManagement District 0 oilaiey TpniM Service Coto lk tow Sawa* ONko 0g7001 Highway 301 Nort11 170 Centuy Dowlevard Tarnp3, Florida a%31.8759 llaetEW, iWdfi 398'10.7700 (819) 9a574at or (1383) S34-1445 or 1-8004384797 (FL only) 1.BO0.492-7862 (FL orfy) SUNCOM $Tll-3070 4000M !7291200 BMWs 19. Chair, Pinellas Theresa a Dabosy, 0 Vlae Chair, Saraseae 11914116. WkQ" Saomwy, Nilbbor9Yr)1 web?ae L >ryae., p Treasurer, Pinellas Qdsuard W. Charse Manatee Monroe NAP Oeoder Cirus mown 14 Pool r1g11e: H111311ereugt? Peeeda L Freb.se Mlolar4d fiearsl0 e, /orpserr Polk Hillsborough Jelrn ML Rodeo, UI . • Pasco L D. "9snW Verret E aautim Daoftr yon, A. W" Assistant Executive Dlr 3 t t General Counsel Pmt r, clirigYW r Water Resources RECEIVED Td Wtl9z:60 200e TZ '941A 68S0139C.LFL : 'ON Xdd DNI NE11FIBlI&M : bJOcid PLANIVI)vu & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY Ur CLEMWATER February 17, 2003 Fred A, Thomas The CEPCOT Corporation 14480 62nd Street North Clearwater, FL 33760 Q002/003 • 2379 Broad Sweet, 8rooksvilie, Florida 346046899 (352) 7967211 or 3.-800-42-'!1,-1476 (FL anly) SUNCOM 6284150 TDD only 1-800.231-6103 (FL only) On the irtromot or waterMatters.org Sarasota Somico aft e 6750 Ftunvllle Read Sarasota. Florida 34240.9711 (941) 3773721 or , 141003263.509 (FL only) SUNCOM 531-0900 I.ooDftw rwwvlna Office 3600 West Sovereign Path sufte 226 Wwto, Rloridb S44e1-E0TO (352) 527-8131 SUNCaM 847.3271 subject:' Pm)w &aluattott = Killiriiiit ReeRrtresl:` Project Name: 657 Court Street Inquiry Number: 110474 County: - Plncllas SerJlV?rpJRge: 155/29 5!1 S E Latitude/Longituds: 27657'40.8511/82°47'49.55" Reference: Flute 4OD-4.041, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.0.) Dear Mr. Thomas: The District has reviewed the information you submitted on January 27 and February, 7, 2003160he project reerenced above and has determined that an Environmental Resource Permit will not be required for the site,renovation resulting in a 8;428 squara'toot increase in open area. The information received by the District will be kept Id the Tampa Service Office to support'the: District`s determination regarding your project. The District's determination that your project does not require an ERP is only applicable pursuant to the statutes and rules in effect atthe time the Information was submitted and may hot be valid in the event subsequent changes occur in the applicable 'rules arid statutes. Additionally, this notification does not mean that the District has determined that your project is permanently exempt frorn permitting requirements. Any subsequent change you make in the project's operation may necessitate further evaluation or permitting by the District. Therefore, you are advised to contact the District before beginning the project and before beginning any activity which Is not specii'icaily described in your subrnittal. Your tirin* pursuit of tttls activiiJs a, rag_eC} avoid any potential rule changes that could affect your request. ?" This letter constitutes notice of final agency action of the project referenced above, You or any person whom substantial interests are affected by the District's action regarding a permit may request an administrative hearing in accordanoo with Sections 120.5699 and 120.57, F.S., and chapter 28-106, F.A.C,, of the Uniform ilules of Procedure. A request forhearinymust' (1) avlainhowthe substantial interests of each person requesting the hearing will be affected by the Disthct's action, or proposed action, (2) state all nt@tehal fads disputed by the person requesting the hearing or state that there are no disputed facts, and (3) otherwise comply with Chapter 26-106, FA-C. Copies of Sections 28-106.201 and 28.108.301, F.A.G. are enclosed for your reference. A request for hearing must be flied with (received by) the Agency Clerk of the District at the District's Brooksville address within 21 days of receipt of this notice. Reoalpt Is deemed to be the fifth day after the date on which this notice Is deposited In the United States mail. Failure to file a request for hearing within this time period shail constitute a waiver of any right you or such person may have to request a hearing under Sections 02/21/2003 FRI 11:53 FAX 0003/003 Fred A. Thomas Page 2 February 17, 2003 120.669 and 120.57, F.S. Mediation pursuant to Section 120,573, F.S., to settle an administrative dispute regarding the District's action In this matter is not available. Enclosed is a "Noticing Packet' that provides information regarding District Rule, Section 40D-1.1010, F.A.C,, which addresses the notification of persons whose substantial interests may be affected by the District's action in this matter. The packet ooniaine guidelines on how to provide notice of the District's action, and a notice that you may use, if you have questions regarding this determinadon, please contact Richard M. Ali, P.E., at-the Tarnpa Service Offim extension 2045. Please referenicetho Project Name and Number irn future ovrnrnunfeiloris coticemirig this project- Sincerely, -- Alba E. Mas, P.E., Director Tampa Regulation Department AEM:dsw !enclosures: Noticing Packet (42.00.048) Sections 28-109.201 and 28-106.301,1`.A.0, cc: Inquiry No. 110474 USACOE David C. Uttell, P.E., West Coast Design, Inc. Td W118F:60 £00Z Te 'q;'A 68S08g£LZL : 'ON XUA ONI NJISM 1SdO3 1SSM : WrJNJ Wedding MEMO TO: WAYNE WELLS SENIOR PLANNER PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER VIA HAND DELIVERY FROM: C.RANDOLPH WEDDING FAIA/ASLA RE: CASE FLD2002-12045- 657 COURT STREET SUBJ: RESPONSE TO DRC COMMENTS OF 2/12/03 DATE: 02/18/03 DEAR MR. WELLS, THERE FOLLOWS OUR RESPONSE TO THE. COMMENTS THAT WERE SENT TO US VIA E- MAIL IMMEDIATELY AFTER OUR MEETING WITH THE DRC ON JAN 16. WE HAVE RESPONDED IN THE SAME ORDER THAT THE COMMENT APPEARED ON YOUR E-MAIL: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL: STORMWATER PLAN HAS BEN REVISED AND IS RESUBMITTED HEREWITH. 2. FIRE: THE BUILDING WILL MEET ALL FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMITS. 3. GENERAL ENGINEERING: REVISED SITE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLAN IS PROVIDED WITH THIS SUBMISSION, TO INCLUDE 6400 CF OF STORAGE CAPACITY. 4. HARBOR MASTER: THANK YOU. 5. LAND RESOURCE: a. A TREE PROTECTION SHEET HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE PACKAGE. 6. LANDSCAPING: a. OAKS HAVE BEEN RE-SPACED. b. LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED ALONG WITH THE OVERALL LAYOUT. MORE LAYERING INCLUDED, BUT EASE OF MAINTENANCE AND COLD-TOLERANCE HAVE STILL BEEN OBSERVED AS CRITICAL. c. SOD HAS REPLACED INDIAN HAWTHORN IN TREE ISLAND. Wedding, Stephenson & Ibargiien 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 • St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Architects, Inc. (727) 821-6610 FAX: (727) 894-4216 PROP. REG. #AA - 0002922 Wedding MEMO WAYNE WELLS JANUARY 29,2003 PAGE TWO 7. PARKS AND RECREATION: THANK YOU. 8. PLANNING: a. BUFFERS HAVE BEEN DIMENSIONED. b. TERMINAL ISLANDS AR SHORTENED TO EASE TRAFFIC FLOW. c. SITE DATA HAS BEEN CORRECTED. d. SERVICE ISLANDS HAVE BEEN RE-DESIGNED; A TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN HAS BEEN PROVIDED. e. UNITY OF TITLE WILL BE PROVIDED. f. UNDERSTOOD. g. COLORS HAVE BEEN NOTED ON ELEVATIONS. h. SIGNAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED AT A LATER TIME; SHOWN AS DOTTED AREAS FOR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING ON ELEVATIONS. 9. SOLID WASTE: a. STANDARD DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED 10.'STORMWATER: a. A NEW CONCEPT IS PROVIDED TO PROVIDE THE 6400 C.F. REQUESTED FOR ONE HOUR DURATION. 11. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: a. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES WILL BE PAID WHEN REQUESTED. BEST REGARDS, C.R. E ING PRESIDENT CITY OF C LEARWATE R POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 PLANNING DEPARTMENT February 10, 2003 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Application for Flexible Development approval (Case FLD2002-12045) to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, at 657 Court Street. Dear Mr. Wedding: The Planning staff has reviewed your application for Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, at 657 Court Street. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete (Case FLD2002-12045), however, the following must be submitted or addressed: 1. Dimension the width of the landscape buffer areas along Chestnut Street, East Avenue and Court Street. 2. Provide an explanation why the terminal landscape islands adjacent to parking spaces do not extend to the full length of the parking spaces. 3. Site Data is provided on Sheets A1.1 and C1.1, but the data is different on each sheet. Delete the incorrect Site Data from either Sheet ALL or C1.1 so there is only one place where Site Data is provided. 4. The proposed site design does not provide adequate vehicular traffic circulation abilities for two-way flow when vehicles are fueling from the end pumps and/or when delivery and tanker trucks are on-site. Traffic circulation is and will be confusing to motorists when vehicles are parked in particular locations. Need to discuss traffic flow. 5. Note: A Unity of Title will be required to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Note: Staff is not supportive of the use, as it is not permitted under the Downtown District or the underlying land use classification of Central Business District. The BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER ® BILLJONSON, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVi: ACTION EMPLOYER" February 10, 2003 Wedding - Page Two policy directive from the City Commission is not to support auto-oriented uses within the Downtown District. 7. Place a note on Sheet A3.1 that the bands and accents on structures will be darker shades of the general wall color. 8. Signage, since not shown, may be required in the future to be reviewed by the Community Development Board when submitted. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on February 13, 2003, at 10:00 am in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue in Clearwater. Responses to the above comments may be helpful at the DRC meeting, however, additional comments and requirements may result from that meeting. You or your client must be present to answer any questions that the committee may have regarding your application. Please be aware that 15 additional sets of the complete resubmittal of all required information, to include copies of the application, survey, site plan (with any required changes as applicable), affidavit of authorization, etc. will be required by 4:30 pm on February 18, 2003, in order to be placed on the March 18, 2002, Community Development Board (CDB) agenda. , If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727-562-4504. Sincerely, W Ne- H. GSA Wayne M. Wells, AICP Senior Planner Cc: Ed Armstrong IIMS5clPDSIPlanning DepartmentlCD BTLEXIPending casesl Up for the next DRCICourt 657 Auto Service StationlCourt 657 Complete Letter #2.doc U FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 TO: _ Lu"'CL ?aa--A-- FAX: (727) 562-4865 FAX: Phone: ? 7-4 " (o ld I ID ` kc l - f ?)I t FROM: Q (k Phone: , (O 2--- --w ? DATE:_ ZIl Q I0 RE: (17 c vc-? -- - MESSAGE: NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) 3 RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 02/10/2003 14:57 NAME PLAN FAX 7275624576 TEL 7275624567 DATE DIME 02/10 14:55 FAX N0./NAME 98944216 DURATION 00:01:30 PAGE(S) 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM *RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 02/10/2003 14:59 NAME PLAN FAX : 7275624576 TEL 7275624567 DATE DIME 02/10 14:58 FAX N0./NAME 94620365 DURATION 00:01:37 PAGE{S} 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD WRECEIVED eddin g JAN PLANIVIiVG & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER MEMO TO: WAYNE WELLS SENIOR PLANNER PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER VIA HAND DELIVERY FROM: C.RANDOLPH WEDDING FAIA/ASLA RE: CASE FLD2002-12045- 657 COURT STREET SUBJ: RESPONSE TO DRC COMMENTS OF 1/16/03 DATE: 01/29/03 DEAR MR. WELLS, THERE FOLLOWS OUR RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SENT TO US VIA E- MAIL IMMEDIATELY AFTER OUR MEETING WITH THE DRC ON JAN 16. WE HAVE RESPONDED IN THE SAME ORDER THAT THE COMMENT APPEARED ON YOUR E-MAIL: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL: STORMWATER RENOVATION PLAN"IS INCLUDED IN DRAWINGS SUBMITTED TODAY. KINDLY NOTE THAT THE REVISED PLAN RESULTS IN ABOUT 7600 ADDITIONAL GREEN SQUARE FOOTAGE WHEN COMPARED TO THE EXISTING USE. 2. FIRE: THE RE-DESIGNED BUILDING PROVIDES PROPER SUPERVISORY WINDOWS FOR GAS PUMP OVERSIGHT. 3. GENERAL ENGINEERING: SITE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLAN IS PROVIDED WITH THIS SUBMISSION 4. HARBOR MASTER: THANK YOU. 5. LAND RESOURCE: a. RE-DESIGN OF SITE PLAN REMOVES THE 28" OAK. b. ALL TREES ARE NOW ACCURATELY SHOWN AND LABELED. c. 35" OAK HAS BEEN PRESERVED IN THE RE-DESIGNED SITE PLAN. d. UTILITY PLAN IS PROVIDED. -LITTLE OR NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE PLANTING AREAS IS ANTICIPATED. Wedding, Stephenson & Ibargllen 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 • St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Architects, Inc. (727)1821-6610 FAX: (727) 894-4216 PROF REG. #AA - 0002922 Wedding ?. MEMO, WAYNE WELLS JANUARY 29,2003 PAGE TWO e. MOST OF THE TREES WILL BE PRESERVED, HOWEVER REPLACEMENT AND PAYMENT WILL BE EMPLOYED AS NECESSARY. f. ALL COMMENTS IN THIS SECTION ARE ADDRESSED IN THIS SUBMISSION. 6. LANDSCAPING: a. ALL VIEW TRIANGLES'ARE SHOWN b. LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS BEEN REVISED ALONG WITH THE OVERALL LAYOUT. c. DRAWING SUPPLIED WITH THIS SUBMISSION 7. PARKS AND RECREATION: THANK YOU. 8. PLANNING: a. HOURS OF OPERATION ARE FROM 7 AM TO 11 PM. b. UTILITY SUBSTATION LIES TO THE NORTH OF THIS SITE. c. THE PROPERTY AFTER DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE A VALUE OF $2,300;000 TO $2,600,000. d. SINCE AN END USER IS NOT DETERMINED AT THIS TIME, SIGNAGE MUST BE THE SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE PERMIT. SIGNAGE WILL MEET ALL APPLICABLE CODE RESTRICTIONS. e. GROSS FLOOR AREAS HAVE BEEN REVISED f. BUILDING COVERAGE REVISED TO REFLECT ONLY THE STORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.. g. F.A.R. HAS BEEN REVISED AS REQUESTED. h. HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES REVISED TO REFLECT THE MID-POINT OF ROOF STRUCTURES. i. STRUCTURE COLOR WILL BE DRIFTWO G ANDS AND ACCENTS WILL BE DARKER SHADES OF THE GENERA WALL COLORS. Wedding MEMO WAYNE WELLS JAN 29, 2003 PAGE THREE j. NEITHER THE TITLE COMPANY NOR THE CITY CAN PROVIDE THIS ANSWER. WE DO NOT KNOW, BUT IF DEDICATION IS A REQUIREMENT, WE WILL COMPLY. k. LEGAL DESCRIPTION REVISED. 1. NEW SURVEY INSERTED. m. UNITY OF TITLE WILL BE PROVIDED. n. WE THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR FORTHRIGHTNESS ON THIS SUBJECT. o. A NARRATIVE CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES IS SUPPLIED HEREWITH. p. REDUCED ELEVATIONS SUPPLIED AT THIS TIME. q. ALL ADDRESSED AT THIS TIME. 9.. SOLID WASTE: a. STANDARD DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED 10. STORMWATER: a. WHILE THE EXISTING STORM WATER DETENTION IS BEING REVISED AND INCREASED IN SIZE, THE VOLUME OF STORMWATER IS ACTUALLY BEING REDUCED BY THE INSERTION OF MORE GREEN PERVIOUS AREA THAN THE PRESENT USE. PLAN AND CALCULATIONS PROVIDED WITH THIS SUBMISSION. 11. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: a. TANK LOCATIONS AND TANKER TRAVEL PATH ARE NOW SHOWN ON SITE PLAN. BEST REGARDS, G PRESIDENT ( w • s C ITY OF C LEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865 PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 13, 2003 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Application for Flexible Development approval (Case FLD2002-12045) to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, at 657 Court Street. Dear Mr. Wedding: The Planning staff has reviewed your application for Flexible. Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, at 657 Court Street. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete (Case FLD2002-12045), however, the following must be submitted: 1. Provide the proposed hours of operation of the convenience store. 2. Revise the direction of the utility substation under construction under General Applicability Criteria #5. 3. Provide the anticipated value of the property after construction under Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria #2. 4. Provide on Sheet ALL the location and setback from property lines for freestanding signage. Additionally, provide the design, height, color and elevation (front and side) of proposed freestanding signage (monument signage preferred) and attached signage. Signage must meet Code requirements. Ensure freestanding signage is not located within any sight triangles, which also occur on the site at street intersections, and work together with proposed landscaping. 5. Revise the existing gross floor area and building coverage on Sheet A1.1, including both buildings. 6. Revise the proposed building coverage to match the gross floor area of 3,200 square feet on Sheet A1.1. The gas canopies are structures, but not buildings. 7. Revise on Sheet A1.1 the proposed FAR to include only the enclosed building floor area of 3,200 square feet. BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOYr HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER ® BILL JONSON, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" January 13, 2003 Wedding - Page Two 8. Revise the proposed height of the building and gas canopies in the Site Data on Sheet ALL to the mid-point of the roof structure. Additionally, provide the same height dimensions on the Exterior Elevations on Sheet A3.1. 9. There is a discrepancy of proposed building/structure color between Sheet A3.1 and the rendering in that the gas canopy columns and trusses are called out as driftwood gray (preferred), yet the rendering indicates a red color. Provide the proposed trim color and stucco band color. 10. Still unclear as to whether the 10 feet of additional right-of-way along Chestnut Street indicated on Sheet A1.1 has already been dedicated or is proposed to be dedicated. Advise. If already dedicated, ensure it is noted in the legal descriptions. 11. Revise legal description on Sheet AL I to the current, correct legal description on the survey submitted by Brendla and Associates. 12. In the resubmission material for the Community Development Board, delete the survey by Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying and insert the survey by Brendla and Associates. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on January 16, 2003, at 10:40 am in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue in Clearwater. Responses to the above comments may be helpful at the DRC meeting, however, additional comments and requirements may result from that meeting. You or your client must be present to answer any questions that the committee may have regarding your application. Please be aware that 15 additional sets of the complete resubmittal of all required information, to include copies of the application, survey, site plan (with any required changes as applicable), affidavit of authorization, etc. will be required by 4:30 pm on January 21, 2003, in order to be placed on the February 18, 2002, Community Development Board (CDB) agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727-562-4504. Sincerely, U O"'V'A_? Wayne M. Wells, AICP Senior Planner Cc: Ed Armstrong if U FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: FAX: ' - ? Z) b Phone: FROM: \1 -Phone: J b Z = -70 ?- DATE:.- RE: (a!7 W vr? .Y ' MESSAGE: (?)eTt LA r - on !5) nal w••.Jp- A NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) -3 RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 01/13/2003 17:00 NAME PLAN FAX 7275624576 TEL 7275624567 DATE DIME 01/13 16:58 FAX N0./NAME 98944216 DURATION 00:01:37 PAGE{S} 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM U TO: FAX: FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 FROM: ?.- 1ls Phone:- - I- I DATE:• I/ ? 1 01-- RE: 6 S-7 Co %jr-? ?(-P-e NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) 1 ?7 ? LL • • Updated as of 12/31/02 y Clearwater Note: Times are subject to change. DRAFT AGENDA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE January 16, 2003 9:00 a.m. Staff Review LEVEL TWO CASES: 9:30 a.m. Case: FLD2002-11040 -20505 U.S. Highway 19 North. Owner: Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. Applicant: Michael Reynold's/Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. Representative: E.D. Armstrong, Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A. (work: 727.461.1818/fax: 727.462.0365/email: eda @jbpfirm.com). Location: The 11.5-acre site is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 19 North, approximately 200 feet south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, within the Clearwater Mall redevelopment site. Atlas Page: 300A. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Request: Flexible Development approval, as an amendment to a previously approval Flexible Standard Development application (FLS2002-06048) to increase the height of material stored/displayed in the garden center and storage areas from 15 feet to 20 feet, increase the height of materials to be displayed in front of the store from four feet to eight feet, permit non-living plant material to be displayed in the front of the store, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-704.B. Proposed Use: The proposal includes an amendment to a previously approved Flexible Standard Development application for outdoor retail sales, display and/or storage within the Commercial District as accessory to a home improvement retail sales establishment. Neighborhood Association(s): Seville RO Association (Association President, 2640 Seville Blvd., Clearwater, FL, 33764). Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner. 10:10 a.m. Case: FLD2002-12044 - 100 North Lady Mary Drive. Owner/ Applicant: Michael Drazkowski, Midnight Rose, Inc. Representative: Mr. Pierre Cournoyer (work: 727.410.3692/fax: 727.467.9494). Location: The 0.31-acre site is located on the west side of North Lady Mary Drive, approximately 450 feet north of Cleveland Street. Atlas Page: 287B. Zoning: MHDR, Medium High Density Residential District. Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the side (north and south) setbacks from 10 feet to six feet (to building) reduce the lot area from 15,000 square feet to 13,483 square feet and reduce the lot width from 150 feet to 100 feet, as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-402.G. Proposed Use: The proposal includes four townhomes within a two-story, 3,849 square foot building. Neighborhood Association(s): Gateway Neighborhood (Pat Vaughn, 1326 Pierce St., Apt. #2, Clearwater, FL, 33756, 461-7599). Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. DRC agenda - 01/16/03 - Page 1 • • 10:40 a.m. Case: FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street. Owners: The CEPCOT Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc. Applicant: The CEPCOT Corporation. Representative: Mr. Randy Wedding (work: 727-821-6610/ fax: 727-894-4216/ email: randy@weddingarchitects. com). Location: The 0.95-acre site is located on the west side of East Avenue between Court Street and Chestnut Street. Atlas Page: 286B. Zoning: D, Downtown District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. Proposed Use: The proposal is for the construction of a 3,200 square-foot convenience store with gas pumps. Neighborhood Association(s): Pierce 100 Condominium Association (Terry Turner, 100 Pierce Street, #710, Clearwater, FL, 33756). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner. LEVEL ONE CASES: 11:10 a.m. Case: FLS2002-12081 - 619 South Gulfview Boulevard. Owner/Applicant: Sea Wake Motel, Ltd. Representative: Housh Ghovaee; Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (work: 443.2869/fax: 727.446.8036/email: nestech@a mindspring.com). Location: The 1.35-acre site is located on the south side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 700 feet west of Gulf Boulevard. Atlas Page: 285A. Zoning: T, Tourist District. Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to modify the fagade of an existing motel under the provisions of Section 2-802.K. Present Use: Overnight accommodations. Proposed Use: The proposal includes the addition of an entrance canopy to the faVade of the existing motel. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater, FL, 33767, 446-5801, dmacnav@att.net). Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. 11:30 a.m. Case: FLS2002-12083 - 3336 San Bernadino Street. Owner/Applicant: Antony and Susan DiSalvo (work: 727.726.5004/fax: 727.726.4813). Location: The 0.26-acre site is located on the north side of San Bernadino Street approximately 200 feet west of Bayshore Boulevard. Atlas Page: 283B. Zoning: LDR, Low Density Residential District. Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the side (east) setback from 15 feet to 22 inches (to pavement), and reduce the side (east) setback from 15 feet to 5.5 feet (to shed), as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-103.B. Present Use: Single-family dwelling. Proposed Use: The proposal includes constructing a 630 square foot driveway extension at the north end of the existing driveway and a 144 square foot, single-story shed (6.6 percent of the floor area of the existing single-family dwelling) at the north end of the driveway extension in association with an existing single- family dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): Del Oro Groves Estates Neighborhood Association (Lucille Casey, 3235 San Mateo Street, Clearwater, FL, 33759, 726-5279, casey ovols ,aol.com). Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. DRC agenda - 01/16/03 - Page 2 0 0 11:45 a.m. Case: FLS2002-12082 - 622 Bypass Drive. Owner/Applicant: Mr. Tom Carey. Representative: Mr. Keith Zayac, Keith Zayac Associates, Inc. (work: 727.793.9888/fax: 727.793.9855/email: keithzayac@aol.com . Location: The 1.52-acre parcel is located on the northwest corner of Bypass Drive and Druid Road. Atlas Page: 299B. Zoning: O, Office District. Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front (east) setback along Bypass Drive from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement) and to reduce the side (west) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building), under the provisions of Section 2-1003. Present Use: Office. Proposed Use: The proposal includes the addition of two, one-story office buildings. A 6,615-square foot building will be located in the southwest corner of the site. A 3,100 square foot building will be located centrally along the west property line. Neighborhood Association(s): None. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. 12:20 -1:20 Lunch 1:30 p.m. Case: FLS2002-12085 - 1101 Cleveland Street. Owner: Mr. Michael Preston. Applicant: Mr. William Hayman (work: 727.518.6889/fax: 727.518.6889/cell: 727.744.8828/email: foamy@tampabay. rr. com). Location: The 0.90-acre parcel is located on the southeast corner of Cleveland Street and South Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Atlas Page: 287A. Zoning: D, Downtown District. Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to establish a restaurant within the Downtown District under the provisions of Section 2-902.L. Present Use: Social community center (vacant). Proposed Use: The proposal includes the establishment of a restaurant (Foamy's Bar & Grill) within an existing 5,500 square foot, one-story building. Neighborhood Association(s): Gateway Neighborhood (Pat Vaughn, 1326 Pierce St., Apt. #2, Clearwater, FL, 33756, 461-7599). Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. DRC agenda - 01/16/03 - Page 3 2:00 p.m. Case: FLS2002-12084 - *andalay Avenue, Unit 113. • Owner: BJE Inc. Applicant: Mr. Antonio Caggiano (cell: 775-225-1925). Location: The 1.69-acre parcel is located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue approximately 100 feet south of Baymont Street. Atlas Page: 267A. Zoning: T, Tourist District. Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to permit a restaurant (with an outdoor caf6) and alcoholic beverage sales within the Tourist District utilizing shared, existing or planned and committed parking facilities within 1,000 feet of the subject site under the provisions of Section 2-802.A and N and the Retail and Restaurant District of Beach by Design. Present Use: Office (being vacated). Proposed Use: The proposal includes the establishment of a restaurant (with an outdoor caf6) and a wine tasting bar within an existing two-story shopping center. Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater, FL, 33767, 446-5801, dmacnav a,att.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner. LEVEL THREE CASES: 2:30 p.m. Case: REZ2002-12004 - 1215 Bay Avenue. Owner/Applicant: Morton Plant Hospital Association. Representative: Emil C. Marquardt, Jr. (phone: 727-441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470). Location: The 0.11-acre parcel is located on the east side of Bay Avenue approximately 150 feet north of Pinellas Street and 650 feet west of South Fort Harrison Avenue. Atlas Page: 305B. Request: Rezoning from O, Office District to I, Institutional District. Proposed Use: Medical Office. Neighborhood Association(s): Harbor Oaks Homeowners Association (Cedio Saltorelli, 322 Lotus Path., Clearwater, FL, 33766, 727-446-0869). Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner. S.lPlanning Department)C D Blagendas DRC & CDBIDRC12003101 JanuarylDRCagenda 01-16-03.doc DRC agenda - 01/16/03 - Page 4 RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 01/09/2003 10:55 NAME PLAN FAX 7275624576 TEL 7275624567 DATE DIME 01/09 10:52 FAX NO./NAME 98944216 DURATION 00:02:29 PAGE(S) 05 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM U FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: FAX: 5-77- D.3 2 Phone: _ b " 7 +FROM: r Q \?I Phone: -AQ-Lil DATE:_ 1?? RE: (,9 ?-7 C-3 j,:1!--S MESSAGE: I?0 f A?1P ?" ?T o-? g v r VuA -- r NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) 2- TOMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT 9 TIME 12/27/2002 10:27 NAME PLAN FAY, 7275624576 TEL 7275624567 DATE DIME 12/27 10:26 FAX N0./NAME 95779932 DURATION 00:00:57 PAGE(S) 02 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM JOHN C BRENDLA & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS 4015 82ND AVENUE NORTH PINELLAS PARK, FL 33787 Phone: (727) 576-7546 FN-f, - 5 7 7 ? 5 3 2- 1 LETTER TO: f ATTENTION WE AR SENDING HEREWITH: O RRESPONDENCE O PERMIT APPS PRINTS O FOR YOUR USE O SHOP DRAWINGS O SPECIFICATIONS O O SIGN & RETURN O TRACINGS O MARK: ? NE No Exceptions Taken ? EN Exceptions Noted ? ER Exceptions Noted -Resubmit I] R Rejected - See Remarks COPIES DESCRIPTION MARK ?n T_ REMARKS: O ST S DELIVERED SINCERELY O PICK-UP / O OTHER BY. cc: JOB NO. a,_ I ?, - 7 7 DATE: 1,;,7- ";Z 6 ` o?2. RE: ' Wedding DEC 1 9.20D2 December 19, 2002 Wayne M. Wells, AICP . Senior Planner City of Clearwater P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 3375804748 Re: Application for an Automobile Service Station 657 Court Street Dear Mr. Wells: This cover letter is in part a response to your letter to Randy Wedding, dated November 22, 2002. With this letter is an application for the service station and convenience store at the above address which is in the form of a "Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project" under your Flexible Development process. With the application you will find a check in the sum of $1205.00 payable to the City of Clearwater along with 12 folded copies of the relative drawings and plans in connection with the application. We will pick up with the numbered paragraphs in your November 22"d letter starting with number 2. 2. Our written justification of the infill project has been submitted and completed as part of the application. 3. The required visibility triangles are shown as you wished on Sheet A-1.1 of the attached plans. 4. The original survey is filed with this application. A new survey will be delivered to you (12 copies) appropriately sealed, prior to the December 26th deadline. The reason for the delay in sending a new survey with the application is purely and simply a result of suveryors' back-log of work making it impossible to deliver at this time. 5. A tree survey will be included on the new survey to come (see number 4 above.) When possible existing trees have been retained. See our Sheet L-1.1. Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarglien 300 First Avenue S., Suite 402 • St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Architects, Inc. (727) 821-6610 FAX: (727) 894-4216 PROF. RFC. #AA • 0002922 6. The Corr Wedding ect floor area ratio is shown on Sheet A-1 A. 7. The height of the proposed structure is also shown on Sheet A-1.1. Dumpster enclosure details and handicapped parking space details are shown on the attached drawings. 9. Interior green space requirements exceed 2.0% of the vehicular use area.. All of that is shown on the attached drawing. 10. Impervious surface ratio will be reduced by the construction of the Proposed facility., Exemption from Southwest Florida Water. Management District will be sought. Water quality issues, if any, will be handled by an underground filtration system. 11. The walkway to the east of the site consists of a portion of the Pinellas Trail presently in place. The entire width of the right-of-way between the property and the curb will remain in place as is. 12. 'Interior green space will be, a function of traffic patterns within the site. They will average more than eight feet in width: See Sheet L-1.1. 13.' The angle-of the proposed angled parking spaces is 45 degrees. 14. Title search does not confirm that the right-of-way along Chestnut Street has been dedicated. 15. All shade trees will meet the requirements of this-paragraph. See Sheet 16. All signs will be internal to the site. If any additional signs need to be permitted they will be applied for as necessary. 17. Discussion with the City of Clearwater's traffic.engineer has revealed that no traffic studies are required in this instance. 18. A unity of title document in recordable form will be furnished covering the parcels involved. 19. Building elevations are shown on Sheet A-3.1. We believe that the' application and the supporting drawings together with this letter meet all of the questions raised in your November 22nd letter. This is an exciting project and we look forward to working with you and the Planning Department in connection with it as it goes forward through the planning process. -Yours very truly, C. andolph:Wedding 1HU 11:4.5 FAT [1001/003 0 fo we dding MEMO TO: JOHN BRENDLA, P.E. FROM: C.RANDOLPH WEDDING FAIA/ASLA RE: COURT STREET PROPERTY-CLEARWATER SUBJ: DELIVERY OF SURVEYS DATE: 12/19/02 DEAR JOHN- AS WE DISCUSSED, WE I NEED TO HAVE YOUR FOLKS DELIVER TW_ E.LY_E_ SIGNED AND SEALED COPIES OF THE SURVEY TO. MR. WAYNE WELLS, AICP SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF CLEARWATER CLEARWATER MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE SECOND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL. THESE COPIES MUST BE IN HIS HANDS BEFORE NOON ON DECEMBER 26 OR WE WILL HAVE MISSED TILE FILING DEADLINE. NORMALLY, THIS WOULD NOT BE A DISASTER, BUT THIS REQUEST IS A HIGHLY + HOTLY CONTESTED CASE, AND THE STAFF IS LOOKING FOR ANY EXCUSE TO THROW IT OUT OR DELAY IT A MONTH. THIS CLIENT HAS NO SENSE OF HUMOR. ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF MY LETTER TO WELLS WHICH ADVISES HIM OF YOUR DELIVERY AT A LATER TIME THAN TODAY. I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER AND HOPE YOU HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS. B GARDS, rRWEI)D3NNG ENT Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen 7 Architects, Inc. PROF REG. RM - 0002922 1 r c 300 First Avenue S., Suite 40Z • St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (813) 821-6610 1-800-656-6610 FAX! (813) 894-4216 ? % November 22, 2002 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Application for an Automobile Service Station, 657 Court Street Dear Mr. Wedding: The Planning staff has reviewed your application for an automobile service station at 657 Court Street. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is incomplete. The following information/data must be provided to be deemed complete: 1. The property is zoned Downtown District. The proposed use is defined by the Community Development Code (Code) as an "automobile service station." Such use is not provided for in the Downtown District as a Flexible Standard Development or Flexible Development use. Given this circumstance, application for such use must be made as a "Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project" Flexible Development process. This application is a public hearing item before the Community Development Board. A totally different application must be filled out and the fee is $1205.00. Please note that the Planning Staff will not support this application. 2. Full written justification of the General Applicability and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria must be submitted as part of the application. 3. Required visibility triangles are 20' x 20' measured from the property line. 4. Provide one original signed and sealed survey. 5. Provide a tree survey of the subject property and within 25 feet of the site, including the species, size and location. Healthy trees should be incorporated into the site design. 6. The proposed floor area ratio is incorrect. Revise. 7. Provide the height of the proposed structures. 8. Provide dumpster enclosure details and handicap parking space details. Note: Handicap ramping cannot encroach into the required five-foot wide walk aisle. 9. Interior green space requirements are 10 percent of the vehicular use area. Revise/provide. T November 22, 2002 Wedding - Page Two 10. Provide on-site stormwater management facilities and calculations. Payment in lieu should be discussed with the City's Stormwater Engineering prior to application submission. 11. A new five feet wide sidewalk along East Avenue is proposed. There is an existing power pole on the southern portion of this sidewalk where the pole conflicts with the sidewalk. Is anything being done to relocate the pole? 12. Interior green space islands must be a minimum of eight feet in width (back of curb to back of curb). 13. Provide the angle of the proposed angled parking spaces. 14. Unclear as to whether the 10 feet of additional right-of-way along Chestnut Street has been already dedicated or is proposed to be dedicated. Advise. 15. Shade trees must be at least 2.5 inches caliper and 10 feet in height at time of planting. Accent trees must be at least 2 inches caliper and eight feet in height at time of planting. 16. Show location of proposed freestanding sign(s) and the proposed five-foot setback from property lines. The Code only permits a monument sign a maximum of four feet in height. 17. May need a traffic study. Please contact the City's Traffic Engineering Department. 18. Will need to record a Unity of Title for the parcels involved. 19. Building elevations of all four sides must be submitted, including height, dimensions, colors and materials. Since this application is incomplete and that a different application and fee is required to be filed, we request that you pick up the existing submittal. Should you decide to submit the proper application and submittal requirements, we will review the resubmission for completeness at that time prior to entering into the Department's filing system and scheduling for the Development Review Committee and Community Development Board. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727-562-4504. Sincerely yours, Wayne M. Wells, AICP Senior Planner Cc: Mr. James P. Eisch, COO, The Cepcot Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc. • f Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:13 PM To: Clayton, Gina; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Garriott, Kevin Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Thompson, Neil Subject: RE: 657 Court Street I have a letter from Michael Delk, dated June 30, 2005, granting a one-year time extension for this project to March 22, 2007. The building permit to construct the project was submitted March 19, 2007 (BCP2007-03458). -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:27 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Wells, Wayne; Garriott, Kevin Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Thompson, Neil Subject: RE: 657 Court Street I believe that Michael extended the DO but I can't find the extension letter in the computer files. Neil/Wayne - do you recall that? (Michael is on vacation). -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:57 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Garriott, Kevin Cc: Clayton, Gina; Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: 657 Court Street Importance: High Note that the D.O. approves the site plan involved in Case FLD2002-12045 with certain conditions. It also requires that a building permit be applied for by March 22, 2006. If this date was not met, or if the application was materially different from the original approval, it appears the applicant would need to submit a new application under current development codes/criteria. Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 562-4010 phone (727) 562-4021 fax Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law Admitted in Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia Senior Professional in Human Resources -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:47 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Garriott, Kevin Cc: Clayton, Gina; Watkins, Sherry Subject: 657 Court Street Leslie/Kevin - Attached is the Development Order from the CDB approving Case FLD2002-12045 on March 22, 2005. This Development Order was uploaded to Permit Plan in 2005 under this case number for all to see (under Documents - by Parcel). Wayne << File: Court 657 Development Order #2 4.11.05.doc >> -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: 657 Court Street Importance: High Wayne I need to get a copy of this. I'll get with you in the morning. Thank you, Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry.watkins@mycleanvater.com -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:43 PM To: Watkins, Sherry Cc: Garriott, Kevin Subject: FW: 657 Court Street Importance: High Forwarding this to you in Gina's absence... Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 562-4010 phone (727) 562-4021 fax Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law Admitted in Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia Senior Professional in Human Resources -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:41 PM To: Garriott, Kevin Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: 657 Court Street Importance: High The Circuit Court Order remanded the case to the CDB. I believe that the CDB then entered a revised Order/Development Order approving the site plan application. This was before we had the procedure of a separate letter being issued by Planning as the Development Order. Gina, are you able to pull the CDB revised Order? If the site plan has materially changed from the previous one, we will have to discuss how to treat it. Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 562-4010 phone (727) 562-4021 fax Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law Admitted in Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia Senior Professional in Human Resources -----Original Message ---- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:08 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: 657 Court Street Ok, good, thanks. Just wanting to avoid "egg" on our face on this one. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:11 AM To: Garriott, Kevin Cc: Hollander, Gwen Subject: RE: 657 Court Street I believe this is the CEPCOT/Train Station property. The CDB denied site plan approval because of the gas station aspect, which did not meet the comp infill guidelines. We were in the process at the time of rewriting the Downtown Plan to specify no gas stations, but that was not finalized. The DT Plan now prohibits auto-related uses. There was a DOM appeal followed by a Circuit Court appeal. The Circuit Court overturned the CDB decision. Gwen, please pull the Order Granting Petition dated 1/19/05 in the Circuit Court case CEPCOT v. City/CDB, Case No. 03-0050-AP. The Circuit Court Clerk has it as well as our files. We can look at the exact language to evaluate the current application. -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:52 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: 657 Court Street We have received application for a 7-11 store at this address. I am told their site plan approval was turned down by CDB. The application we have now is under a court order settlement as a result of that appeal to the CDB decision. Do you know the history of this site? Is this application under any restrictions/considerations of the courts? If yes, can I get a copy of that settlement to share with involved with staff so that there are no claims that we are unaware of. Can you help? Thanks. [Dougall-Sides, Leslie] Th I Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:47 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Garriott, Kevin Cc: Clayton, Gina; Watkins, Sherry Subject: 657 Court Street Leslie/Kevin - Attached is the Development Order from the CDB approving Case FLD2002-12045 on March 22, 2005. This Development Order was uploaded to Permit Plan in 2005 under this case number for all to see (under Documents - by Parcel). Wayne rZii LWINLI-1 Court 657 velopment Order -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: 657 Court Street Importance: High Wayne I need to get a copy of this. I'll get with you in the morning. Thank you, Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry.watkins@niyclearwater.com -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:43 PM To: Watkins, Sherry Cc: Garriott, Kevin Subject: FW: 657 Court Street Importance: High Forwarding this to you in Gina's absence... Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attomey City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 562-4010 phone (727) 562-4021 fax Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law Admitted in Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia Senior Professional in Human Resources -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 A• To: Garriott, Kevin Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: 657 Court Street Importance: High The Circuit Court Order remanded the case to the CDB. I believe that the CDB then entered a revised Order/Development Order approving the site plan application. This was before we had the procedure of a separate letter being issued by Planning as the Development Order. Gina, are you able to pull the CDB revised Order? If the site plan has materially changed from the previous one, we will have to discuss how to treat it. Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 562-4010 phone (727) 562-4021 fax Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law Admitted in Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia Senior Professional in Human Resources -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:08 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: RE: 657 Court Street Ok, good, thanks. Just wanting to avoid "egg" on our face on this one. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:11 AM To: Garriott, Kevin Cc: Hollander, Gwen Subject: RE: 657 Court Street I believe this is the CEPCOT/Train Station property. The CDB denied site plan approval because of the gas station aspect, which did not meet the comp infill guidelines. We were in the process at the time of rewriting the Downtown Plan to specify no gas stations, but that was not finalized. The DT Plan now prohibits auto-related uses. There was a DOAH appeal followed by a Circuit Court appeal. The Circuit Court overturned the CDB decision. Gwen, please pull the Order Granting Petition dated 1/19/05 in the Circuit Court case CEPCOT v. City/CDB, Case No. 03-0050-AP. The Circuit Court Clerk has it as well as our files. We can look at the exact language to evaluate the current application. -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:52 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: 657 Court Street We have received application for a 7-11 store at this address. I am told their site plan approval was turned down by CDB. The application we have now is under a court order settlement as a result of that appeal to the CDB decision. Do you know the history of this site? Is this application under any restrictions/considerations of the courts? 0 • If yes, can I get a copy of that settlement to share with involved with staff so that there are no claims that we are unaware of. Can you help? Thanks. [Dougall-Sides, Leslie] Th LOCATION MAP The CEPCOT Corporation; Clearwater Owner: Case: FLD2002-12045 Train Station, Inc, Site: 657 Court Street Property Size(Acres): PIN: Atlas Page: 0.95 16/29/15/18648/013/0070 16/29/15/18648/013/0090 15/29/15/54450/013/0100 15/29/15/54450/013/0120 286B 16/29/15/18648/013/0070 PIN: 16/29/15/18648/013/0090 15/29/15/54450/013/0100 15/29/15/54450/013/0120 Atlas Page: 2866 • • p N '° j :- _ - ? 2oc 209 all 215 S 8 FRANKLIN ST -NOl fo N a 3- M 300 ' b m b b O b W ' OS 07 302 309 Q 304 LLI 3 !T 19 3 08 J 307 /Q V ° v W y o 00 b b `O i0 b O °m W 11 17 420 as lo b $ o pp ° $ CHESTNUT ST o b 'D b a 2 o o s W W W 502 c?Y?NN h? hh m N h 09 5 509 O a N W b 21 11 O c, b tb n b O ZONING MAP The CEPCOT Corporation; Clearwater Owner: Train Station, Inc, Case: FLD2002-12045 Site: 657 Court Street Property 0 95 Size(Acres): . 16/29/15/18648/013/0070 PIN: 16/29/15/18648/013/0090 15/29/15/54450/013/0100 15/29/15/54450/013/0120 Atlas Page: 286E • • 204 099 75 205 ----'-- N _? 206 207 211 213 Nof 0SUrey FRANKLIN ST b b 300 ro ? m h W 302 3 07 Q 304 309 LLLI 19 $ O 8 3 30 Q utility / Infrastr facilit C7 ct re W y" e b b ro xx „, b /A v/ p N ? b ?C. W ? 0 b ?q CO 51 URT ST ui 1 .;4 to Office$ Whol We / o b l] Ware] i ouse y IS ]7 420 Whol ale / 425 b $ n " Ware ouse ,y ? e ntlk CHES TNUT S T q b n b q q Office b q b 507 502 N N bNn hn y q 531 b 509 i m b ? 509 ? b O O N q 4 b b TURNER ST qC b q b h b q b N b ?~ O n ?7 M b y q b EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP The CEPCOT Corporation; Clearwater Owner: Train Station, Inc, Case: FLD2002-12045 Site: 657 Court Street Property 0 95 Size(Acres): . 16/29/15/18648/013/0070 PIN: 16/29/15/18648/013/0090 15/29/15/54450/013/0100 15/29/15/54450/013/0120 Atlas Page: 2868 View looking south at 651 and 657 Court Street f.t r".dr,i?. View looking northwest from intersection of Chestnut Street and East Avenue at Freedom Park ?.J 657 Court Street 1 FLD2002-12045 View looking north at Freedom Park 657 Court Street k View looking south from Court Street at 635 Court Street 1 FLD2002-12045 II I • _ r View looking southwest from intersection of Chestnut 0 View looking south from Chestnut Street at 631 Chestnut Street 1 View looking southeast from intersection of Chestnut Street and East Avenue 0 0 m a Ell fT7 COURTST 8 IN, T? 2X2MAP The CEPCOT Corporation; Clearwater Owner: Train Station, Inc, Case: FLD2002-12045 Site: 657 Court Street Property 0.95 Size (Acres) : 16/29/15/18648/013/0070 PIN: 16/29/15/18648/013/0090 15/29/15/54450/013/0100 15/29/15/54450/013/0120 Atlas Page: 2868 0 . 0 206 I1 oo FRANKLIN ST J h 300 -Not to3 b b b b '? JO: Su a 302 309 /? Q B 304 CBD (B D ?/ W , 9 Q 3 i t ? Oa Q D b ° J 4 ? 00 b b b b b b b Oro 00 D CO) 11 D ' 25 C o bv?K N 1 ro m 00 CHESTNUT Q ` T-` ? `O ? W ep 00 CJ ROGERS ST CBD MN l? hh M hn hh A5 r% M N 509 509 / V N p b p W b O O N b ap ? b FUTURE LAND USE MAP The CEPCOT Corporation; Clearwater Owner: Train Station, Inc, Case: FLD2002-12045 Site: 657 Courf Street Property 95 0 Size(Acres): . 16/29/15/18648/013/0070 PIN: 16/29/15/18648/013/0090 15/29/15/54450/013/0100 15/29/15/54450/013/0120 Atlas Page: 286B Pinellas County Property Appr r Information: 16 29 15 18648 013 0 Page 2 of 5 21 % 0 16 / 29 / 15 / 18648 / 013 / 0070 ii-Apr-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:41:55 Ownership Information Non-Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales CEPCOT CORP OBK: 09493 OPG: 0665 P 0 BOX 6025 CLEARWATER FL 33758-6025 EVACUATION ZONE: NONE Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 651 COURT ST of Jan 1, 2004, based on Census Tract: 259.01 sales from 2002 - 2003: 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 10/1,996 9,4931 665 162,000 (Q) I 1922: Book 005 Pgs 053- 0 /1,972 3,8671 189 70,000 (Q) I 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 (U) 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 { ) 2004 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 335,000 Homestead: NO Ownership % .000 Govt Exem: NO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 335,000 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt %: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 335,000 Agricultural: 0 2004 Tax Information District: CWD Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater Downtown Dev Bd View: 04 Millage: 23.9694 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 04 Taxes: 8,029.75 1} 80 x 133 10. 00 10,608. 00 S Special Tax CWI .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2004 taxes will be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 8,029.75 6) 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, 2004 taxes will be 8,029.75 Short Legal COURT SQUARE BLK 13, E 8IH OF LOT 6 & Description ALL OF LOT 7 & W 30FT OF LOT 8 & N 1/2 UAC ALLEY Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 4/11/2005 r Pinellas County Property App r Information: 16 29 15 18648 013 0? Page 3 of 5 Proaerty and Land Use Code descriptions 16 / 29 / 15 / 18648 013 / 0070 :01 ii-Apr-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:41:55 Commercial Card 01 of 1 Improvement Type: Retail Store Property Address: 651 COURT ST Prop Use: 320 Land Use: 11 Structural E1sm?nts Foundation Spread/Mono Footing Floor System Slab on Grade Exterior Wall Conc Block/Stucco Height Factor 14 Party Wall None Structural Frame Masonry Pillar&Steel Roof Frame Flat Roof Cover Built Up/Composition Cabinet & Mill Average Floor Finish Carpet Combination Interior Finish Drywall Total Units 0 Heating & Air Heating&Cooling Pckg Fixtures 4 Bath Tile None Electric Average Shape Factor Rectangle Quality Average Year Built 1,948 Effective Age 15 Other Depreciation 0 Function Depreciation 0 Economic Depreciation 0 Sub Arras Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1) Base Area 1.00 5,518 7) . 00 0 2) Base Semi Finished .85 1,922 8) .00 0 3) .00 0 9) .00 0 4) .00 0 10) .00 0 5) .00 0 11) .00 0 6) .00 0 12) 00 0 Comm4Brcial Extra Ft?aturE3S Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) ASPHALT 2000SF 1.50 21000 3,000 3,000 999 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 3,000 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F*_1 [41 Fil [_+] M Pq http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 4/11/2005 Pinellas County Property App r Information: 16 29 15 18648 013 0? 1 18648 Page 4 of 5 y AN KL 1 4 T 7034 ' OURT T SST F) 70G ANT T S7 PETE R T IMES COURT STREET STREET T4 C? 617 - h )T `f 64,5 HPJIJT ST GHESThdLIT 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 4/11/2005 Mill ? of 5 t ; 1 > x 'sue w s. ,. si ? Q d " . M 41, x = t a , c i i,. ., .m F. =fiU v r, Y rrh , f r ? 4 ? a Back to Search Page An explanation of this screen http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/egi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 4/11/2005 Fi ellas County Property App*r Information: 16 29 15 18648 013 00 Page 2 of 5 10 / 29 / 15 / 18048 / 013 / 0090 ii-Apr-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:42:43 Ownership Information Uacant Property Use and Sales CEPCOT CORP OBK: 12579 OPG: 0895 PO BOX 6025 CLEARWATER FL 33758-6025 EVACUATION ZONE: NONE Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 0 of Jan 1, 2004, based on Census Tract: 259.01 sales from 2002 - 2003: 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 3 /2,003 12,579/ 895 115,000 (U) I 1922: Book 005 Pgs 053- 10/1,994 8,939/1,468 89,000 (Q) I 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( ) 2004 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 71,000 Homestead: NO Ownership % .000 Govt Exem: NO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 71,000 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt %: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 71,000 Agricultural: 0 2004 Tax Information District: CUD Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater Downtown Bey Bd View: 04 Millage: 23.9694 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 04 Taxes: 1,701.83 1) 70 x 133 10.00 9,282.00 S Special Tax CUI .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2004 taxes will be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 1,701.83 6) 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, 2004 taxes will be 1,701.83 Short Legal COURT SQUARE BLK 13, LOT 9 & E 2OFT OF Description LOT 8 Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=l &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 Pinellas County Property App*r Information: 16 29 15 18648 013 00 10 / 29 / 15 / 18048 / 013 / 0090 Page 3 of 5 ti-Apr-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:42:43 Vacant Parcel Property Use: 000 Land Use: 10 vacant Extra F4B.-1-turE3s Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) .00 0 0 0 0 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) 00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) [4]w F+1 Fil T®® http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 Pinellas County Property App r Information: 16 29 15 18648 013 0? V 12 70[ 710 J -'04 1 R7 }-I STRT I-- 60T ST PETE ST TIMES COURT STREET STREET Page 4 of 5 4J J H 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 of 5 1 s r s_ t i r p ?_ c ? Kira r ? c R 3 6 § d _ a '+s Alt iav f} r? http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=l &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 Pinellas County Property App0r Information: 16 29 15 18648 013 00 Page 2 of 5 15 / 20 / 15 / 54450 / 013 / 0100 11-Apr-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:43:17 Ownership Information Uacant Property Use and Sales CEPCOT CORP OBK: 12579 OPG: 0851 PO BOX 6025 CLEARWATER FL 33758-6025 EVACUATION ZONE: NONE Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 0 of Jan 1, 2004, based on Census Tract: 259.01 2 2003 - : sales from 200 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 3 /2,003 12,5791 851 128,500 (M) U 1914: Book 003 Pgs 043- 10/1,996 9,4931 667 138,000 (M) I 1913: Book 001 Pgs 070- 0 /1,974 4,146/ 731 22,000 (Q) I 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 { } 2004 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 97,800 Homestead: NO Ownership % .000 Govt Exem: 'NO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 97,800 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt %: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 97,800 Agricultural:, 0 2004 Tax Information District: CUD Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater Downtown Dev Bd view: 04 Millage: 23.9694 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 04 Taxes: 2,344.21 1} 77 x 166 10. 00 12,782. 00 S Special Tax CWI .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2004 taxes will be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 2,344.21 6) 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, 2004 taxes will be 2.344.21 Short Legal MAGNOLIA PARK BLK 13, L OTS 10 AND 11 Description LESS ST & LESS W 23FT & S 112 OF ALLEY ADJ Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=l &c=1 &r-.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 Pin, ellas County Property Appror Information: 16 29 15 18648 013 0? 15 I 29 115 154454 / 013 14100 Page 3 of 5 11-Apr-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:43:18 Vacant Parcel Property Use: 000 Land Use: 10 Vacant Extra Features Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) .00 0 0 0 0 2) 00 0 0 0 0 3) 00 0 0 0 0 4) 00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F*1oo®. http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 Pinellas County Property Apper Information: 16 29 15 18648 013 00 .n L• r 0t rro COURT STREET 635 I-_) COU 71 651 COURT j 703 r0S ST S T URT CO ST RT CO F T 4 ' ) ESTNUT ? 3 H E?TN11 708 E M + 700 HESTNUT C CHESTNUT T S7 ST CHE? TI'IT C 617 94626 606 TURNER ti, T 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) T G31 HEST "',) CHESTNUT STREET 5 E?A,v?T 504 M"(RTLE AVE Page 4 of 5 =(n J http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 of 5 ,z Zak r WINQW Nov r ... 4 WO box, ,c. i API... ?, 'SSA rJ fcN o d r, s^ t , I P ? C Y ?9 rc 4 L " AI Z a G o u; y ,w ... OWN; http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 Pinellas County Property App r Information: 15 29 15 54450 013 0? Page 2 of 5 15 / 29 / 15 / 54450 / 013 / 0120 it-Apr-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:43:36 Ownership Information Uacant Property Use and Sales CEPCOT CORP O BK: 12579 OPG: 0851 PO BOX 6025 CLEARWATER FL 33758-6025 EVACUATION ZONE: NONE Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 0 of Jan 1, 2004, based on Census Tract: 259.01 l f 2002 - 2003 sa es rom : 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price, (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 3 /2,003 12,5791 851 128,500 {M} U 1914: Book 003 Pgs 043- 10/1,996 9,493/ 667 138,000 {M} I 1913: Book 001 Pgs 070- 0 /1,973 4,051/ 894 27,000 {Q} I 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 01 0 0 { } 2004 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 67,400 Homestead: NO Ownership % .000 Govt Exem: NO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 67,400 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt %: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 67,400 Agricultural: 0 2004 Tax Information District: CWD Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater Downtown Dev Bd View: 04 Millage: 23.9694 Land Size U nit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 04 Taxes: 1,615.54 1} 53 x 166 10. 00 8,814. 00 S Special Tax CWI .00 2} 0 x 0 .00 .00 3} 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4} 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2004 taxes will be : 5} 0 x 0 .00 .00 1,615.54 6} 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, 2004 taxes will be 1,615.54 Short Legal MAGNOLIA PARK BLK 13, E 30FT OF LOT 12 & Description S 1/2 OF ALLEY ADJ. LESS ST & W 23FT OF LOT 11 LESS Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 `Pinellas County Property App6r Information: 15 29 15 54450 013 0? 15 / 29 / 15 / 54450 / 013 / 0120 Page 3 of 5 ii-Apra-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas COunty Property Appraiser 17:43:35 Vacant Parcel Property Use: 000 Land Use: 10 Vac ant Extra F at ur s Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) .00 0 0 0 0 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F oa®I http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 Pinellas County Property Apper Information: 15 29 15 54450 013 0 Page 4 of 5 - 70 :3 I f _ COURT S ST PETE 12 I 6 4 T IMES L ?Fj J DART STREET 60 R 'x 635 COURT1 I C UF?T 7C?. ?T ST COU.?T 705 CURT car 606 NEST<;BUT NUT CHEf 14 T 700 CHE?R%UT 524 G ESTN JT .. CHESTNUT ,T s, ST ?t [l STREET F='0? 61? C.HESTI T 4 9 4 4c r T L-+R??E R c7 T 631 HEST 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) CH?iIJUT 9- 5 18 5fo9 AVE MYRE E http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 r v f ? o S i SS 3 V 4 }R r. a s _. "? . vz .. _.. c ?-. r Ml` r '5 k wi Y nyrea- http://pao.co.pinellas. fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 4/11/2005 0 0 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:56 AM To: 'Nick Fri' Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: Minutes of CDB meeting - Gas Station Downtown RDA Nick - This case was denied by the Community Development Board on June 17, 2003. 1 am attaching a copy of the Development Order for your information. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:29 PM To: 'Nick Fri' Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Minutes of CDB meeting - Gas Station Downtown RDA Hi Nick, I am not sure but I forwarded your email to Wayne Wells the Planner on that case. Thanks Sherry -----Original Message----- From: Nick Fri [mai Ito: natbeach @tampa bay. rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:12 PM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Re: Minutes of CDB meeting - Gas Station Downtown RDA HI Sherry, Thank you. Did the CDB deny this in 2004 or has it just been in limbo since this continuance? Thanks, Nick 3/20/2005 0 6 k MAR 12004 DEVE104-9. r IN I SEPviCES DEPT (;tTv W- C'L, itRWATER CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Phone Number (727) 562-4410 Fax Number (727) 562-4021 FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM To: Cyndi Tarepani, Planning Director From: Leslie K. Dougall-sides, Asst. City Attorney Fax: _5`7 ' 4- Pages: 26 Re: Cepcot Corp. v City 03-005083-AP-8813 Date: 3/1/2004 CC: ? Urgent x For Review ? Please Comment ? Please Reply ? Please Recycle Comments: Attached for your information and file is a copy of the Petitioner's and Respondents Response to Order to Show Cause. ConfidenftGty Notice The information contained in this facsimile message is privileged and confidential, intended for the use of the addressee above. If you are neither the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this telecopy in error, please notify counsel above immediately by telephone to arrange for return of the original documents to the counsel named above- T - d TZDbZ9SLEL RauJo4gd R'4io eES:Go to To Jew IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION THE CEPCOT CORPORATION AND CLEARWATER TRAIN STATION, Petitioners VS. CITY OF CLEARWATER, Respondent. CASE NO.03-005083 AP-888 LOWER TRIBUNAL: Community Development Board, City of Clearwater RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE COMES NOW Respondent, CITY OF CLEARWATER, by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Response to the Order to Show Cause issued by the Court on January 15, 2004, and says: The Complaint [Petition] for Writ of Certiorari filed by Petitioners, CEPCOT Corporation and Clearwater Transportation, Inc., should be denied. The Complaint fails to establish that the Final Order of the Administrative Law Judge is not supported by competent substantial evidence or that the ALJ failed to follow the essential requirements of law. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioners filed an application for "flexible" development approval to permit a convenience store use with gas pumping function on real property 60iZ0'd 9Z:Z0 9665-8Z-Ndd i located at 657 Court Street in the Downtown zoning district of the City of Clearwater. The application proposed demolition of a building, formerly a train station, that was being used as a restaurant, and replacement with a convenience store and gas pumps. This level of use application, Level Two, must go before the City's Community Development Board [CDB]. The City's Planning staff issued an analysis recommending denial. The application was heard at the June 17, 2003 CDB meeting. As pointed out by Petitioners, the planners initially characterized the proposed use as prohibited because it does not appear as a permitted use in a table listing such. Table 2-900, certified copy attached. Following discussion and advice from legal counsel the CDB determined that the use, while not prohibited, was not permitted as of right. Thus it viewed the application as a "comprehensive infill" application which must meet listed criteria in order to be approved. After presentation by City planning staff and the applicant's representatives, the CDB, by a vote of 5-2, denied the application, Copy of draft CDB Minutes, 6/17/2003 attached. The City's Community Development Code, Section 4-505 [certified copy attached], allows appeals to the Division of Administrative Hearings, acting as the City's intermediate appellate body. The hearing provided for is not de novo, but rather consists of reception of the record and oral argument. The burden is on the applicant to show that the decision of the CDB cannot be sustained by the evidence before the board, or that the decision of the board departs from the essential requirements of law. Final Order, % 13,; Code of Ordinances, § 4-505 [certified copy attached]. Oral argument was held on October 9, 2003, and by 2 60i20'd 9Z:Z0 9662-BZ-?Idd r Final Order dated December 2, 2003, Administrative Law Judge Meale upheld the decision of the CDB denying approval for Petitioners' project. Judge Meale upheld the CDB's findings that the application did not meet the first and seventh Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-903C.1. and 7., Petitioners' App. at 56], and therefore sustained the CDB's denial. Petitioners then filed the instant Complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW Petitioners bring this action under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630, providing for writs of common-law certiorari. The Court thus acts in an appellate capacity in determining whether to issue a writ of certiorari, and its review function is correspondingly narrow. The decision being reviewed is that of the Administrative Law Judge [Code of Ordinances Section 4-505D., certified copy attached], which upheld the CDB determination and relied in part upon the record before the CDB and in part upon additional documents not before the CDB but admitted over City objection [see Final Order, page 2.] This Court is to determine whether procedural due process is accorded, whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence. City of Deerfield Beach v. Valliant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 19$2). Petitioners have not alleged any procedural due process deficiencies. Therefore, if the reviewing court finds that the decision was in accordance with federal, state and local law and was supported by any competent substantial evidence, it must uphold the CDB decision though it might have reached a different result. Metropolitan Dads 3 60ib0'd 9z:z0 9662-8Z-Hdd County v. Mingo, 339 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3`6 DCA 1978). Competent substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate support for a conclusion. DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957). In its review of an administrative decision, the circuit court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the factfinder. Education. Development Center. Inc. v._City of West Palm Beach Zonim Board of Appeals, 541 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1989); Board of Trustees v. O itz, 518 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987). Petitioners argue that the approval sought is in the nature of a special exception, and thus that after they submitted a colorable application the ultimate burden in the case fell upon the City to show that the application did not meet the applicable criteria. However, there is nothing in the Community Development Code indicating that comprehensive infill applications are actually special exceptions. They are characterized as "deviations" in Section 2-9030.1. [Petitioners' App. at 561 and seem to possess more of the characteristics of a conditional use than those of a special exception. Further, Section 4-505C. [certified copy attached] states that at the Administrative Law Judge level, the burden is on the applicant to show that the decision cannot be sustained by the evidence or departed from the essential requirements of law. The applicant did not meet this burden. Even if this Court construes the comprehensive infill process as a special exception, it should not interfere with the administrative body's decision to deny approval simply because there may be conflicting 4 60/S0'd LZ:20 9662-8Z-?Jdd i , 0 • .? evidence below. City of St. Petersburg y. Cardinal Industries, 493 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1986). Regarding the relief sought, Petitioners request the Court to remand to the CDB with direction to approve the application and to set any appropriate conditions on approval. However, on certiorari review it is not appropriate for the reviewing court to direct the lower tribunal's actions. Rather, any remand should be framed as simply with direction to conduct proceedings consistent with the court's opinion, See,e.g., Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984). ARGUMENT A. THE FINAL ORDER CORRECTLY FOUND THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2-903.0.1. AND 7. FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. Code of Ordinances Section 2-9030, provides that the comprehensive infili use is permitted "subject to the standards and criteria set out in this section...." Petitioners' App. at 55. Pursuant to this Section, all of the ten listed criteria must be met. Petitioners argue that this is not the case and that the criteria should somehow be "balanced" with regard to each application. Under their argument, an application could be approved if even one criterion were met. If the criteria are to be "balanced", as Petitioners suggest, why is there no formula set forth for weight of the various criteria, or even any mention of a balancing test in the Community Development Code? The construction of the CDB and the Planning Department is that all listed criteria must be met, as is evidenced by discussion of all criteria in the Staff Report [Petitioners' App. at 30- 5 60i901d LZ:ZO 9662-eE-add 431. A reviewing court should defer to the interpretation given to a statute or ordinance by the agency responsible for its administration. Las Olas Tower Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 742 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4'" DCA), review granted, 761 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2000), review dismissed, 783 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2001), and cases cited therein. Only where the agency's interpretation is unreasonable or clearly erroneous, not the situation here, should it be disregarded. Id. The "plain meaning" of the provision is clearly that all listed criteria must be complied with, and the "plain meaning rule" should be followed. See Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2000). The Administrative Law Judge upheld the CDB's finding that the first criterion was not met. This criterion requires that [t]he development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. Sec. 2-903C.1., Petitioners' App. at 56. Judge Meale correctly rejected Petitioners' argument that this criterion only applies where an applicant seeks deviations from all three provisions: use; intensity; and development standards. Final Order, ¶ 17. Few applicants would need deviations in all three dimensions. The Administrative Law Judge convincingly found that the language should be read in the disjunctive. Substantively, the finding that the redevelopment of the subject property is not impractical without the use deviation is correct and should not be overturned. Petitioners presented no evidence of impracticability such as appraisals of the property or other testimony or analysis. No alternative redevelopment scenario was shared with staff and it was unclear whether the 6 68iL0'd LZ:Za 9662-8Z-?Idu v/ applicant had considered any alternatives. Staff Report, Petitioners' App, at 36. Further, the property at the time of the application was already developed with retail sales, restaurant, and park uses. Staff Report, Petitioners' App, at 30, 31. The fact that a certain proposed redevelopment scenario may be more lucrative than others does not mean that it is impractical to leave the property as is or to redevelop with another type of use. As Judge Meale states, "[p]ermitted uses are numerous, and the Property appears suitable for any number of them," See Table 2100, Permitted Uses, "D" column, certified copy attached. The Administrative Law Judge's conclusion as to this criterion is well supported by competent substantial evidence. The other criterion not met by Petitioners is that set forth in Section 2- 9030.7., that [t]he design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. In stating that the criterion was not met, the Planning Department Staff Report found that the design of the project was not urban, but was rather suburban in nature and inappropriate for an urban Downtown setting. This proposal is dependent upon the automobile, dictating its design and traffic patterns. Urban Downtowns rely on foot traffic with buildings and sites designed to be pedestrian-friendly. The design does not create a form and function that will enhance and further an urban Downtown character. Staff Report, Petitioners' App. at 37. The Staff Report also cited provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and 1995 Downtown Redevelopment Plan in support 7 60i80'd LZ:ZO 966T-8Z-add 60' d -Id101 , of these conclusions. The Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains the following goals and objectives: Goal 2: The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas and encourage inf'ill development. Objective 2.3: The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay districts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of the City's Community Development Code. Objective 2.3.3: The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the Design Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. The Planning staff found that the application was inconsistent with these goals and objectives because, inter alia, it did not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines. Staff Report, Petitioners' App. at 32. The City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan, adopted in 1995, contains a People Goal: to redevelop downtown Clearwater into a successful "people place" that attracts, retains, and inspires those of all ages and incomes to use and enjoy the community town center. The Planning staff found, inter alia, that the proposed redevelopment reflected an "automobile dominance" that did not further the "people focus" of that Goal. Staff Report, Petitioners' App. at 32-33. Planner Wells' statement that a revised site plan addressed certain site plan issues [Petitioners' App. at 1641 should not be taken as an endorsement of the project or a statement that the site design as a whole was acceptable, since the City Planner and planning staff continued to oppose approval on the listed grounds. Administrative Law 8 60i60'd 8Z:Z0 9662-8Z-Ndd Judge Meale in turn characterized the proposed project as "nonurban", stated that it "would cover little of the property", and found that the CDB could lawfully determine that it "would appear disharmonious with the surrounding bulkier structures." Thus, he found, the determination was supported by competent substantial evidence and did not depart from the essential requirements of law. Final Order, % 20. The fact that Petitioners' expert found in her study that some other area jurisdictions allow all types of gas stations downtown does not mean that the City of Clearwater must accept such uses. It may make and has made the legislative determination to designate them as comprehensive infill uses, only allowed if all of the subject criteria are met. Therefore, the Administrative Law judge's conclusion as to this criterion also is supported by competent substantial evidence. The opinion of local government planning staff members recommending project denial may constitute substantial competent evidence in support of a zoning board's decision to deny. Hillsborough County Bd Of County Comm'rs v. Longo, 505 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987). Here it is apparent from the Staff Report [Petitioners' App. at 30-43] and the hearing transcript [Petitioners' App. at 143-2191 that the City Planner, Cyndi Tarapani, recommended denial on a number of bases including those eventually sustained by the Administrative Law Judge. That documentation and testimony provided a basis for sustaining the CDB decision and substantial competent evidence to support the decision. If the CDB gave greater weight to City planning staff testimony than to Petitioners' 9 6 -d T ZOfrZ9SGZG Rau,a044d R4 T O e?,S :60 b0 To ,aeW ? s expert planning witness, it does not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law. B. THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS OF SECTION 3-913 MUST BE MET FOR FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. Petitioners argue that the General Applicability Requirements in Section 3- 913 [certified copy attached] are not applicable because they relate only to conditions that the CD13 might impose on approval, and not to approval per se. Petitioners are correct that Section 3-913 states that conditions imposed shall ensure that the criteria are met. However, the zoning district regulations themselves, including the introductory language to Section 2-903 pertaining to this application [Petitioners' App. at 55], state that the use is "subject to the standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable provisions of Article 3." Therefore Article 2 captures the General Applicability Standards in Article 3. The Administrative Law Judge found that the applicant had not met the criteria contained in Article 2, and found it "unnecessary to consider CDB's determination that the proposed project flails to satisfy the first and fifth General Applicability criteria [in Article 31, or Petitioners' argument that [they] are inapplicable". He went on to state that the General Applicability standards "emphasize the form and appearance of adjacent properties and are incorporated into the part of [section 2-9030.7.] covering form." Final Order, If 23. This determination withstands certiorari review and should not be disturbed. 10 60iti0'd ZZ:Eo 9662-Be-ddu C. PETITIONERS' CONSTITUTIONAL TAKINGS CLAIM IS NOT COGNIZABLE IN THIS ACTION. The Court should not address the apparent allegations that Respondent City's actions constituted an unlawful taking of Petitioners' property. Certiorari review does not extend to questions not adjudicated by the lower tribunal. Dade County v. Marca, S.A., 326 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1976), on remand, 332 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3" DCA 1976). Here the CDB did not consider a takings claim, nor did the Administrative Law Judge. No evidence regarding this issue was before the CDB, a letter from Planning files to Planner Wells appearing at Appendix 10. merely states that an offer to "donate" the train station building to the City, without further explication. it also mentions that Petitioners may enter into negotiations with "other interested parties, such as the Clearwater Historical Society." Nothing of record appears concerning the outcome of such discussions, and they would not be relevant to the CDB's consideration of compliance with approval criteria. Nor could the Administrative Law Judge, or this Court in reviewing his Order, consider a constitutional takings claim. Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Internal Imp. Trust Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1982)(exhaustion of administrative remedies required prior to as-applied takings claim); Myers v. Hawkins, 362 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1978). Certiorari review of administrative action does not encompass a takings cause of action. Petitioners have not met the ripeness and finality prerequisites to bringing such a claim. See. e;., Williamson Coun Re Tonal Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton, 473 U,S. 172 (1985). Petitioners must pursue any such claim through an appropriate complaint in state or federal court. 11 60/EO'd ZE:z0 966T-8Z-adu CONCLUSION Petitioners received due process in the administrative proceedings below, the Community Development Board acted in accordance with federal, state and local law, and the CDB's decision and the Final Order of the Administrative Law Judge are supported by competent substantial evidence. Therefore, the Complaint for Writ of Certiorari should be denied. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF CLEARWATER P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 (727) 562,4010 BY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was forwarded to Darryl R. Richards, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Bums, P.A., Attorney for Petitioners, P.O. Box 1100, Tampa, Florida 33601-1100 by regular mail this 13th day of February, 2004. 9 ? V0 Leslie K. Douga -Si es Attorney at Law 12 60i201d Z2:ZO 966T-M-ddb r •i -r r? L+Ylli + ir+n rrii+frvlf l+? -I- •Y? I I IV • 1 VVY I VL/ IY I fQL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN ANn FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION THE CEPCOT CORPORATION AND ) CLEARWATER TRAIN STATION, ) Petitioners, ) V. ) CITY OF CLEARWATER, ) ) Respondent. ) CASE NO. 03-005083-AP-88B LOWER TRIBUNAL: Community Development Board, City of Clearwater REPLY TO CITY'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Petitioner, THE CEPCOT CORPORATION AND CLEARWATER TRAIN STATION ("Cepcot"), as permitted by this Court's Order to Show Cause, responds to the CITY OF CLEARWATER'S ("City") Response to Order to Show Cause as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The following abbreviations will be used by Cepcot in this Reply: CDB ,- City's Community Development Board; CIRP - Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; APP - Petitioner's Appendix; Code - City's Community Development Code. RESPONSE TO CITY'S ARGUMENT A. Special Exception versus Conditional Use. The City argues that §2-9030.1 seems "to possess more of the characteristics of a conditional use than those of a special exception." (City's Reply at p.4). A special 60ib0'd Z2:ZO 9662-8Z-add U2-21-U4 U4: PM FFOM-JUMRIUN, CIS-LL?"f11d • i-a04 r.u,7/ 14 r-ibc exception is "a departure from the general provisions of a zoning ordinance granted by legislative process under express provision of the enactment itself." Redner v, City of Tampa, 827 So.2d 1056, 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).1 An application for a CIRP is undoubtedly an application for a special exception, because a CIRP seeks a deviation from standards based upon specific criteria. Nonetheless, the City contends that a CIRP is more like a conditional use. The City, however, presented no factual or legal basis for that contention. Cepcot, on the other hand, presenters expert testimony, from Ethel Hammer, an expert land planner, in which she stated the following: I would like to say that there is a difference in the sense that if you are a conditional use, the test is whether you meet the standards in the Code. In many of these, you know, if you're a conditional use, in many jurisdictions you don't have to go through a public hearing. If you are a special exception, you do. So conditional use means there are specific criteria that have to be met, maybe distance requirements or minimum lot size or you have to establish certain buffers. And once you meet those standards, then you could be approved administratively, say, by the zoning administrator. Typically a special exception requires a public hearing. That's the distinction. (APP- 185). The City did not rebut Ms. Hammer's testimony, In this case, the Code required a hearing on Cepcot's CIRP Application. Under the facts and the law, Cepcot's CIRP Application was an application for a special exception. "Once a petitioner seeking a permitted special exception meets the initial burden of showing that his application met the statutory criteria for granting such exceptions, 1 A variance on the other hand is "the relief granted from the literal enforcement of a zoning ordinance permitting the use of prcperty in a manner otherwise forbidden, upon a finding that enforcement of the ordinance as written would inflict practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships on a property owner." !d. at 1059. 2 60iSo'd tiE:z0 966T-BE-WU uc-cI-u4 u4.capnl riuni-dunnoun1 0 010-440-1110 • 1-004 r.U4/14 P- fVX the party opposing the application must show by competent, substantial evidence that the proposed exception did not meet such standards." Dusseau v. Metro Dade County Board of Commissioners, 794 So.2d 1270, 1273 (Fla. 2001). Cepcot submitted an Application, statements from its architect, Randy Wedding, a statement in support of the Application by Ethel Hammer and testimony from both at the hearing on June 17, 2003. In each instance, Cepcot demonstrated its compliance with the CIRP criteria. Despite that prima facie showing, the City left the ultimate burden on Cepcot to demonstrate how redevelopment of the parcel was impractical "without the requested use deviation." (APP- 36). Once Cepcot met its initial burden, it was the City's burden then to prove that there were permitted uses which allowed a practical redevelopment of the property. "Practical" means usable, workable, useful and sensible. See Webster's New World College Dictionary, 3d Edition. The City did not demonstrate that any of the permitted uses were practical as defined. The property is surrounded by roads on three sides. Two of those roads, Court and Chestnut Street, will soon be two of the busiest roads in Clearwater. In fact, Ms. Hammer testified that the roads "will literally carry tens of thousands of cars everyday." (APP- 180). The City, in its staff report, at the COB hearing and in its reply to Cepcot's petition, failed to respect the rule of law which places the ultimate burden of proof on the City. The City did not comply with the essential requirements of law and its denial of Cepcot's Application should not be sustained. B. The CDB Was Regui'red to Balance the CIRP Criteria in 62-90.3(c . The City argues that Cepcot, under the Code, was required to meet all ten C1RP criteria. Section 2-003(c) of the Code does state that a CIRP application is "subject to the standards and criteria set out in this section." (APP- SS). It does not state, 3 60i90'd Z2:20 9662-8Z-Ndd uL-4 1 -u4 u4;&Opm rrum-4Unlraun r* 71S-49S-MV • I-W rAV14 h-f9[ however, that an applicant "shall" meet all criteria set out in the section. It does not state that an application cannot be approved unless an applicant demonstrates compliance with every criteria set out in §2-903(c). The term "subject to" simply describes the standards and criteria to be considered by the CDB when considering a CIRP application- To be constitutional, a zoning ordinance must contain reasonable standards. It cannot be left to the whim and caprice of a regulatory body. Section 2- 903 generally describes the criteria which the CDB must consider when deciding whether to approve or deny a CIRP application. The City argues that it construes the Code to require compliance with all ten CIRP criteria and that this Court must defer to that interpretation. There is absolutely no proof of that construction in the record, in its response, the City argues that the construction is "evidenced by discussion of all criteria in the staff report." (City's Response at p. 5). The staff's discussion of each criteria does not prove any particular construction. Under a balancing approach, the staff would discuss each of the criteria to inform the CDB about each criteria when considering whether to approve or deny an application. The City's after-the-fact "construction" makes no sense in light of the express terms of §2-903. For instance, CIRP criterion 9 provides the following: Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Under the City's interpretation, a CAP applicant would be required to prove that there was adequate off-street parking for the proposed redevelopment, without exception. CIRP criterion 8, however, says the following: 4 60/L0'd ZE:ZO 966T-8Z-Ndu U4-1r-u4 U4:cnpm rrom-JUMMUn,? tl1$-M-fIIU is 1-tiba !',Uti/J4 F-f8Z Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street oarking are justified by the benefits to the community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and in the City of Clearwater as a whole. (APP- 56). (Emphasis added), The City's interpretation would deprive the COS of the very flexibility that CIRP criterion 8 gives to it. The CDB could not allow flexibility for off-street parking because an applicant would always, under the City's interpretation, have to demonstrate adequate off-street parking under the shared parking formula. in essence, the City wants this Court to ignore portions of the very statute drafted by the City. That is an absurd and unreasonable result. In support of its interpretation, the city cites Las 01as Tower Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 749 SO-2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), for the proposition that this Court should defer to its interpretation. In Las Olas, however, the court rejected an interpretation which rendered portions of the ordinance "manifestly incongruous." *1d. at 313. The City's interpretation renders CIRP criterion 8 manifestly incongruous with CIRP criterion 9.. "Subject to," moreover, is not a defined term in the Code. Clearly, "subject to" can be construed to mean something other than mandatory criteria. That is how Cepcot understood the criteria.z Zoning ordinances are in derogation of private property rights and must be construed in favor of a land owner. Hoffman v_ Brsvard, 390 So.2d 445, 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Since there is a reasonable, and frankly more logical interpretation than that offered by the City, which favors the landowner, that is the interpretation which this Court should adopt. The City failed to follow the requirements ` in its application, Cepcot specifically noted that it was only seeking a deviation concerning use and that the project was below the City's intensity standards. (APP- 2). 5 60i80'd ZE:Z0 9662-8Z-Ndd 60' d -ld101 • L? of law by requiring Cepcot to show compliance with all CIRP criteria. The more reasonable interpretation which favors the property owner requires the CDB to consider and balance the CIRP criteria. C. Cepcot Was Standards, 1 When arguing that §2-903 did not permit balancing of the CIRP criteria, the City argued that "the plain meaning rule should be followed." (City's Response at, p.6). Yet, when considering the first CIRP criterion, the City quickly throws the plain meaning rule out the window. In pertinent part, that criterion provides "redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards." A plain reading of that criterion only requires a demonstration of impracticality when an applicant is seeking deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. Despite the plain meaning of the first CIRP criterion, the City argues that Administrative Law Judge Meale correctly "found that the language should be read in the disjunctive" despite the use of the conjunctive "and." (City's Response, p. 6). The City wants to pick and chose the use of the plain meaning rule to support its argument of the moment. This Court should not permit such a fickle statutory construction. The language of the first CIRP criterion is clear. Cepcot was not asking for deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. In its Application, Cepcot stated "no variances other than the use itself are being requested in connection with this Application. The project's low F.A.R. is well below the intensity standard set forth in the Clearwater City Codes." (APP- 2). Since Cepcot was not asking for deviations from use, intensity and development standards, it was not required to show 6 60/601d ££:z0 966Z-8Z-NdU 02-ZT-04 04:29PM i:rom-JOHNSON POP 913-223-7116 0 7-654 P.09/14 F-T9Z that the redevelopment of the property was impractical without such wholesale deviations. The City, moreover, failed to prove that the permitted uses were practical in light of the unusual location of Cepcot's property. UPC oE's A IicaEion Com lied with CIRP Criterion 7. The City argues that the other criterion not met by Cepcot is CIRP Criterion 7 which reads as follows: The design of the proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. In its Application, Cepcot stated that "care has been taken to use a style of architecture with strong reference to traditional historical character of downtown Clearwater. That design effort creates a form and ambiance that enhances the community character of the site." (APP- 3). Further, Randy Wedding, Cepcot's architect, stated that the design "will yield a unique facility which will not only blend happily with the neighborhood but will establish a significant aesthetic benchmark in the future retro-fit of the mostly industrial buildings which surround it." (APP- 3). In her submission to the CDB, Ms. Hammer also stated "Throughout the design process, care has been taken to use a style of architecture with strong references to the traditional historic character of downtown Clearwater. This design effort creates a form and function that augments the community character of the neighborhood in which this project is situated." (APP- 60). Cepcot established a prima facie case of compliance with CIRP Criterion 7. Despite that, the City did not present any competent or substantial evidence to demonstrate that Cepcot failed to comply with CIRP Criterion 7. 7 Z'd TZO?Z9SLZG Rau J 0 1'4 d R'4 i3 ebS:60 *, 0 10 jeW APR-28-1996 02:45 • . P.02i07 As a special exception application, the City had the burden to demonstrate non- compliance. (1) Historic v. Non-Historic. In support of its argument th?t Cepcot did not comply with CIRP Criterion 7, the City argued that the Application was inconsistent with the goals of the City's comprehensive plan because the Application did not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines. (City's Reply at 8). What the City failed to discuss is the reason why the staff concluded that Cepcot's Application was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The staff reached that conclusion, because "The proposal is inconsistent with these goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan because it does not protect or maintain the existing historical property (discussed later) and does not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines." (APP- 32). The staff also concluded that the Application did not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines because it proposed to demolish what the City described as an "historic train depot." The City's argument fails for several reasons. First, Judge Meale did not rely on the city's "historic structure" argument when determining that Cepcot had not complied with CIRP Criterion 7. Instead, he speculated that the CDB could have concluded that the proposed development was not compatible with the surrounding "bulkier" structures. Second, Cepcot offered the train depot to the City of Clearwater. The City ignored the request. Judge Meale recognized that offer was sufficient to address any concern about protecting historic resources. He said the offer was "probably enough for me not to want to pursue the historic resource argument considerably longer." (APP- 310-311). 8 APR-28-1996 02:45 • P.03i07 Third, the train depot was not an historic property. The City's Code defines historic property as follows; Any prehistoric or historic site, building, structure or other real or personal property of historic, architectural or archeological value, and designated as such by the City Commission- §8-102, Code. As the City has and will admit, it never had the train depot designated as an historic property. The City, moreover, stipulated that Cepcot could pull a demolition permit and destroy the train depot, (APP- 310). Destruction of the train depot, therefore, was consistent with the comprehensive plan, since the train depot was not an historic property, (2) Urban-v. Suburban, The City next argues that the proposed redevelopment was inconsistent with the Downtown Redevelopment Plan's goal of creating a "people place." (City's Response at p. 8). The City seems to equate "people place" with a place that has no cars. In today's world, that interpretation is absurd. The absurdity of the City's interpretation is further pronounced by the location of Cepcot's property. The property is bounded on three sides by roads, one of which is adjacent to an active railroad line. Two of those roads will soon be the busiest roads in Clearwater. Cepcot's property will never be a pedestrian destination. Pedestrians will have to cross the busiest roads in Clearwater or an active railroad line to get to the property. On this point, Ms. Hammer testified as follows: This property is really on the edge of the Core so it's really not in the heart of the pedestrian area of downtown. s In fact, Cepcot has destroyed the train depot under a demolition permit issued by the City. 9 'APR-28-1996 02:45 • 0 P.04i07 It's really not pedestrian accessible for the most part to most of the government offices, to most of the retail establishments. So this is really more of a fringe type of area to the heart of downtown. As a matter of fact, the most recent construction activity in this area has already been mentioned and that's the new Church of Scientology utility plant, which again is not a use that's going to draw pedestrians to this particular comer of the downtown. (APP- 174). The absurdity of the City's interpretation as applied to this property is further demonstrated by the City's planning director, Cindy Tarapani. She testified as follows: MR. MAZUR: And if this did not have the ability to sell gasoline, would that change your opinion, or? MS. TARAPANI: 'Well, the retail, the convenience goods retail is allowed, that is certainly an allowable use in dom110VVI'I, 111611 thou, yuu kssuw, we wuuld - Lhe use Issue would then be muted if the gas station were taken away....' (APP- 203). Is a convenience store any less a "suburban" use than a convenience store with a few gas pumps? Clearly, the answer is no. Cepcot presented a study of downtowns which demonstrated that convenience stores with gas pumps were typically permitted in surrounding downtowns. (APP- 81- 142). Cepcot offered that study and the testimony of Ethel Hammer to demonstrate that convenience stores with gas pumps were urban uses. Cepcot established a prima facie case that its proposed redevelopment was an urban use. The City did not submit any study or evidence in opposition to the study performed by Ms. Hammer. Rather, the City simply assumed that a convenience store with gas pumps is a suburban use. The City's staff presented no evidence, much less any substantial or competent evidence, to support that assumption. 10 APR-28-1996 02:45 • P.05i07 The City in its response now argues that assumptions by City staff in support of a denial recommendation are substantial, competent evidence to support a denial .4 The City did not offer any studies or analysis to support the assumption that a convenience store with gas pumps is a suburban use. The City's bare assumption, particularly in light of Cepcot's study, is not substantial, competent evidence to support the denial. See City Commission of the City of Miami v. Woodlawn Park Cemetery Company, 553 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In Woodlawn Park, the court rejected the argument that testimony concerning increased traffic problems by residents was substantial, competent evidence to rebut the traffic study submitted by the property owners seeking a rezoning. There, the property owners sought a rezoning from residential to commercial. The court recognized that virtually all of the surrounding property was commercial. Under those circumstances, the court determined it was unreasonable to refuse the commercial rezoning since the "character' of the neighborhood had changed. In this case, the character of the neighborhood surrounding Cepcot's property is decidedly not pedestrian or a "people place." The property around Cepcot's property is industrial and office space. Cepcot's property will soon be surrounded by the busiest roads in Clearwater. To suggest that the immediate vicinity is a "people place" or pedestrian ignores the uses surrounding Cepcot's property. To turn a blind eye to the surrounding uses, departs from essential requirements of the law. See Woodlawn Park Cemetery, supra. 4 under the City's interpretation, an applicant could never challenge a denial supported by staff, because the staff's position would always constitute substantial, competent evidence. 11 APR-28-1996 02:46 • P.06i07 E. The Standards of Section 3-913 Qre Not a ?aSis on which to Den a CIRP Appliication. The City argues that the general criteria of §3-913 are applicable because applications under §2-903 are "subject to the standards and criteria set out in this section and other applicable provisions of Article 3." (City's Response, p. 10). The City's argument begs the question about which provisions of Article 3 are applicable. Section 3.913, in pertinent part, says "conditions which are imposed by the Community Development Coordinator and the Community Development Board pursuant to a Level 1 or a Level 2 approval shall insure" and then lists specific items. Section 2-913 applies only to conditions imposed for a Level 1 or Level 2 approval. In this case, the COB did not approve Cepcot's Application. Section 2-913 is only applicable when the COB approves an application and imposes conditions to insure those items described in §2- 913. Here, again, the City wants to ignore the plain language of §2-913, because it does not support its argument. F. Ce Cot Is Not Makin a Takings Clam in this Action. Cepcot has not asked the Court to render a decision on a taking claim. Rather, Cepcot raised the constitutional issue to demonstrate the absurdity of the City's application of an historic designation to the train depot formerly located on Cepcot's property. The City contended that it could treat a property as an historic property without going through the designation process identified in its own, Code. In essence, the City wanted to take Cepcot's property without going through the process of having the property designated as historic and paying appropriate compensation to Cepcot. The City's use of the zoning code to stifle development of property which it considered historic arnounts to an unconstitutional taking. Statutes should be interpreted in such a 12 APR-2e-1996 02:46 manner as to uphold their constitutionality • P.0?/0? Russo v. Akers, 724 SO-2d 1151 (Fla. 1998). The City's interpretation, as applied, would be unconstitutional. CONCLUSION The denial of Cepcot's Application should be reversed. The City did not follow the essential requirements of law because it placed the ultimate burden of proof on Cepcot, The City also failed to follow the essential requirements of law concerning statutory construction, because its interpretation would lead to an unconstitutional result and would render the CIRP criteria manifestly incongruous. Finally, the City did not offer any substantial, competent evidence to support its position that Cepcot's Application did not comply with CIRP criterion 7. This Court should quash the denial of Cepcot's Application. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the Reply to City's Response to Order to Show Cause has been furnished via facsimile 727/462.4021 to Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire, Assistant City Attorney, City of Clearwater, Post Office Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758 this a? day of February, 2004. - TN C I i ards, 348929 JOHNSON, POPE, SOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP P.O. Box 1100 Tam a, FL 33601-1100 (813225-2500 Attorneys for Petitioner -X85125 13 TOTAL P.O? L14, +S H:a J Q A K C;OMPE?cNCY C.ARC THIS CERTjp1E8 *HA T po*r pWp HAS MET ALL THS AIJOU1R19MENT8 FOR HOLDINQ A f"OUNTY"Vee. 88WJ{Y Cf Mlf'lfF Comft ?1 NCY NO 04104 AND AS ¦Mo" C "oft MRR IN GOOD STANCNN4 UWIL SIt1aY'IPAN1t 30.2W4 DATES OF ISSUANCE 1011 P03 4121, I ?? Q r•? ? zs 4r ? w w vq I i tiA4e? F E? ' s CIF 1 1.9,0 9,¢0 /,?av - ? . _ ,P.K?i,?.r? L2ohc.. A 0- ?4! firma _ G?7Ih?2f? ?/ Alo? ? ?? 4A ??G pliCG?? vi wv/r .4-., i vv Awm? 'e 40 • v • • /? rG2000 ?G?lC f C . ax: k-; 10/4 04 0 G.0? %nD? f/r ?Z a v9: - ool Gool v STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THE CEPCOT CORPORATION and CLEARWATER TRAIN STATION, INC., Petitioners, VS. CITY OF CLEARWATER, Respondent. Case No. 03-2585 NOTICE OF HEARING A hearing will be held in this case at the City Hall, Large Conference Room 313, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, on Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as can be heard. Continuances will be granted only by order of the Administrative Law Judge for good cause shown. ISSUE: Whether Petitioners' application for flexible development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project should be approved. AUTHORITY: Chapter 120, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 28-106, Parts I and II, Florida Administrative Code. The parties shall arrange to have all witnesses and evidence present at the time and place of hearing. Subpoenas will be issued by the Administrative Law Judge upon request of the parties. All parties have the right to present oral argument and to cross-examine opposing witnesses. All parties have the right to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, in accordance with Rule 28-106.106, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to appear at this hearing may be grounds for entry of a recommended order of dismissal. VOF ]ED ING app'?, ERT P CITY OF CL- \NAT The agency shall be responsible for making the necessary arrangements for a.court reporter. July 30, 2003 DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. Armstrong, III, Esquire Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A. Post Office Box 1368 Clearwater, Florida 33758-1368 Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 ROOM CONFIRMATION COPY: Gwen Hollander City Hall P O Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 (727) 562-4010 a In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing a special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the Judge's secretary no later than seven days prior to the hearing. The Judge's secretary may be contacted at the address or telephone numbers above, via 1-800- 955-8771 (TDD), or 1-800-955-8770 (Voice) Florida Relay Service. ... 2003 RECEIVED STATE OF FLORIDA JUL 3 0 203 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGR!_ANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER THE CEPCOT CORPORATION AND CLEARWATER TRAIN STATION, Petitioner, VS. DOAH CASE NO. 03-2585 FLD 2002-12045 CITY OF CLEARWATER, Respondent. RESPONSE TO INITIAL ORDER COMES NOW Respondent, CITY OF CLEARWATER, by and through its undersigned counsel, and after consulting with counsel for Petitioner files this Response to the Initial Order entered by the Administrative Law Judge in this action, and says: 1. In response to paragraph 3. of the initial Order: a. Related cases before the Division: None. b. Estimated length of time necessary for acceptance of record and oral argument: 3 hours. c. Suggested geographic location for. final hearing: City Hall, City Manager's Large Conference Room, Third Floor, 1.12 South Osceola Street, Clearwater, Florida. d. Dates 30-70 days from date of Initial Order when parties and representatives available for final hearing: September 26, 2003. 0 0 Respectfully submitted, CITY OF CLEARWATER P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 (727) 562-4010 BY: ;4 yfkv- Leslie K. Dougall- "s Assistant City Attorney Florida Bar No. 320706 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Respondent City of Clearwater's Response to Initial Order was forwarded to Darryl R. Richards, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Rokor & Burns, P.A., Attorney for Petitioner, 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 1800, Tampa, Florida 33602-5853 by facsimile and U.S. Mail this 29th day of July, 2003. Leslie K. Doug ar 1- ides Attorney at Law 2 { CITY OF C d,EARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 CITY. HALL, 112 SOUTH OSCEOLA AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4010 FAx (727) 562-4021 CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE July 15, 2003 RECEIVED JUL 10 2003 James W. York, Deputy Chief Judge PLANNING DEPARTMENT Division of Administrative Hearings CITY OF CLEARWATER The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Re: Appeal of Denial of Flexible Development Application, FLD 2002-12045 Dear Judge York: Enclosed are two copies of the following file documents, together with one verbatim cassette recording of the proceedings regarding the above-referenced case before the Community Development Board, whose decision is being appealed by applicant The Cepcot Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc.: 1. Notice of appeal dated June 25, 2003 by The Cepcot Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc., Appellant. 2. Public hearing notice dated June 1, 2003. 3. Draft Minutes of Community Development Board meeting of June 17, 2003. 4. Flexible Development application, supporting materials, map, staff report and staff comments. 5. Set of file materials from Planning Department on FLD2002-12045. For the convenience of the parties and witnesses please schedule the oral argument in Clearwater. You may contact Gwen Hollander in the City Attorney's Office at 562-4010 to schedule City Commission chambers, the City Manager's large conference room, or other City locations. Please advise the parties as soon as an administrative law judge is assigned to this case. BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, COMMISSIONER FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER BILL JONSON, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" A Very truly yours, Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Enclosures Copies to: E.D. Armstrong, III, Esquire [copy of all materials except audiotape] City Clerk [letter only] Planning [letter only] T - , N-xa- - ao, 00, T 144 ? fin G?l?/ 0 APL/. s . 1/I 1/' ??/ ??i„9?, ?i'?Al?,?,? L? /I1 OU C%??G?? Ud'- A09,?? C%22.1 G%?? • ? l" / ' I IO-11e, alz2&: ?le //I z _ e 2;?? -- /?2?? IA --- .. . R4? Y----- 9 • • • Leo- I " ",;7 10, L4, o ?0' 12? Gb%. fit 22 zaao-lw elzl 4,(Sjz,t G .y f. A?4-L?Ale- /2o?1vo?=. h? tf1'ol?, Av 12e, XYi i3 ? drr?lz?'/d?o ?? /5d iGDYi 02ccJ/? - W7- -_ 41 /r12?-2 • WO - - - rl-a467 `lam 11 ?`?3 jg ]- - F-- E-1 U Y u _ Open. oooo?? ::? 7-4 -11, 41- loow? ems- dx- ,ate --,6W,6 7 - V A /?24 Gee.-G?/ ho lem a zahl- -/- a -Av , /3 jag 7- 4 i27 = 2. ?' T%hGZ J PLO) r--, nl? oo? W?V - -f -- ?u?t -?yIh?/???? 1-05 /6 lee /c 21')a wz/ Ali mew? ex 21"eo- ??,?? Grr?ia Iii,??u I t/IJl Gl?Yi -?eG Gr/ih A f - illoo • C ,lz? -14 f 2J 1 • 4T due /?GU1?5e-G,?_,d!?ryi_?c ldLt?? 1'? l?g?ia?l> ??}; -/Zp ???-, ?ZtrllDli/'yz`1y v 1c. 1? ,?cc?4. G y?GC ? ??r - ?j GIrO??- ?o • 0 .ell 9177op 74- 0 0 r' 2 aw _a,e,?vij J1 OPINION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005 ¦ THE TIMES to 99iof19 a 9vsfi 21f"-' UkiAL z2sbssh' Our vigilance prote'cts' kids at school bus stops Parents who love their children find it diffi- cult enough to put them on a school bus and send them off in the care of a bus driver. Now the process of getting a child to school is even scarier for some parents because of recent inci- dents at bus stops. Occurrences last month at bus stops in three counties alarmed parents. . In New Port Richey, a 15-year-old girl was raped while walking to her county bus stop. In Tampa, a man reportedly stalked a 14-year- old girl for months, trying to coax her into his car. Finally, the girl's relatives watched for the man the children said was the stalker, caught him and beat him up before turning him over to police. In Largo last week, police arrested a 39-year- Perhaps most important, children of all ages need to be taught what to watch for and how to report unusual activity around their bus stops. In both the Tampa and Largo cases, several stu- dents had been aware that a fellow bus rider was being harassed by a man. They did not under- stand the potential danger and just shrugged off the stalkers' actions as annoying. The public schools get saddled with a lot of duties that have nothing to do with reading, writing and arithmetic, yet the schools might be the best place to teach this lesson about bus stop safety. And since the Tampa and Largo incidents involved teenagers, these lessons clearly need to be taught to all grades. Caring parents also will sit down now with their children and tell them what to look out for LETTERS Civic Club will ask for land back Re: Club wants to go to court, story, Jan. 13. Please be advised that when the City of Oldsmar first pro- posed the site of the Oldsmar Civic Club building for the new library, we presented a firm bid from a building moving company of $145,000, to move the Civic Club building to another site on adjacent land. The City Council, the mayor and city manager re- fused this. Your reporters were apprised of this information and chose not to print it. It has become apparent to the Civic Club members that the city does not just want the site, but it wants to destroy the Civic Club building. Once that is accom- plished, the, next step will be to eliminate the Civic Club, as sug- contract with its eminent domain suit against the Civic Club, we will ask the court to return this property to the Civic Club: Jim Campoli, trustee Oldsmar Civic Club Students in photograph suffered an, unfair stigma Re: A fresh beat, photos and captions, Jan. 21. At first it was very refreshing to see the newspaper photos of the Kings Highway Bucket Drum- mers in the St. Petersburg Times. However, a few lines into the caption it was mentioned that most of the Bucket Drummers have had academic or behavioral problems. A few members of the group had their names and photos printed in the paper. One of them was my nephew, Marquis Floyd, an exceptional student who has won numerous academ- ic awards and has never had a behavioral problem. I feel that the mere mentioning curbside service we receive. .Every Monday morning, we can dispose of items in addition to the contents of the giant trash' barrel (which the city supplies). We have frequently taken advan- tage of that service. This year's after-Christmas pickup would be an example of "taking advan- tage." Without fail, the workers have taken it all away. Household items, moving boxes, wrapping paper, bicycles, yard clippings; appliances - we have seen an amazing assortment of trash dis- appear from our neighborhood driveways. In addition, this summer's hur= ricane debris was an incredible challenge for all residents. The employees in the Solid Waste De- partment should be commended for the incredible service they performed. Countryside is a beautiful area. Our thanks go out to the City of Clearwater for its continuous contribution. TO CONTACT US Delivery: 895-1181 News phone: 446-6397 News fax: 445-4119 Mon-Fri: 9 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Sat-Sun: 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. By e-mail: northpin@sptimes.com Clearwater Times- TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005 ¦ THE TIMES AN EDITIt91I C ¢t¢atfffff Judge junks city's denial of gas station ¦ The court says Clearwater officials used flawed methods in defeating a plan for a Court Street station and store. By AARON SHAROCKMAN Times Staff Writer CLEARWATER - A Pinellas judge has thrown out a city ruling blocking a proposed gas station on the new route to Clearwater Beach and ordered the matter be reheard. Planned for Court Street on the site of the former Clearwater Train Station Restau- rant, the small gas station would serve traffic crossing the new Memorial Causeway bridge once it opens. The developer, wealthy Pinch-a-Penny pool supply founder Fred 'Lomas, intends now to resurrect plans for the downtown convenience center over the city's objec- tions, his attorney said Monday. The decision comes after Circuit Judge David Demers tossed aside a 2003 ruling by the city's planning board. In a nine-page order issued late last month, Demers said that the board used the wrong criteria in forming its opinion. An appellate hearing officer also reached incorrect conclusions, Demers said. Ed Armstrong, who represents Thomas, said Thomas intends on returning before the planning board, "order in hand." "In this instance, the law was misapplied by the planning department," Armstrong said. "We're gratified that the judge agreed with our argument that Mr. Thomas was denied the essential requirements of law that we felt all along he was deprived of." City officials said they were disappointed by Demer's ruling. Among the concerns, Demers said, the planning staff relied on proposed, but not yet codified changes to the downtown plan as a basis for recommending denial. They also unlawfully shifted burdens to the developer, Demers said. City officials disagree and are consider- ing taking the case to the 2nd District Court of Appeal, City Attorney Pam Akin said. "The more that you have uses in down- town that cater to cars, the less likely people are going to be comfortable there," planning director Cyndi Tarapani said. "The city staff recommended denial. The (city planning board) recommended denial. A hearing offi- cer recommended denial. Three levels of review all agreed, but for some reason, the judge didn't." Tarapani said Thomas' proposal did not comport with the applicable zoning code or development plan in place in 2003. The city's planning board rejected the proposal by a 42 vote. But Demer's ruling gives Thomas new hope to build a small gas station and 3,200- square-foot convenience store meant to capi- talize on car traffic heading to Clearwater Beach. When the new Memorial Causeway bridge opens, beachgoers will be diverted along Court Street, past his station site at East Avenue S. "Plus, if the city wants to bring people downtown and all these developments they talk about building .... Where are they going to get their gas?," Thomas asked a reporter in 2003. He declined comment through his attorney for this story. . No timetable has been set for a rehear- ing. Aaron Sharockman can be reached at (727) 445-4160 or asharockman@sptimes.com. Fred Thomas is free to resurrect plans for the downtown conve- nience center over city objec- tions. Cleveland St. (6O 1/4 mile isa Proposed Court St. - gas station Chestnut St pig Area 0 shown Sources: ESRI, GDT Times map 0T 0 0 R CDB Meeting Date: Case Number: Agenda Item: June 17, 2003 FLD2002-12045 T,t CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: OWNERS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: The CEPCOT Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc. The CEPCOT Corporation Mr. Randy Wedding; Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 657 Court Street REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. PLANS REVIEWED: Site plan submitted Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. SITE INFORMATION: PROPERTY SIZE: 0.95 acres; 41, 473 square feet DIMENSIONS OF SITE: 130 feet of frontage along Chestnut Street, 298 feet of frontage along East Avenue and 150 feet of frontage along Court Street. PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Retail sales, restaurant and park Proposed Use: Automobile service center (convenience store with gas pumps) PLAN CATEGORY: CBD, Central Business District Classification ZONING DISTRICT: D, Downtown District Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 1 i a ADJACENT LAND USES: North: Utility plant West: Offices East: Warehouses South: Offices • CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY: The surrounding area is nonresidential in character, with the area to the east more industrially developed. ANALYSIS: This case was continued at the March 18, 2003 Community Development Board at the request of the applicant in order to resolve site plan issues. Existing Conditions The 0.95-acre site is a triple-fronted lot with frontages on Chestnut Street to the south, East Avenue to the east and Court Street to the north. The surrounding area is developed with office- type uses to the west and south, a utility plant (under construction) for the Church of Scientology to the north and warehouse-type buildings to the east. With the construction of the new Memorial Causeway bridge, traffic patterns accessing the beach will be re-routed to Court Street (westbound) and Chestnut Street (eastbound). Railroad tracks and the Pinellas Trail are adjacent along the east side of the property, within the East Avenue right-of-way. The site is currently developed with a restaurant at the northeast corner (former train station), a retail sales (thrift) store at the northwest corner and Freedom Park (privately owned) on the south side. The restaurant/historic train station is located immediately west of the Pinellas Trail. All existing improvements will be razed as part of the redevelopment of the site. There are some large trees on the southern portion of the site worthy of preservation. Proposal The proposal includes the redevelopment of the site as an automobile service station consisting of a 3,200 square-foot retail sales/convenience store and two gas pump islands (one on the north side; one on the south side). The retail sales/convenience store is proposed to be adjacent to East Avenue/Pinellas Trail, with the building set back 15.75 feet from the east property line. The entrance to the building is on the west side adjacent to the parking area. The building is designed with sidewalk access from the Pinellas Trail, with a bike rack with benches between the building and the trail. Windows are shown on the east and west sides of the building. Limited windows are on the north and south sides. Parking is proposed on the north, west and south sides of the building. This is a suburban-style design. Vehicular access is proposed from Court and Chestnut Streets. The existing driveway access from East Avenue will be eliminated. A number of large trees, including a 35-inch oak tree, are being preserved. The proposed convenience store and gas canopies will have pitched roofs, finished with terracotta tile. The building and gas canopies will be painted buff yellow with accent banding in a darker shade and forest green window and door frames. No specific tenant is identified at this time, so only attached signage areas are shown. Both freestanding and attached signage must meet Code requirements. In the Downtown District, freestanding signs are limited to six feet in height with a monument style design. Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 2 ? 1 • The applicant proposes canopies. covering each of the two gas pump islands, one on the north side of the site off Court Street and the other on the south side off Chestnut Street. Each island will have four gas pumping stations (with access from either side). A dumpster enclosure is shown at the southeast corner of the convenience store. The drainage design under this proposal provides a small retention pond southwest of the convenience store building, as well as a vault for storage under the parking lot adjacent to Chestnut Street. Vaults within vehicular areas need to be designed with sufficient structural strength (as a bridge-type structure) for delivery and fire truck traffic. Should the request be approved by the Community Development Board, this should be a condition of approval. The site is located within the Downtown District, a designated redevelopment area. An automobile service station is not a permitted use in the Downtown District. This request is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as the only method the use can berequested within the Downtown District. With the adoption of the Community Development Code in 1999, an automobile service station use was specifically not included as a permitted use in the Downtown District, rendering all existing automobile service stations in the Downtown District nonconforming uses. The Community Development Code lists all "permitted uses" within each zoning classification and the three respective development options (Standard, Flexible Standard and Flexible). Therefore, uses not listed as permitted uses are prohibited. The Community Development Board has the discretion to review this proposal against the standards within the Community Development Code and the pending Downtown Plan Update. Comprehensive Plan The City's Comprehensive Plan contains goals and objectives that are applicable to this project as found in the Future Land Use Element: 2. Goal - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engi- neering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas and encourage infill development. 2.3 Objective - The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay dis- tricts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of the City's Community Development Code. 2.3.3 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the De- sign Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. The proposal is inconsistent with these goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan because it does not protect or maintain the existing historic property (discussed later) and does not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines. 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan The proposal is inconsistent with the People Goal of this Plan which is to redevelop Downtown Clearwater into a successful "people place" that attracts, retains, and inspires those of all ages and incomes to use and enjoy the community town center. The automobile dominance of this Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 3 0 • proposal does not further the people focus of this goal. It also does not proactively utilize the historic asset as a visitor option. 2003 Downtown Plan Update The update of the Downtown Plan is scheduled for review by the CDB on July 15, 2003. The Downtown Plan serves as the underlying land use regulation for all properties within the district. All development within the district must be consistent with both the land use plan and zoning regulations. The Downtown Plan Update will serve to consolidate planning efforts and previous documents including the Redevelopment Plan. The City Commission held its first workshop on the Downtown Plan update in October 2002. At that meeting, the general concepts guiding Downtown development were discussed. Specifically, the Commission agreed that automobile-oriented uses, such as gas stations, and fast-food restaurants with drive-thru service, shall be prohibited throughout the Downtown. On January 27, 2003, the City Commission affirmed their decision to prohibit automobile-oriented uses from the Downtown Core area and the other five character districts within the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan Update was based on the concepts approved at that meeting. The subject site is located in the Downtown Core character district which extends generally from Drew Street to Chestnut Street and from Myrtle Avenue west to Clearwater Harbor. The vision for this district is for the continued center of government. It should be redeveloped as a family-oriented entertainment destination including marina, cultural events and attractions, festivals, restaurants, theater and shopping uses. This district allows the most intense and dense development. The Downtown Core, and all character districts, establishes prohibited uses including: detached dwellings, all types of vehicle sales and services, automobile service stations, fast food restaurants with drive-thru service, and industrial and problematic uses. The City will be funding streetscape improvements to further the gateway into Downtown and the beach. Approval of the proposed (not permitted) use may encourage other inappropriate uses. There are goals, objectives and policies in Downtown Plan geared toward the site plan. However, the central issue at hand is the use. Historical Information The City of Clearwater retained Archeological Consultants, Inc. in February 1998 to conduct a historic preservation survey of the Clearwater Central Business District and Old Clearwater Bay. The resulting document, Clearwater Historic Preservation Survey and Planning Project, identifies and documents all buildings, not previously surveyed, constructed before 1947 within the project area. The survey was conducted according to the standards and criteria set forth by the Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources. Properties may be nominated to the National Register in one of three categories: as a single (individual) property, as an historic district, or as a multiple resource property. The subject site includes a building that was identified as being potentially eligible for listing in the National Register. The site contains the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Depot, constructed ca. 1923. It is the only railroad depot remaining in the City of Clearwater. This building is significant for its association with the early railroad, which helped stimulate the economic development and residential settlement of Clearwater. The depot is a good example of a one-story frame Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 4 • combination station (servicing both passengers and freight) constructed in Florida in the early twentieth century. The application proposes demolishing the last existing railroad depot in the City. Downtown Design Guidelines The Downtown Design Guidelines were adopted in 1995 and serve as a guide and tool for new development and renovation and rehabilitation of existing properties. Two applicable purpose statements of the Guidelines to this request are: 1) To ensure an orderly, high quality redevelopment process. Each renovation and construction should contribute to the overall image and character of the area. The proposal does not meet this guideline, as it does not contribute to a desired urban character due to the proposed demolition of the historic depot. 2) To protect and maintain historic features. Older buildings possess character, tra- dition, workmanship and a pedestrian-scale that is not easily duplicated. The City intends to preserve the historic integrity of Downtown Clearwater. The loss of the last railroad depot in the City will forever remove this building type from our built environment and eliminate our ability to enjoy and learn about Clearwater's past through its historic sites. CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS: There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. A. COMPLIANCE WITH MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL STANDARD IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (Section 2-901.1): STANDARD REQUIRED/ PERMITTED EXISTING PROPOSED IN COMPLIANCE? FLOOR AREA 5.0 0.21 0.077 Yes RATIO (FAR) IMPERVIOUS 1.0 0.864 0.692 Yes SURFACE RATIO (ISR) Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 5 • • B. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (Section 2-903): STANDARD PERMITTED/ EXISTING PROPOSED IN REQUIRED COMPLIANCE? LOT AREA N/A 41,473 square 41,473 square Yes (minimum) feet (0.95 acres) feet (0.95 acres) LOT WIDTH N/A 130 feet along 130 feet along Yes (minimum) Chestnut St; 298 Chestnut St; 298 feet along East feet along East Ave; 150 feet Ave; 150 feet along Court St. along Court St. FRONT N/A South: five feet South: 14 feet (to Yes SETBACK (to pavement); pavement); East: East: zero feet 15.75 feet (to (to building and building); 5.5 pavement); feet (to North: zero feet pavement); (to building and North: 5.5 feet pavement) (pavement); 25 feet (to canopy column) REAR N/A N/A* N/A* Yes* SETBACK SIDE N/A West: West: 5.75 feet Yes SETBACK (to pavement); 24 feet (to canopy column) HEIGHT N/A 12 feet 21 feet Yes (maximum) (building); 22 feet (canopy 1); 23 ft (canopy 2) PARKING Determined by 41 spaces 16 spaces Yes SPACES the Community (minimum) Development Director based on use and/or ITE Manual stds * Per Section 3-903.D., street frontages have front setbacks and other property lines have side setbacks. Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 6 C. FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (Section 2-903.C): 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. Automobile service stations are not listed as permitted uses within the Downtown District. Uses permitted within the Downtown District include accessory dwellings, alcoholic beverage sales, attached dwellings, convention center, indoor recreation/entertainment facility, nightclubs, offices, overnight accommodations, parking garages/lots, parks and recreation facilities, places of worship, public transportation facilities, restaurants, retail sales and service uses, social and community centers and utility/infrastructure facilities. It has not been demonstrated how the redevelopment of the parcel is impractical without the requested use deviation. In fact, no alternative redevelopment scenario has been shared with staff and it is unclear whether the application has considered any alternatives. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. The current assessed valuation of the site is $552,200. The anticipated value of the site is expected to be in excess of $2.3 million. The increase in property value is not expected to reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. The automobile service station use is permitted in City of Clearwater within the Commercial District and the Industrial, Research and Technology District (as a Flexible Standard Development use). An automobile service station use is not permitted in the Downtown District. 4. The use or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is compatible with adjacent land uses. Adjacent land uses are a mix of offices, warehouses and a utility plant (under construction). As redevelopment occurs in this critical gateway, it is anticipated that new uses will more likely be retail uses or consumer-oriented rather than the existing uses. The use is inconsistent with direction affirmed by the City Commission regarding the prohibition of automobile oriented uses within the Downtown of the update of the Downtown Plan. Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 7 • 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. There may be suitable sites available for an automobile service station within the City that are not within the Downtown District. The City specifically did not provide for such use within the Downtown District, as the use is not consistent with the Downtown Plan Update. 6. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Although the application represents a financial investment for this site, the design, use and circulation aspects of an automobile service station will negatively impact the intended, long-term character of the surrounding area. The proposed use is inconsistent with the Community Development Code and will negatively impact the redevelopment of the Downtown Core. Further, the proposal is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as it does not protect or maintain the existing historic property and does not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines. 7. The design of the proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The site design for this automobile service station is suburban in nature and inappropriate for an urban Downtown setting. This proposal is dependent upon the automobile, dictating its design and traffic patterns. Urban Downtowns rely on foot traffic with buildings and sites designed to be pedestrian-friendly. The design does not create a form and function that will enhance and further an urban Downtown character. 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking 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. The proposal is not requesting flexibility in regard to lot width, setback requirements (none in Downtown District), height or off-street parking. Flexibility has been requested for the type of use only, specifically an automobile service station, that is not permitted in the Downtown District and is prohibited in the pending Downtown Plan Update. The use of the site, as proposed may encourage other non-permitted uses in the redevelopment of the area. Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 8 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposal is for a 3,200 square-foot retail sales building that requires 16 parking spaces (five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area). The proposal provides the required amount of parking on-site. On-street parking is not expected. The applicant has provided a loading/unloading area for tanker gas trucks on the south side of the building. A loading area is designed on the south side of the building to access service doors on the east side of the building via a sidewalk. 10. The design of all building complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in the Division 5 of Article 3. The Design Guidelines for Downtown were created, in part, to ensure an orderly high quality redevelopment process and to protect and maintain historic features. The guidelines recommend that the location of off-street parking should be to the interior side yard or rear yard of the site. No off-street parking should be in front or corner side yard of the site where parking is highly viewable from adjoining street rights-of-way. The proposal includes a suburban-style layout with parking on the north, west and south sides of the convenience store building viewable from Court Street and East Avenue. It is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines. The site is recognized, however, to have three street frontages. The utility plant to the north is being constructed with a Mediterranean revival style with a terracotta tile roof. The proposed building and canopies on this property will be a similar Mediterranean revival style, also with terracotta tile roofs. Landscaping along street frontages and interior to the site will also be provided. D. GENERAL APPLICABILITY (Section 3-913): Conditions which are imposed by the Community Development Coordinator and the Community Development Board pursuant to a Level One or a Level Two Approval shall ensure that: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The character of the surrounding area is primarily offices and warehouses, with a utility plant under construction to the north of this site. Most surrounding buildings are one and two-story in height and with a zero setback. The proposed building and canopies on this property will be one-story in height. The layout is not urban, even with the convenience store building located 15.75 feet from the East Avenue property line. The use of the site, as proposed, is not permitted within the Downtown District. Permitting a "prohibited" use will not enhance the community character. Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 9 s • 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The pending Downtown Plan Update controls the underlying land use and density of all area within the boundaries of the district. It was written based on specific direction from the City's elected officials. The City Commission discussed the general concepts guiding Downtown development and specific character districts at two separate meetings. Specifically, the Commission agreed that automobile-oriented uses, such as gas stations, and fast food restaurants with drive-thru facilities shall be prohibited throughout the Downtown. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to the Downtown Plan efforts. Redevelopment of this site, however, may or may not reduce the value of abutting properties. The current assessed valuation of the site is $552,200. The anticipated value of the site is expected to be in excess of $2.3 million. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. There are no residential uses within close proximity of the subject property. Vehicular traffic for this proposal is anticipated to utilize driveways proposed on Chestnut and Court Streets. The Pinellas Trail is within the East Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the east side of the property. Landscaping along the street frontages will separate on-site vehicular traffic from pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the Pinellas Trail. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. Chestnut and Court Streets abut the subject property on the south and north sides, respectively. These are one-way paired streets that will become the access to and from Clearwater Beach. Traffic for the proposal will primarily utilize these roadways for access. The site plan provides the required amount of parking. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The existing character of the surrounding area is primarily offices and warehouses, with a utility plant under construction to the north of this site. Most surrounding buildings are one and two-story in height with nondescript architecture. The design of the proposed building and canopies will reflect a Mediterranean revival style. However, the use is inconsistent with the intended/proposed character of the area. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. This automobile service station will operate from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. Deliveries will generally be made via box trucks, beverage trucks and/or semi-tractor trailer trucks daily. The dumpster will be located at the southeast corner of the proposed building and will be screened from view. Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 10 0 0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 16, February 13 and May 15, 2003. Inconsistencies with the pending Downtown Plan Update are significant and'have impacts beyond the borders of the proposed amendment site. In particular, an automobile-oriented use in the heart of Downtown does nothing to further the designed pedestrian-orientation of an urban center. When evaluated against the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the Design Guidelines and Community Development Code, the proposal is inconsistent with the goals and recommendations. The Planning Department recommends DENIAL of the Flexible Development application to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District (as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project) under the provisions of Section 2-903.C for the site at 657 Court Street, with the following bases: Bases for Denial: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines; 2. The proposal is inconsistent with and prohibited within the Downtown of the pending update of the Downtown Plan; 3. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the Downtown District; 4. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to Downtown redevelopment. 5. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803; and 6. The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. Prepared by: Planning Department Staff: A ?6?f 1- /1,2 Wayne M. ells, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Location Map Future Land Use Map Zoning Atlas Map Application \\MSSc\PDS\Pianning DepartmenAC D BTLEX\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\657 Court Auto Service Station\Court 657 Staff Report for 6. 17.03 CDB.doc Staff Report - Community Development Board - June 17, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 11 T I D E M A R K NIMPIITFH SVSTFMS Mr Case Activity Listing, Case #: FLD2002-12045 657 COURT ST 5/27/2003 5:51:53PM Assigned Done Updated Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 • Hold Dkp To By By Notes FLDD050 Land Resource Review 12/20/200: 5/5/2003 5/5/2003 None DONE R_A 5/7/2003 5/5/03 - R_A WW 12/20/02 - R_A a) Show the trees drip line on the Paving and Grading Plan. MET b) Provide a Tree Preservation Plan. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) and how you propose to address these impacts ie; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barric, detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. NET c) It appears that most of the trees are to be removed from the site - replacement will be required inch for inch or at $48/inch prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. NOT MET FLDDOI O Stormwater Review 12/20/200: 1/7/2003 4/29/2003 None DONE RJM 4/29/2003 Prior to CDB review the site plan is to address storm water R M attenuation. This site will not qualify for storm water payment-in-lieu of retention as it contributes to aflood prone area on Chestnut Street. The existing site has a stormwater detention pond with an outlet control structure an d pipe tieing into the Chestnut St. storm system. It is recommended that the existing pond be expanded to accommodate the increased runoff from the proposed project. The revised site plan is to address all the criteria as outlined in section H of FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATTON.(met 2/4/03)(revised plan approved 3/29/03) 3/6/03 - Drainage acceptable, as long as Environmental (Te>• Finch) is okay. - WW (per RJM) FLDD020 Fire Review 12/20/200: 2/4/2003 None DONE J_C 2/4/2003 1) The shown building orientation will not allow the attendant J_C to meet the requirements of State of Florida Statute 546.141, State Fire Marshal Rule 4A-49.004, NFPA 1, Section 28-2.8.4.3 or NFPA 30A, Section 9-4.7 2) Provide a Fire Hydrant within 300 feet of the structures and on the same side of the street and of the railroad tracks. **SEE CONDITIONS FLDD030 Park & Rec Review 12/20/200: 1/9/2003 None DONE DWR 1/9/2003 No P&R Comment since nonresidential property less than 1 DWR acre. Page 2 of 7 CaseActivity-rpt Case Activity Listing 5/27/2003 '4 5:51:53PM T I D E M A R K Case #: FLD2002-12045 COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. _ 657 COURT ST Assigned Done Updated Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By By Notes FLDD040 Solid Waste Review 12/20/200: 5/2/2003 2/7/2003 None DONE TJG 5/2/2003 see conditions 2/07/03 TJG FLDA140 Site Visit 12/20/200: 1/13/2003 None DONE FLDA010 Application received 12/19/200: None DONE WW 1/13/2003 WW WW 12/20/200: WW • • Page 3 of 7 CaseActivity..rpt A T I D E M A R K COMPNTER SYSTEMS- INC. Case Activity Listing Case #: FLD2002-12045 657 COURT ST 5/27/2003 5:51:53PM Assigned Done [ipdaled Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 ' Date 3 Hold Disp To BNBy Notes FLDD012 Zoning Review 12/20/200: 5/2/2003 1/13/2003 None HOLD WW 5/2/2003 5/2/03 - WW WW a) Address compliance with the Downtown Design Guidelines with the new site/building design. A memorandum was .previously submitted detailing how you felt the project complied (dated January 29, 2003). b) Note: A Unity of Title will be required to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. c) Note: Staff is not supportive of the use, as it is not permitted under the Downtown District or the underlying land use classification of Central Business District. The policy dire from the City Commission is not to support auto-oriented u within the Downtown District. J d) Place the note on Sheet AM that the bands and accents on structures will be two shades darker than the general wall color J (buff yellow). e) Sign age, since not shown, may be required in the future to be reviewed by the Community Development Board when J submitted. 0 The dumpster enclosure must be finished and painted to match the main retail building. Place notes on Sheet A1.1 for this purpose. f g) A minor detail relates to the truck turning path from Chestnut Street on Sheet TI. 1, as it assumes that the truck will be turning from the southernmost traffic lane across the other east bound traffic lanes to access the site. There will probably be sufficient area for the truck to access the site with the truck in the northernmost traffic lane of Chestnut Street. J h) Provide the amount of interior green space (minimum of percent of the paved vehicular use area) as part of the site dato on Sheet Al. 1. i) Provide a narrative as to the developer's intentions of the existing train station, as to whether it will be completely destroyed, relocated or why it could not be incorporated into the site design. j) Submit responses/revised plans to a-i above prior to CDB revi ew. 3/6/03 - see Staff Report - WW 1/13/03 - WW a) Dimension the width of the landscape buffer areas along Chestnut Street, East Avenue and Court Street. b) Provide an explanation why the terminal landscape islands adjacent to parking spaces do not extend to the full length of the Page 4 of 7 CaseActivity.spt T I D E M A R K COMPLITER SYSTEMS- INC_ Case Activity Listing Case #: FLD2002-12045 657 COURT ST 5/27/2003 5:51:53PM AssignM Done Updated Activity Description Date I Date 2 Date3 Hold Disp To By By Notes parking spaces. c) Site Data is provided on Sheets A 1.1 and C1.1, but the data is different on each sheet. Delete the incorrect Site Data from either Sheet A1.1 or CLl so there is only one place where Site Data is provided. d) The proposed site design does not provide adequate vehicular traffic circulation abilities for two-way flow when vehicles are fueling from the end pumps and/or when delivery and tanker trucks are on-site. Traffic circulation is and will be confusing to motorists when vehicles are parked in culalft locations. Need to discuss traffic flow. Staff has identified W several areas of concern regarding vehicular movement on the site; e) Note: A Unity of Title will be required to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 0 Note: Staff is not supportive of the use, as it is not permitted under the Downtown District or the underlying land use classification of Central Business District. The policy directive from the City Commission is not to support auto-oriented uses within the Downtown District. g) Place a note on Sheet A3.1 that the bands and accents on structures will be darker shades of the general wall color. The colors on the canopy and the main building need to match. In addition, render the elevations for the canopy; h) Signage, since not shown, maybe required in the future to be reviewed by the Community Development Board when submitted. Signage location indicated appears to be greater the maximum six percent permitted. Signage needs to be ei shown at this time or all reference to signage removed from elevations. Page 5 of 7 CaseActivity..rpt Case Activity Listing 5/27/2003 ,4 5:51:53PM T I D E M A R K Case #: FLD2002-12045 COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. 657 COURT ST Assigned Done Updated Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To Ii} By Notes ____? FLDD014 Landscaping Review 12/20/200: 5/7/2003 5/7/2003 None HOLD A_D 5/9/2003 5712003 - A_D - See also conditions: WW a) In general, the landscape plan is a good start but needs some more work. I marked up the landscape plan with suggested materials and design applicable to the current proposal; b) There's an opportunity in the landscape areas of the site to provide better landscaping - instead of just plugging in india hawthorn and oyster plants everywhere. Suggest planting a different type of mid-sized plant in front of the silverthom and a different planting in front of the silverthom (see the suggested sketch); c) There are better ways to treat the entrances to the site. I • suggest locating something with more color than just liriope and India hawthorn (see the suggested sketch); d) Instead of a continous silverthome hedge, break it up with something with color (like hibiscus, which is recommended in the Code); e) Address all of the above prior to CDB review. 12/20/02 - MTP a) (MET)Live oaks are spaced between 15 and 20 feet on center. This is too close - increase spacing to about 35 feet on center; b) There's an opportunity in the landscape areas of the site to provide better landscaping - instead of just plugging in almost nothing but India hawthorn an d oyster plants how about getti ng a different type of mid-sized plant in front of the silverthorn and something in front of that. I've made some sketches on the submitted landscape plan we can copy(NOT MET); c) (MET)In the landscape island at the southwest corner of building there is a 35-inch oak tree to be saved. I'm concern about digging all those holes to plan all those india hawthoms. Provide a tree preservation plan and think about alternative ways of handling that space to better preserve that tree; d) I'd like to see a general tree preservation plan indicating how the trees to remain at the edge of the retention area will do with the grade changes proposed (NOT SURE IF THIS HAS BEEN MET); e) There are better ways to treat the entrances to the site. I suggest locating something with more colour than just liriope and india hawthorn (NOT MET). 0 In general, the landscape plan is a good start but needs some more work. I provided a landscape plan at the January 16, 2003 DRC meeting that, while the site plan has changed, is still Page 6 of 7 CaseActivity..rpt -?e. 6 ? T I D E M A R K r.nMPIITFR SVSTFMC Mr. Case Activity Listing Case #: FLD2002-12045 657 COURT ST 5/27/2003 5:51:52PM Assigned Done Updated -Activity ' Description Date 1 Date 2 " Date 3 Hold Disp To By By - Notes - applicable to the current proposal. I suggest enlisting the aid of a landscape professional and/or utilize the landscape plan prepared, for free, by Staff (NOT MET IDENTIFY PATTERN NUMBER SEVEN); g) Instead of a continous sil verthome hedge break it up with something for color Like hibiscus which is recommended in the Code. (NOT MET) h) Address all of the above pri or to CDB review. FLDD042 Environmental Review 12/20/200 5/6/2003 5/23/2003 None DONE T -F 5/23/2003 Vertical walls not typically permitted on the sides of detention RLG ponds; in no circumstance will vertical walls be permitted adjacent to parcels of propoerty and on no more than two sis Stormwater treatment and attenuation must be managed in accordance with City of Clearwater drainage policy. FLDD090 Harbor Master Review 12/20/200 1/6/2003 None DONE MT? 1/6/2003 MTP FLDD070 Traffic Eng Review 3/11/2003 5/5/2003 None DONE B_E 5/21/2003 5/5/03 - BE B E Traffic Impact Fee must be determined and paid prior to C.O. _ 3/11/03 - B_E - The access entrance along East Avenue poses a concern with Traffic Operations staff because of the potential conflicts and/or safety hazards associated with vehicles from the proposed site with the recreational pedestrian and bicyclist along the Pinellas Trail and also the trains along the CSX railroad tracks. 2/12/03 - C_M a) Flow of traffic on site is very poor. b) How will deliveriesbe handled. c) Transportation Impact Fee to be determined and paid PAO to C. 0. Page 7 of 7 CaseActivity..rpt ?rir+i • • Oil Conditions Associated With % FLD2002-12045 657 COURT ST Fire Condition Joseph Colbert 562-4327 x3028 02/04/2003 Subject to meeting all applicable Fire Codes Not Met 03/06/2003 Driveway over vault area must be built to HS-20 Bridge Design-Show prior to any permits. Not Met Solid Waste Condition Wayne Wells 562-4504 Dumpster Enclosure must be built to City specfications, and shown on detail sheet Not Met Traffic Eng Condition Transportation Impact Fee to be determined and paid prior to C.O. Not Met There are no conditions for this case at this time. CaseConditons Print Date: 05/27/2003 ? 277A 2 ? 2770 w 1 loo 1 2 3 4 RI, 3 55 E $ R CRE'12t/06 a - - - - _ b +2/08 noo-m 12/15 21/01 rs rlllr,?-CO'ACHMAN -2297 as 1.,ro-ss7 11-2717' M , rre NO - 12/4 PARK IAaN UNARY m Its FORD & 3Id0YE 4-101 0' 10' u, ,s055-57s 2 n,e_,ns? m 12/03 1 ?± pr 77 I p0 MY Fo SL1N3Ef C' U Y1-7S aril e© 5 Q 12/02 if L_ n ? Q .... °?1 5 92 2t 20 19 1e 7 1540 [. 4 IOOYKS 4 P'. laS R[s 01339 9 s o > im LAURA STM07 3 41 I i AR VIEW CENTER 7 e I .. m0 ROMPONrS & BASKINS 7998-600 la ?? a Is ,+ +e _ aJ 87-1 E 7, 23 3_s 5 t 8 ,A 5 4, 3 ,' ?A F ? ? e- g Ai9: 1 ! R R CIEKUNO 8 Ci.R, e0) D I BAYFRONTUTENNI 1 $ -?I [ 1 10 "a 1 „ 4 $ I COMPLEX 12/09 z? 6 5I 4 3 2 2 2 a d. R DAVEY, z3 " j n 4 6 7 I ° so g 22 s $ 3SS I-®--- 10 21 S PARK --- u. m 3 20 1 CD ? $ ....J 4 12 19 2 it 4 00 _ Hl - 87 622 R17 13 2 is w 3 if ,d N Qk 0 ,. t7 e e 1 100E$ . . , = ?i.. s 5 nr +s 18 » s ti SaR, m rsa C 19-9 222/01 R PIERCE STREET B Y S ?PKRCE :2 A $ a ta m° ¦T/ 1P 13/07 p 8 Y 1 II r r. 9[m ,736J I ?? mt :a 13/08 ^ 13/01 tro 2 9 IN -? OAK COVE CONDO. S AID 6 7 e 24\03 4 T"7 F. 9¢p ,,,,, la 10E-92 g O G ?- ----- b 13/+0 a ?f3/04 S M7 n4' N a. 1e5 Y 13/11 13 02 ~ . / 13/03 / ear $ 8 p I ar Roo ? p ? .-.-. ? at 38 N I ,r 1 4 I j 2 4' 2 t 202 6 1 2 t '? 37 9 1`4 D= ,1.9e 922 AGO as °2 0 a t 1) 01 - R 14 ]S G S MEET p - - -- COUf[T K ... < ,x3-w t --- - `? - 6 a ?, 2222 TAW I 2 5 1ADD TUR ER '?. 3 4 +YO59o- p .... ° 4 3 1 4 I6 33 ?. i OAK < 3D K- 7 4m [n 4m a 1p -?- .«e .w-vT-- - R WRKLEY ST BLUFFS .N t3/+z 11 t 400 47 32 109 w 12DIARKLEY 2 D CONDO. ? , ? ,3 H1-87 3 ? 4? 3D? 25 8 102-96 .u z Its 1! a 5+ - we. N 3.47r c C 41 3 z 1 .a 4 3 2' 22 , e 6 4 3 Fl'px**a'p ??o ?S' ?S ' 9 / n/m NAM MOR"14 21 8 R STAIR STREET R I Y +:61 1 } 4 5 AD a I S. 6 m 9 A7 I STREET 8 I R €I ' .. ?. 2: '4 1 S 6 7 8 3 3 _: tee' ? ? - 4 S 1 2 '.. i4 9 10 9 81 7 6 • e tT1' 1 2 3` is u ,e U WORT II 5 LAMA Ill t STREET 1r III Itrullpi STREET Q I 8 ?.•_•--r_---'-sue I I s 4Is1Lt CITY OF CLEARWATER AND VICINITY f pDmum COUNTY. FImu PREPARED By PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION "'/" ,oo S Myae :,s. flwrreln. R 33158 Fw (TL71762-47-A Foc (727)526-4755 Mlp: //eeaa4aeaur-Lean/C0y?1palmmU/puDllc-eat,/englmer/ tllftla,mn: PWllc leformollon data Is UmfO d by tae City of demeater Pua,e Morq AOmslbtrolbn/En9heaRlq. and must ee DecepI d r rRelpd ew MMC1Mrt W pwpo?mof deM?Ng o gppd0la N/rpstraclom Aw,lay. Ae suer. the dey of deoreafer PNA/E. mode no eorrmlNa, ewrenad a Rngle0. oanamin the 1 [a -olet"- Of ae y other poriwa -rFW D[Mare. Uebdly of Werwaler PWNA/E osaaa4e na poeally enataoever .-d- W ellh the um a mwm of each dote. Uon9e* This Atlas page Is wjb eel to perlodle Fa Mar-anon newt latest re"wl plasm cob P A a ,Ml oar wo su N 0 100 2q0 400 600 , SCALE: t' - 400' LEGEND: O BLOCK NUMBER 1234 LOT ADDRESS -?- CITY LIMITS LINE r- SHADED AREA - PROPERTY ?? OUTSIDE CLEARWATER CITY LIMITS A AGREEMENT TO ANNEX ? CITY OWNED PROPERTY MDR ZONING DESIGNATION ZONE LINE uzaao m U04 10/07/91 m sms +QM193 m a64 a55A5,s6 41rfl 11 3 gSTRFET s I e K ? $ 2 3 1 s ,o vD ( , D 9 e 7 6 J _ REV?SED: 8/20/2002 ZONING ATLAS . N6 - 20F - SEC 5 E 2868 r L_J GCvd04 SE. 286A OAK BLUFFS CONDO 102-97 14 4 17 ha 17w?#r 2 Aq Atlitooln a awe. Al 4eU4 CITY OF CLEWINATER 9 I 1 AND VICINITY 2) 1 B t $ °g `D i PINEUAS COUNTY. FLORIDA R - ``m ~ PREPARED BY PRELU E 80 CONDO REPEAT 4 ; z , 4 ,p 3 2 1 ,• 1 6 6 4 8 i p i 1 44 11 1 1 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION ?? A ,pp S. yw1le A .we1C. FE 33M 8- o j $ 2 7 7 3 + 1 I rcr `- Ph: (7271562-4750. For. (72»526-4755 ROC ERS T REET : ALL 454 8 M4 ot7 s D) w 1 II 3 4 h11R//wew.tlaanalrr-Aearn/Clly?roorlmmU/pumk_?ao[in/arylmrr/ 1 5 ROC ERS S i - t 2 I 1 2 3 1 300 5 Dlsdalmer: toot HARBOR 1 9 4 c I y I A ® ea tlon dojo to fumished by the qty of Cuorwoter I bli t rm p 13 1 20 s I °°r p I u c n o o and must De ocoepted lneefln l"A/En P i k Ad Nbt W it I ?s A° QAKS 4 111111 2 1 d 3 1 2 for 5 7 a 1 ¢ g ub s m ro c or Hth the understondh9 Ih°t the dots and used by the reclol " led for the Pur gl ose W develoPtnp *9p d W a PLACE Sn I °? 4 3 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 - 6 OM 1 [nt 7 10 8 - 6 10 60o 9 P 6 A 7 16 15 14 1 p V was c ec ree Infrostrud . Inventory. A. suM, the Cny of gsanroto, PWA/E ted .-cam" the d CONDO 5 61 17 g L - 7 °n Q 4 2 sae - 6 9 t0 f C or " . mokes no wwro"t1o& egre»° ocvimmy. camoletenas. rfebDaly. or sulloblety, of this We for 1 14-21 8 $ 6 P a E 2 D 7 m 1 my other podleulor use. Furtharmor.. We qty of neorwwte iated with the use o t i h t l34 . 4 n ° p 6 R 8 soewr ass c ty w ebl o PWA/E o,,smes no l t h d is f TURNER a. a or m use o suc 8 STREET wm. . H=otry 71 + 4 CORDO 55-116 J 691 4 1 ea 3 2 ?? ea H1 e3 CAMELOT 2 + 2 4 3 2 t 2 t OAKS y 3 a / > -106 J < sae ao eo e woe R.T.MARKLEY o Io aoa A2 R -010. era rot It 2 at tot 4rr 10-28 sro 9H RE°tr ert r rR era e a 0 t ss 8 5n cis sfe 1 &3 411 011 oraa?4A 4 7,yu 0 2 42/m sro j 5E i I el 3 ' _$ ,?° 1 a vAam m74-Ne Ag T H I 7° 6 ' 1 7o°r of 21 81?a 1 >01 S 4 1 3 3 2 t >ao S . sa p roe 5 r 1 (p r ] is ro4 is E? I I g i : see >or ? Or 5 4 s ?i°v:4 3 ra d } Toe ror e 6 a I 6B g 1 t 06 ? Ro 77 29 27 12 5 21 27 1 1 17 13 11 5 3 9 7 w Q • I I ell e I n ao I >" 1 g j, I $ a 3a I a x t 7a s 2 1 I L' ' = a I' G 4 i 3 k aoa 4 3 2 ILL 1 3 E 1 7 Ioo 5 5 6 ) B 7 2 7 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 yy a. &J v 7 8 14AR OLD CT 10 9 6 7 6 10 9 8 7 6 s n - 6 •• 12 $ tt C l.' 3 p , ,o '7! ° B g Il 57RECT 8 8 P" !it ? not 7a his 14 q i I< g i T I 1 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 ? 1 B 5/ 3. t 4 0 e 1- 7 10 it g 1 +0 I B 7 f0 It 18 7 6 8 a 4 l I 9 ?I a e : B g s g This Atlas pope Is subject to pModk chmges. rot For Infgma9m COMA latest revislms please call PWA/E or e 2 v611 our web site, i 1 3 4 N • 6 15 14 s r$ >or 111 2 3 a 6 15 14 B I 1.0 aoo w ORU10 ROAD WEST 0) CNN $ g p >a w n °0 C : .C R R 4 a 104 aor 1 I I§$. 141 1 J 1 32 30 28 26 24 22 208 ITOA 18 `Its 1 I 12 10 6 la 41 T we 2 11 10 9 1 T A 1 2 ; 4 5 / 2 3 °00 } g 1O DRUHII L sar gg 57 553 518 to 9 47 43 s3 41 39 }7 }5 33 - 10 9 E eoa 63 51 I I I 14 I I 1 ear 4 6 7 B o 4 23 B 10 9 B 7 8>! K I 8 g 1 11 A Ira sot 5 PROFESSIONAL sap o 8 34SWNE , WAr S S o5 m B CENTER Be. % I I a a 56 64 62 1 I 60 58 1 56 i 54 99 7 951 93 1 HA BOR 87 1 I a 4 i E 8 Ior 528 52A 501 48 461 44 1 42 36 ]6 K ear 65 1 83 81 7 In 1 71 1171 11711 69 67 8 2 a°r t k R a 2 n fo s 1 2 CONDO A 1 2 3 4 5 is f0° 3 8$-121 aor 4 B 71 8 s 4 23 B f0 9 & a 6 I HACNOLIA 018K 8 &ACNCUA ORK roar - 702 100 g5 198 1194 92 90 BB 139 177 735 1 1331 131 '129 12i88s 7 125 I123 I 1 p I w 0 toes 0 81 Bd 82 160 78 1 78 174 72 701 68 12191121A ++I 117 1115 1 1111 1Q9 1Q7 iQS fro f03 lost I Z 8 8 mod fooe k 11 1 E AR . 2 it 70 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 2 3 {£ e =6['A Ci4O L I A e 1 4 s toot 3 PAR rose 4 6 7 8 a 22 21 ?20 19 IS 17 16 15 1 D C 10 9 8 7 6 $ g toro $ ' a LOTUS PATH V.-A III - g n " e I I 8 R , I iro?r lot t I * s . >i - 9 139 1136 134 732 1130 1128 120 124 1228 122A 1120 11 8 715 111 112 Ito 108 1081. 704 2 , fg"lllw 1 2 2 3 5 .r V .4 > S 2B 28? 5 24 S 22 2? 20 19 B I 1 6 15 to t3 19 11 f 9 6 7 6 I9 4 7 t [? } n3TDRre 21 90 .19 1B t7 le is D C +0 9 8 7 06 4 k ® e3 g ? s s a ? ?a..6m rD: 8fg6 -do I' 1 E R >u ^n I 4 M >1 H/ g D C? 12/02 rm0 al l5wr rV $I eo I e$ ? ia' ga w k? II' ? ?? £?' a' ??. 36 35 1 4 3 9 1 2 7 12/0; 12/01` - _- CAI 0 1Q0 200 400 SCALE: 1" = 400' 600 LEGEND: O BLOCK NUMBER 1234 LOT ADDRESS CITY LIMITS LINE SHADED AREA - PROPERTY OUTSIDE CLEARWATER CITY LIMITS A AGREEMENT TO ANNEX ? CITY OWNED PROPERTY MDR ZONING DESIGNATION ZONE LINE uaOro om p a3n os/m/714 m 5074 09/17/aS 5a.+ 01/([3/95 0 sled G1/20124 ® 596. a9/1sAs ® 8337/5330 1s/1s/s° 4W. EVANSON M H.a 04/19/01 ZONING ATLAS SE 1/4 OF SECTION 4 16 -29S-15E 2958 rea ' J" %° MORIONSUN r a -I W 7 6 Q i:i r 5 '? I 5 CROW STREET 'l' m's's ere 12/03 io GO g 21 8 4 rap rpr 7 rpr 7 O © 1 9 6 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 sz3s- a? neo- R NEt46NICK5 aQ R STREETR r 5I 6 9 zeo 12 02 ee e - t = 44 -- E L 11 m 7 4e ?.y 3 ,73 11 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 21 20 19 16 Ia 2 & I ?> I 0.e. ,aor5ot R 7 15 fe y m R x 1 too ?xe-ts 1411 a33 R F sisi7--+ei8 3 LAURA 57REET i ?, m -42 I0 LAVRA R STREET R EW CENTER 7° _? 5 2 7 0 - I d "3 2 1 I S NS 7996-606 A E. t 6 7 Gl 14 T21 144 6n g t0 11 re 13 d < STWAARE 04- 2 7 i its FIl s3 ?? °e ,§s re a h? 3 5 7 ,i;ARk3 9 : 16 11 to 6 2 D D 10 Ee 2 6 F. ?? 12 13 I 5 ti 3 e g 8 8 e5 ° g u Sera eM R$ ??S 1 : d k °s & .. . R CLEVELAND ' R w IS•R. 60) g STREET R I ` + 8 e a 0 8 rolil 22 (D J. R. DAVEYB n 7 J 2 RA' As s F 3$S $y 4E 3 I ON a 0` 3 a R R 1 w,. " ?! Rea 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 7 t 2 6 9 7 11 +2 13 d ? 6 7 8 9 ° 1p 3 6 8 I 1 16 'tl - -- - 1 21 STREET $ I S 0 R PARK 3 20 ,. Q, 9,t 12 19 4 1 2 I. S 1 7 4 5 s w 5 ? 14 a 14 1 1 7 6 STREET nP 15 ro res t 5 : 9 mo PIERCE w>-=. STREET R R 13/06 D p +W H v N 3 73/07 no 2 14 9 'ONDO. ra 3 102-92 ' 4 6 7 6 eoa 5 6 - 3 e , : , •. ' .4 s 7 6 3 mP 4 5 1 C' ? .{a 1 . g 10 9 BI 7 6 6 6 15 ..- 12 11 t0 I ma F < 13x0 ee m713/04 R I ht R r71"0' iFAN r w 13/03 +3/02 mr 40 39 Is $ 8 + '? ^ I err aoo 41 38 7 5 6 7 6 7 , 3' 1 1 42 37 B 1 2 3 4 $ 2 2 2 2 > z , ;= 9 -: ,era R ° 40 ? _Tze - 5 1 74 13 12 -7, 70 9 COURT $ rtes-w „ < 1 - 18 S5 ¦ 10 9 I6. 7 6 so S E ? au e a R_ E ? ? 12 I JR ER ° 1 2 t z 1 COAT 2 - S1aEEr 8 1 B M-M 3 4 S g < 3 DE K- 7 pr46 ,e 1 g 7 61 9 , 2 3 . s .Tr--- 4M 9MARKLEY ST 2 J ,3r2 11 , .era 47 32 .m -- 1 ea I 4 ao 72HARKLEY 2 7+ • 4th qt 6'?. 16 17 16 15 14 1} ?t211? 10 10 9 8 7 6 1 ' 13 H1-97 3 .? 450 320 40 4 51 T 3 2 3° , 6 .. 6 . 4 ear t 2 7 7 3 12 1 mf s ® 1 I iREET ! ee4 a r4 $ ° 9 RC47ERS 5 1REE7 - 1 2 3/ 1 2 3 4 5 a 5 1 A® a 3 2 1 20 ti 10 eM 3 g°, 1 VZP / 3 2 1 ?, °'0 -5 3 y 70 9 6 7 8 10 9 8 6 tF h ° en O 4 2 err em 6 1B $ -? eoe 7 p eTREET L $ s g fill NJ ; `° 2 t a S II 3 2 m- °° 1 3 z 1 oe ! Q7 / < El 2 A 1 3 & 1 74 .d0 I 4 3 on 2 , e 5 5 - 6 7 8 x 3 4 1 Z 4 5 s 6 1 2 1 . 1 0 9 8 7 6 10 T 411 NARClO CT 5 9 e 7 6 cop rn a g4q rr re 2 i .:/m pp err 75a-, 8 e 12 § tt 0 g g 10 N N R? ?8 ere•3$ $ 9 /1 ? STREET H ew. TR H ILT N $ P"4 ?I HAM11 c e sera 5 _,r pa 5 1 2 3 4 T 2 3 4 5 >oa p 1 w ° ge. i9? 4 w 3 2 1 6 5 4 3:- 2 1 8 18 ? - ? 4 3ype >o> 8 1 6 7 (3- 1 ® . 7 10 7 10 1 Ifi 7 6 ?1 p 17 13 I 11 9 711 5 3 "' 8 10 11 is 1 i I 8 9 g , e a 3e R s i 'm < g e L 1e 0 a R k 5 ROAD WEST - - ssts-s.. '9 w `. C >: B R a no .Er t 9 a ?` ?OB ?OA L1 18 ? 16 I 11 14 2 I 10 8 d 4 2 ma 2 11 10 9 1 2 A l 2 3 4 5 I I eaa 3 - UHILL 110 s DR 31B to p9 47 45 43 l41 139 37 135 33 epy 1 6 7 B v 4 23 B 10 9 8 7 B? B I e e • - a em = coo s PROMS10NAL WAY w $ is Y "2. A to CENTER IN S $ $ °'. $ ado Tor t R I I 1 ? boa 2 11 10 9 1 1 2 CONDO A 1 2 3 4th 5 28 52A 50 48 46 44 42 4 38 36 !4 Pudic InfamollM data is b nlm.d by ins city of elsoreaur Pub,re W.M. bmIn44olbn /Engh.erlnunq, and mu.t m oca.Pted d us d by the 101, with the deratondnq tool. the dol. 11 c.lwde was caleeled 1x the P.fp.se of devetaP7n9 o waPnle en"clilt uclure In>anlmy. As WM, the City of Clearwater PWA/E II ..ss no warantba ..p,.as.d or 4nPlkd, asminqq data it e accurac, compielene.s. leilablkly. w sullMlllty of lhl. data fa any amen Pom-lof use. rufmerm.re, the Coy of ciea,water PWA/E assumes no liability whots_ ossadated with the use mi.. of such data. This Allos Page b subJrct to Perbdb chonge> ra 1 r.rma0en about latest reviews Please can PWAA or .chit a.r Wen site. N 0 100 200 400 600 SCALE: 1' = 400' LEGEND: O nn++' BLOCK NUMBER [P a R 1234 LOT ADDRESS L ----- CITY LIMITS LINE -- OD at SHADED AREA - PROPERTY OUTSIDE CLEARWATER CITY LIMITS A AGREEMENT TO ANNEX ? CITY OWNED PROPERTY MDR ZONING DESIGNATION ZONE LINE trackm ; p sew ,a/mhs m 6T.S ,aN7AU Co sae. behsAw REVISED: s/20/2002 3 14 R 14 2 3 9 8 R VII PUB?C NOIRKS* Dd1N18?RATION ENCMEERINC lq0 S N le Ave, CTeaewoler. K 33756 ? -`'?f a Pn: (7x71562-4T5o, roc (727)s26-47ss mlpc //ww.asaww«-6.eom/tNy?roalmsnt+/puate_+alls/anpn.a/ DisnWm.r. Public btorraolton data 1. furnished by in. city of Clearwater Public Works bmInlslralbn/EngM.aNq. and must be accepted CIPI and way. thee ecl d Carl wine th he purpo ois=aping at taapnco Infrowi ucture Inventory. As such. the City of Clearwater PWA/E m.k.s he ruranlbw .spr..sed dr Implied, eonc.mMq lne clatci ..lroroop tom 'auess.. rrurDnllr . thebCiity of Cleawolerfor PWA/E .s,a - no liability wnals..ver °ss°cfolad with in* use be mlrv of such data. This Atlas Page t- %;jW11 to Periodic changes. For Information about 101 f -Aid d pease can PWA/E ,ist u o R. W 0"0 zqo aoo 600 SCALE: t- - 400' LEGEND: O BLOCK NUMBER 1234 LOT ADDRESS -?- CITY LIMITS LINE SHADED AREA - PROPERTY OUTSIDE CLEARWATER CITY LIMITS A AGREEMENT TO ANNEX ? CITY OWNED PROPERTY MDR ZONING DESIGNATION 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Gerlock, Frank Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 3:34 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: FLD2002-12045 657 Court Street... Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Wayne, assume Bennet E. sent you this, but just in case chip -----Original Message----- From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 11:28 AM To: Gerlock, Frank; Bahnick, Glen; Bertels, Paul Subject: FLD2002-12045 657 Court Street... Traffic Impact Analysis MA) The subject above is a proposal to build a 3,200 sq.ft. convince store with gas pumps. This has been an ongoing project with changes/modifications to the site plan and building. During the DRC case review, the need for a TIA was discussed. It was suggested that asking for a TIA would be late in this stage of the process. The basis for asking for a TIA from the Applicant is because the proposed use generates more than the 100 vph and/or 1,000 vpd ( a threshold commonly used by other jurisdictions to do a TIA.). Based on the ITE Trip Generation rates (6th edition the proposed use generates approximately: • A Traffic Impact Analysis will be needed, if it generates 100 vph or 1000 vpd. ITE #853 Weekday (vpd): 542.60 avg. rate x 8= 4341 vpd A.M. Peak Hour (vph): 17.17 avg. rate x 8 = 137vph P.M. Peak Hour (vph): 19.22 avg. rate x 8 = 154 vph This is written just for our records and that the expected trip volumes was addressed at DRC case review. If you have questions please call me. Thank You. Bennett Elbo Traffic Operations Division (727)562-4775 belbo@clearwater-fl.com Wells, Wayne From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:12 PM To: Planning Subject: FW: Media Update for 5/9/03 Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 ctarapan@clearwater-fl.com -----Original Message----- From: Wiley, Joelle Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:37 PM To: Aungst, Brian; Brink, Carolyn; Clement, Betsy; FitzGerald, Diane; Gray, Whitney; Griffith, Douglas; Hamilton, Hoyt; Harriger, Sandy; Hibbard, Frank; Jonson, William; Senior Management Distribution List; Shelor, George-Wayne; Weinreich, Mark; Welker, Terry Cc: Public Communications Subject: Media Update for 5/9/03 • Adrienne Samuels is writing a story about the events in Clearwater that are attracting more youth to the City, especially concerts. According to the reporter, "Clearwater is now seen on the street as being hip". In addition to the concerts, new restaurants are attracting youth. For this story she talked to Bill Horne, Tracey Bruch and Kevin Dunbar. • Jennifer Farrell asked Bill Horne about Fred Thomas's letter offering the City the building known as the Clearwater Train Station. In the letter, Mr. Thomas gives the land with the following conditions: the City must make a decision on the building within 30 days, it can not be used for use other than non-profit, the City has 90 days to remove the building from the land and there can be no rent paid for the building. • Lori Helfland (sp?) at the St. Petersburg Times is doing story about a website at the private school that the City Commission all signed a letter of support for. She was looking for a Commissioner comment. The website is www.clearwatervirtualtour.org <http://www.clearwatervirtualtour.orq>. It is a good website with a lot of Clearwater information. • Tom Sewell was contacted this morning by Beach Beacon Reporter Paige Goodman referencing the denial of a Right of Way permit for an Interconnect at Redington Beach. Tom advised Paige that we had not been officially notified of this action yet and that we would have to review and determine what our next step was in this process to secure Right of Way for this natural gas interconnect between Clearwater Gas System and Peoples Gas (TECO). Tom further asked her to contact Clearwater Gas Spokesperson Kristi Cottier next week. Paige pressed for information on the advantages of this interconnect and Tom advised her that it would allow both natural gas systems, Clearwater Gas and Peoples Gas, to have an automatic transfer of natural gas to reduce the possibilities of outages should an underground gas main be damaged thereby improving system reliability to both our customers, residential and commercial, along Gulf Boulevard. Paige had a deadline of today for her article but will possibly publish additional information later if needed. Joelle Wiley Public Communications Assistant Director City of Clearwater Phone: 727-562-4881 Cellular: 727-224-7034 Fax: 727-562-4696 Community Response Team Planning Dept. Cases - DRC Case No. Meeting Date: e)6 Location: &57 7 C'avrT ?ST- ra- Current Use: Active Code Enforcement Cas no es: rAddress number es o) (vacant land) d'-Landscaping (yes) (no) IJIA .e?vergrown (yes)(, a'Debris (yes) no .e-Inoperative vehicle(s) (yes) no uilding(s) (goo (fair) (poor) (vacant land) a---Fencing on (good) (dilapidated) (broken and/or missing pieces) a--Paint oo (fair) (poor) (garish) .Grass Parking (yes) no a-IRkesidential Parking Violations (yes) no z-'Signage (none) fok) (not ok) (billboard) marking (n/a ripe ) (handicapped) (needs repaving) w-15-umpster ( o (not enclosed) q,-'Outdoor storage (yes (no Comments/Status Report (attach any pertinent documents): Dater -), 0' Reviewed by: ('r- Qe (SLf\rA Telephone: Revised O J-29-011; 02-04-03 c 0 b Mh from Pagel 'fie planning department de- nied Thomas' application, citing historical significance of the for- mer train station restaurant site, potential traffic backup and the area's proximity to the Pinellas Trail, which runs alongside East Avenue as it approaches Court Street. Bikers and pedestrians would not be shielded from cars using the station, a city report says. Thomas has appealed to the Community Development Board, which is expected to hear the case no sooner than June 17. The gas station idea is not a new one, Tarapani said. The one gas station already on Fort Harri- s grandfathered into its area. H er, if that particular station ever falls into disrepair or is not used for an extended period, it would not be allowed to reopen as a gas station, she said. In order to build his gas station, Thomas would remove Freedom Park, a lushly landscaped corner of trees, tall grass, stone-looking pic- nic tables and 10-foot-tall jzranite- looking blocks inscribed with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Ten Commandments. Thomas built and donated Freedom Park to the city in the mid '90s but is angry because he feels the city doesn't embrace his park. He plans to remove Freedom Park and place it in another city - he won't say which one. Also at issue is the future of the Clearwater Train Station, a place that sells hot dogs and hamburg- ers and is a "mediocre business at best," Thomas said. The Train Station building was once a train depot. Built in 1936, the small shack is considered his- torical but isn't listed on the Na- tional Register of Historic Places. Thomas bought the building in the mid 1990s and originally hoped to turn it into a welcome center and envisioned working with the Clear- water Historical Society. Neither of those things hap- pened. Thomas owns the land beneath the UPARC Thrift Shop, adjacent to the Train Station, and it would be demolished as well. But, Thom- as says, he'd give 20 percent of his land sale profits back to UPARC so the agency could purchase a new building. According to city documents, the unimproved land is valued at $552,200. That price is expected to rise to $2.3-million in the future, according to the city. Maria Reilly was visiting Free- dom Park on Tuesday with her husband and daughter. They were out for lunch at the Train Station Restaurant. "This is the first time I've seen it," Reilly said. "And to think I work just three blocks away. It is a nice park. What a shame." Attorney Ed Armstrong, who represents Thomas, said he' will push the proposal despite the plan- ning department's denial. "We just respectfully disagree" with the planning department, Armstrong said. "Me stated objec- tive of the folks who object is to create a place where people live and work. They're going to need convenience store items and they're going to need to buy gas." - Adrienne P. Samuels can be reached at 445.4157 or samuelsQsptimes.com. z TO CONTACT US: Delivery: 895-1181 News phone: 446-6391 News fax: 445-4119 V Q ail: northpin@sptimes.com THURSDAY ® MARCH 27, 2003 Hot dog stand, park are fine for now Planners reject a plan to turn the Clearwater Train Station into a gas station and sandwich shop. Times photo-JIM DAMASKE The Clearwater Train Station is a hot dog stand along the Pinellas Trail at Court Street. Owner Fred Thomas wants to put a sandwich shop and gas station on the land, but planners rejected the idea. By ADRIENNE P. SAMUELS Times Staff Writer CLEARWATER - A historical landmark and one of the city's more interesting parks could disappear under a proposal to add a gas station to downtown Clearwater. The as-yet unnamed project is the brainchild of former city Com- missioner and Pinch-A Penny pool supply store founder Fred Thomas. He wants to tear down or give away the brightly painted Clearwater Train Station Restaurant, 657 Court St. In its place would rise gas pumps and a store selling cold sandwiches. It's all part of a grand plan to exploit the path to the city's new Memorial Causeway bridge to the beach, which will start near Court and Myrtle streets. "It's a major need," Thomas said. "Plus if the city wants to bring peo- ple downtown and all these develop- ments they talk about building ... where are they going to get their gas?" The city's planning department doesn't share Thomas' zeal for fuel pumps. Gas stations and fast food Fred Thomas thinks people will need a place to buy gas in a redeveloped downtown Clearwater. restaurants don't make for a down- town that is attractive and safe for walkers, said Cyndi Tarapani, plan- ning director. "In a downtown urban area, you don't want to encourage uses that are car-oriented," Tarapani said. Please see TRAIN Page 5 Train from Page 1 one planning department de- nied Thomas' application, citing historical significance of the for- mer train station restaurant site, potential traffic backup and the area's proximity to the Pinellas Trail, which runs alongside East Avenue as it approaches Court Street. Bikers and pedestrians would not be shielded from cars using the station, a city report says. Thomas has appealed to the Community Development Board, which is expected to hear the case no sooner than June 17. The gas station idea is not a new one, Tarapani said. The one gas station already on Fort Harri- sc grandfathered into its area. H er, if that particular station ever falls into disrepair or is not used for an extended period, it would not be allowed to reopen as a gas station, she said. In order to build his gas station, Thomas would remove Freedom Park, a lushly landscaped corner of trees, tall grass, stone-looking pic- nic tables and 10-foot-tall granite- looking blocks inscribed with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Ten Commandments. Thomas built and donated Freedom Park to the city in the mid '90s but is angry because he feels the city doesn't embrace his park. He plans to remove Freedom Park and place it in another city - he won't say which one. Also at issue is the future of the Clearwater Train Station, a place that sells hot dogs and hamburg- ers and is a "mediocre business at best," Thomas said. The Train Station building was once a train depot. Built in 1936, the small shack is considered his- torical but isn't listed on the Na- tional Register of Historic Places. Thomas bought the building in the mid 1990s and originally hoped to turn it into a welcome center and envisioned working with the Clear- water Historical Society. Neither of those things hap- pened. Thomas owns the land beneath the UPARC Thrift Shop, adjacent to the Train Station, and it would be demolished as well. But, Thom- as says, he'd give 20 percent of his land sale profits back to UPARC so the agency could purchase a new building. According to city documents, the unimproved land is valued at $552,200. That price is expected to rise to $2.3-million in the future, according to the city. Maria Reilly was visiting Free- dom Park on Tuesday with her husband and daughter. They were out for lunch at the Train Station Restaurant. "This is the first time I've seen it," Reilly said. "And to think I work just three blocks away. It is a nice park. What a shame." Attorney Ed Armstrong, who . represents Thomas, said he will push the proposal despite the plan- [ ning department's denial. I 'We just respectfully disagree" with the planning department, Armstrong said. "The stated objec- tive of the folks who object is to create a place where people live and work. They're going to need convenience store items and they're going to need to buy gas." -Adrienne P. Samuels can be reached at 445-4157 or samuels@sptimes.com. 'Northpinellas: Hot dog stand, 0 are fine for now, city says • Page 1 of 2 tter 1rQ_T11 ftN LINE TAMPA BAY ? r? do' t sier ?ueg ?Zc?nnin?:.. c5 Weather Sports I Forums I Comics I Classifieds I Calendar I Movies Hot dog stand, park are fine for now, city says Planners reject a plan to turn the Clearwater Train Station into a gas station and sandwich shop. By ADRIENNE P. SAMUELS © St. Petersburg Times, published March 27, 2003 CLEARWATER -- A historical landmark and one of the city's more interesting parks could disappear under a proposal to add a gas station to downtown Clearwater. The as-yet unnamed project is the brainchild of former city Commissioner and Pinch-A-Penny pool supply store founder Fred Thomas. He wants to tear down or give away the brightly painted Clearwater Train Station Restaurant, 657 Court St. In its place would rise gas pumps and a store selling cold sandwiches. It's all part of a grand plan to exploit the path to the city's new Memorial Causeway bridge to the beach, which will start near Court and Myrtle streets. "It's a major need," Thomas said. "Plus if the city wants to bring people downtown and all these developments they talk about building. where are they going to get their gas?" The city's planning department doesn't share Thomas' zeal for fuel pumps. Gas stations and fast food restaurants don't make for a downtown that is attractive and safe for walkers, said Cyndi Tarapani, planning director. "In a downtown urban area you don't want to encourage uses that are car oriented," Tarapani said. The planning department denied Thomas' application, citing historical significance of the former train station restaurant site, potential traffic backup problems and the area's proximity to the Pinellas Trail, which runs alongside East Avenue as it approaches Court Street. Bikers and pedestrians would not be shielded from cars using the station, .a city report says. Thomas has appealed to the Community Development Board, which is expected to hear the case no sooner than June 17. The gas station idea is not a new one, Tarapani said. The one gas station already on Fort Harrison is grandfathered into its area. However, if that particular station ever falls into disrepair or is not used for an extended period, it would not be allowed to reopen as a gas station, she said. http://www. sptimes.coml2003/03/.27/news_pf/NorthPinellasIHot_dog_stand__park_a. shtml 3/27/2003 Rlorthpinellas: Hot dog stand, are fine for now, city says 0 Page 2 of 2 In order to build his gas station, Thomas would remove Freedom Park, a lushly landscaped corner of trees, tall grass, stone-looking picnic tables and 10-foot-tall granite-looking blocks inscribed with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Ten Commandments. Thomas built and donated Freedom Park to the city in the mid '90s but is angry because he feels the city doesn't embrace his park. He plans to remove Freedom Park and place it in another city -- he won't say which one. Also at issue is the future of the Clearwater Train Station, a place that sells hot dogs and hamburgers and is a "mediocre business at best," Thomas said. The Train Station building was once a train depot. Built in 1936, the small shack is considered historical but isn't listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Thomas bought the building in the mid 1990s and originally hoped to turn it into a welcome center and envisioned working with the Clearwater Historical Society. Neither of those things happened. Thomas owns the land beneath the UPARC Thrift Shop, adjacent to the Train Station, and it would be demolished as well. But, Thomas says, he'd give 20 percent of his land sale profits back to UPARC so the agency could purchase a new building. According to city documents, the unimproved land is valued at $552,200. That price is expected to rise to $2.3-million in the future, according to the city. Maria Reilly was visiting Freedom Park on Tuesday with her husband and daughter. They were out for lunch at the Train Station Restaurant. "This is the first time I've seen it," Reilly said. "And to think I work just three blocks away. It is a nice park. What a shame." Attorney Ed Armstrong, who represents Thomas, said he will push the proposal despite the planning department's denial. "We just respectfully disagree" with the planning department, Armstrong said. "The stated objective of the folks who object is to create a place where people live and work. They're going to need convenience store items and they're going to need to buy gas." -- Adrienne P. Samuels can be reached at 445-4157 or samuels@sptimes.com. Home Business Citrus I Commentary Entertainment Hernando Floridian I Obituaries Pasco I Sports State I Tampa Bak I World & Nation O Copyright 2001 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved http://www.sptimes.coml2003/03/27/news_pflNorthPinellasIHot dog_stand_park_a.shtml 3/27/2003 • 4J w Fierce, Lisa From: Tarapani, Cyndi Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:14 PM To: Wiley, Joelle Cc: Fierce, Lisa; Gerlock, Frank Subject: Adrienne Samuels I just spoke to Adrienne Samuels re the Fred Thomas case at 657 Court street which is the prop6sed application for a gas station/ Conv. store. I explained why the City staff opposes the use-not a pedestrian friendly use, history- including two confirmations from City Commission opposing autodependent uses downtown, and the process-to the CDB for review. I also explained that the site was historically significant and eligible to the National Register. I think she fully understood my points-she had the staff report also. Let me know if more information needed. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director (727)562-4547 ctarapan@clearwater-fl.com • CDB Meeting Date: Case Number: Agenda Item: March 18, 2003 FLD2002-12045 B1 • CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: OWNERS: The CEPCOT Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc. APPLICANT: The CEPCOT Corporation REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Randy Wedding; Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. LOCATION: 657 Court Street REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. PLANS REVIEWED: Site plan submitted Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. SITE INFORMATION: PROPERTY SIZE: 0.95 acres; 41, 473 square feet DIMENSIONS OF SITE: 130 feet of frontage along Chestnut Street, 298 feet of frontage along East Avenue and 150 feet of frontage along Court Street. PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Retail sales, restaurant and park Proposed Use: Automobile service center (convenience store with gas pumps) PLAN CATEGORY: CBD, Central Business District Classification ZONING DISTRICT: D, Downtown District Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 1 • • ADJACENT LAND USES: North: Utility Plant West: Offices East: Warehouses South: Offices CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY: The surrounding area is nonresidential in character, with the area to the east more industrially developed. ANALYSTS: Existing Conditions The 0.95-acre site is a triple-fronted lot with frontages on Chestnut Street to the south, East Avenue to the east and Court Street to the north. The surrounding area is developed with office- type uses to the west and south, a utility plant (under construction) for the Church of Scientology to the north and warehouse-type buildings to the east. With the construction of the new Memorial Causeway bridge, traffic patterns accessing the beach will be re-routed to Court Street (westbound) and Chestnut Street (eastbound). Railroad tracks and the Pinellas Trail are adjacent along the east side of the property, within the East Avenue right-of-way. The site is currently developed with a restaurant at the northeast corner (old train station), a retail sales (thrift) store at the northwest corner and Freedom Park (private) on the south side. The restaurant/historic train station is located immediately west of the Pinellas Trail. All existing improvements will be razed as part of the redevelopment of the site. There are some large trees on the southern portion of the site worthy of preservation. Proposal The proposal includes the redevelopment of the site as an automobile service station consisting of a 3,200 square-foot retail sales/convenience store and two gas pump structures (one on the north side; one on the south side). The convenience store is proposed generally midway between Court and Chestnut Streets, on the west property line. The building is set back from all road frontages, with parking in front. This is a suburban-style design. Access is proposed along all three fronting streets. The required amount of parking is provided, located primarily to the east of the store. A number of large trees, including a 35-inch oak tree, are being preserved. The proposed convenience store and gas canopies will have pitched roofs, finished with terracotta tile. The building and gas canopies will be painted buff yellow with forest green window and door frames and accent banding in a darker shade. No specific tenant is identified at this time, so only attached signage areas are shown. Both freestanding and attached signage must meet Code requirements. The applicant proposes two canopies for the pumping of gas, one on the north side of the site off Court Street and the other on the south side off Chestnut Street. Each canopy will have four gas pumping stations (one on each side of a pump). Insufficient vehicular traffic area will produce on-site traffic congestion, at access points and on adjacent streets. The site plan submitted may produce "bottlenecks" at the northern canopy. Vehicles parked at pumping stations on the north side of the property may back up on-site traffic flow for cars and delivery trucks. Additionally, Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 2 • • many vehicles parked at the northern canopy could restrict a tanker truck from exiting to Court Street. Off-site problems at the northern driveway on Court Street could also be created when the northern canopy is utilized at full capacity. The proposed site design does not provide adequate vehicular traffic circulation abilities for two-way flow when vehicles are fueling from the end pumps and/or when delivery and tanker trucks are on-site. Traffic circulation is and will be confusing to motorists when vehicles are parked in particular locations. Staff has identified several areas of concern regarding vehicular movement on the site. The access entrance along East Avenue poses a concern with Traffic Operations staff because of the potential conflicts and/or safety hazards associated with vehicles from the proposed site with the recreational pedestrian and bicyclist along the Pinellas Trail and also the trains along the CSX railroad tracks. The drainage design under this proposal provides two small retention ponds south of the convenience store building, as well as a vault for storage under the parking lot in front of the building. This vault, while providing storage capacity, does not meet Code environmental requirements for stormwater treatment. It has not been properly designed (as a bridge-type structure) with sufficient grading to provide for delivery and fire truck traffic over it. The site is located within the Downtown District, a designated redevelopment area. An automobile service station is not a permitted use in the Downtown District. This request is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as the only method the use can be requested within the Downtown District. With the adoption of the Community Development Code in 1999, automobile service station use was specifically not included as a permitted use in the Downtown District, rendering all existing automobile service stations in the Downtown District nonconforming uses. Land Use The City Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives that are applicable to this project are found in the Future Land Use Element as stated below: 2. Goal - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engi- neering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas and encourage infill development. 2.3 Objective - The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay dis- tricts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of the City's Community Development Code. 2.3.3 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to implement the De- sign Guidelines, adopted in 1995, for all development within the Downtown District. The proposal is inconsistent with these goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan because it does not protect or maintain the existing historic property (discussed later) and does not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines. The Countywide Plan Rules establish a plan category of "Central Business District" which allows cities to designate the boundaries of their urban center, prepare a specific CBD plan and Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 3 allow downtown development with mixed uses at densities and intensities greater than in other parts of the City. Since at least 1976 when the first downtown plan was created, the City of Clearwater has identified the downtown as an urban center and the City's principal activity center. Over the years, there have been many downtown plans created with the current plan adopted in 1995 entitled "Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan." The Redevelopment Plan establishes five general goals for the redevelopment of downtown. Two of the goals apply to this request. Within each goal, the Plan also establishes objectives and policies. The proposal is evaluated against each goal, as follows: 1. People Goal: To redevelop downtown Clearwater into a successful 'people place" that attracts, retains, and inspires those of all ages and incomes to use and enjoy the community town center. The objectives and policies of this goal highlight the need to encourage new residents to downtown, to encourage employment downtown through convenient transportation and parking, and to become the link among downtown, the City at large and the beach. The goal recommends that the downtown become a destination for beach residents and visitors while proactively utilizing the historic and waterfront assets as visitor options. The auto-orientation of the proposed use will detract from the pedestrian and historic preservation objectives of this goal. The proposal is inconsistent with the People Goal of the Redevelopment Plan. 2. Movement Goal: To redevelop downtown Clearwater with an efficient, high quality, multi-modal movement system with supportive and visually positive terminal and transition facilities for all modes. The objectives and policies for this goal recommend establishing East Avenue as the Pinellas Trail corridor through downtown and encourage bike movement around downtown. The proposed use is expressly for the convenience and service of automobile users. The site circulation includes a three access points, one on each of three road frontages, including a full- access curb cut on East Avenue/Pinellas Trail. The proposal does not encourage safety for bicyclists. The proposal is not consistent with the Movement Goal of the Redevelopment Plan. Downtown Plan Update The Planning Department is currently in the process of updating the Downtown Plan. The City Commission held its first workshop on the Downtown Plan update in October, 2002. At that meeting, the general concepts guiding downtown development were discussed. Specifically, the Commission agreed that automobile oriented uses, such as gas stations, convenience stores and drive-thru facilities, shall be prohibited in the Downtown Core and including the Court/Chestnut Street corridors. These uses shall also be prohibited at the major gateways to downtown (at a minimum, locations include the Highland/Gulf to Bay/Court intersection). The City Commission specifically looked at the Court/Chestnut Street corridor recognizing it as the primary access to the beach. The City will be funding streetscape improvements to further the gateway into downtown and the beach. The City Commission, on January 27, 2003, affirmed their decision to prohibit automobile oriented uses from the Downtown Core area and the other five sub-districts within the Plan. Approval of the proposed (not permitted) use may encourage other inappropriate uses. Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 4 • • Historical Information The City of Clearwater retained Archeological Consultants, Inc. in February, 1998 to conduct a historic preservation survey of the Clearwater Central. Business District and Old Clearwater Bay. The resulting document, Clearwater Historic Preservation Survey and Planning Project, identifies and documents all buildings, not previously surveyed, constructed before 1947 within the project area. The survey was conducted according to the standards and criteria set forth by the Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Historical Resources. A property is eligible for inclusion in the National Register Of Historic Places if it meets one or more of the National Register criteria. This includes that the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, site, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Additionally, other criterion include that the property is: associated with event that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history; or, associated with lives of persons significant in the past; or that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Properties may be nominated to the National Register in one of three categories: as a single (individual) property, as an historic district, or as a multiple property. The subject site includes a building that was identified as being potentially eligible for listing in the National Register. The site contains the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Depot, constructed ca. 1923. It is the only railroad depot remaining in the City of Clearwater. This building is significant for its association with the early railroad which helped stimulate the economic development and residential settlement of Clearwater. The depot is a good example of a one-story frame combination station (servicing both passengers and freight) constructed in Florida in the early twentieth century. The application proposes demolishing the last existing railroad depot in the City. Design Guidelines The Downtown Design Guidelines were adopted in 1995 and serve as a guide and tool for new development and renovation and rehabilitation of existing properties. There are two applicable purpose statements of the Guidelines to this request: 1) To ensure an orderly, high quality redevelopment process. Each renovation and construction should contribute to the overall image and character of the area. The proposal does not meet this guideline, as it does not contribute to a desired urban character due to the proposed demolition of the historic depot. 2) To protect and maintain historic features. Older buildings possess character, tradition, workmanship and a pedestrian scale that is not easily duplicated. The City intends to preserve the historic integrity of Downtown Clearwater. The loss of the last railroad depot in the City will forever remove this building type from our built environment and eliminate our ability to enjoy and learn about Clearwater's past through its historic sites. CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS: There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site. Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 5 PJ • A. COMPLIANCE WITH MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL STANDARD IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (Section 2-901.1): STANDARD REQUIRED/ PERMITTED EXISTING PROPOSED IN COMPLIANCE? FLOOR AREA 5.0 0.21 0.077 Yes RATIO FAR IMPERVIOUS 1.0 0.864 0.68 Yes SURFACE. RATIO ISR B. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (Section 2-903): STANDARD PERMITTED/ EXISTING PROPOSED IN REQUIRED COMPLIANCE? LOT AREA N/A 41,473 square 41,473 square Yes minimum feet 0.95 acres feet 0.95 acres LOT WIDTH N/A 130 feet along 130 feet along Yes (minimum) Chestnut St; 298 Chestnut St; 298 feet along East feet along East Ave; 150 feet Ave; 150 feet along Court St. along Court St. FRONT N/A South: five feet South: 13 feet Yes SETBACK (pavement); (pavement); East: zero feet East: 5.5 feet (bldg and (pavement); pavement); North: 5.75 feet North: zero feet (pavement); 23 (bldg and feet (canopy pavement) column REAR N/A N/A* N/A* Yes* SETBACK SIDE N/A West: West: five feet Yes SETBACK (sidewalk and dumpster); 12 feet to bldg) HEIGHT N/A 12 feet 21 feet (bldg); 22 Yes (maximum) feet (canopy 1); 23 ft (canopy 2) PARKING Determined by 41 spaces 16 spaces Yes SPACES the Community (minimum) Development Director based on use and/or ITE Manual stds Per Section 3-903.D., street frontages have front setbacks and other property lines have side setbacks. Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 6 0 C. FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT (Section 2-903.C): 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. Automobile service stations are not listed as permitted uses within the Downtown District. In order to request the approval of an automobile service station for this property, the request must be processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project use. It has not been demonstrated how the redevelopment of the parcel is impractical without the requested use deviation. The applicant's response is that "no variances other than the use itself are being requested with this application. The project's low FAR is well below the intensity standards set forth in the Clearwater City Codes." 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. The current assessed valuation of the site is $552,200. The anticipated value of the site is expected to be in excess of $2.3 million. The increase in property value is not expected to reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. The automobile service station use is permitted in City of Clearwater within the Commercial District and the Industrial, Research and Technology District (as a Flexible Standard Development use). 4. The use or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is compatible with adjacent land uses. Adjacent land uses are a mix of offices, warehouses and a utility plant (under construction). The proposed site improvements are consistent in height and architectural design with surrounding properties and within the Downtown District. The proposed use, however, is not permitted in the zoning district and is inconsistent with direction affirmed by the City Commission regarding the prohibition of automobile oriented uses within the Downtown Core of the update of the Downtown Plan. 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. There are suitable sites available for an automobile service station within the City. The City specifically did not provide for such use within the Downtown District, as the use Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 7 • • is not consistent with the downtown area. 6. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Although the application represents a financial investment for this site, the design, use and circulation aspects of an automobile service station will negatively impact the intended, long term character of the surrounding area. The proposed use is contrary to the Community Development Code and will negatively impact the redevelopment of the Downtown Core. Further, the proposal is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan because it does not protect or maintain the existing historic property and does not meet the Downtown Design Guidelines. 7. The design of the proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The site design for this automobile service station is a suburban in nature and inappropriate for an urban downtown setting. This proposal is dependent upon the automobile, dictating its design and traffic patterns. Urban downtowns rely on foot traffic with buildings and sites designed to be pedestrian friendly. The design does not create a form and function that will enhance and further an urban downtown character. The site layout will create on-site traffic congestion at access points and on adjacent streets. The stormwater design does not meet Code. 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking 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. The proposal is not requesting flexibility in regard to lot width, setback requirements (none in Downtown District), height or off-street parking. Flexibility has been requested for the type of use only, specifically an automobile service station, that is not permitted in the Downtown District. It may discourage the appropriate redevelopment of the area. 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposal is for a 3,200 square-foot retail sales building that requires 16 parking spaces (five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area). The proposal provides the required amount of parking on-site. On-street parking is not expected. The applicant has provided a loading/unloading area for tanker gas trucks on the south side of the building. A loading area is designed on the north side of the building to access service doors on the west side of the building via a seven-foot wide sidewalk. Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 8 • 0 10. The design of all building complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in the Division 5 of Article 3. The Design Guidelines for Downtown were created, in part, to ensure an orderly high quality redevelopment process and to protect and maintain historic features. The guidelines recommend that the location of off-street parking should be to the interior side yard or rear yard of the site. No off-street parking should be in front or corner side yard of the site where parking is highly viewable from adjoining street rights-of-way. The proposal includes a suburban-style layout with parking along the street frontages and building to the rear. It is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines. The utility plant to the north is being constructed with a Mediterranean revival style with a terracotta tile roof. The proposed building and canopies on this property will be a similar Mediterranean revival style, also with terracotta tile roofs. Landscaping along street frontages and interior to the site will also be provided. D. GENERAL APPLICABILITY (Section 3-913): Conditions which are imposed by the Community Development Coordinator and the Community Development Board pursuant to a Level One or a Level Two Approval shall ensure that: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The character of the surrounding area is primarily offices and warehouses, with a utility plant under construction to the north of this site. Most surrounding buildings are one- and two-story in height and with a zero setback. The proposed building and canopies on this property will be one-story in height. The layout is not urban, as the parking is located along the street with the building to the rear. It is inconsistent with other properties. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The Planning Department is currently in the process of updating the Downtown Plan. The City Commission discussed the general concepts guiding downtown development and specific character districts at two separate meetings. Specifically, the Commission agreed that automobile oriented uses, such as gas stations, convenience stores and drive- thru facilities (including fast food restaurants), shall be prohibited in the Downtown Core, including the Court/Chestnut Street corridors. These automobile oriented uses shall also be prohibited at the major gateways to downtown (at a minimum, locations include the Highland/Gulf to Bay/Court intersection). Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to the downtown plan efforts. Redevelopment of this site, however, will not reduce the value of abutting properties. The current assessed valuation of the site is $552,200. The anticipated value of the site is expected to be in excess of $2.3 million. Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 9 0 • 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. There are no residential uses within close proximity of the subject property. Vehicular traffic for this proposal is anticipated to utilize driveways proposed on Chestnut and Court Streets. While there is a driveway proposed on East Avenue, its use will be secondary to the other proposed driveways. The Pinellas Trail is within the East Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the east side of the property. Landscaping along the street frontages will separate on-site vehicular traffic from pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the Pinellas Trail. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. Chestnut and Court Streets abut the subject property on the south and north sides respectively. These are one-way paired streets that will become the access to and from Clearwater Beach. Traffic for the proposal will primarily utilize these roadways for access. The site plan provides the required amount of parking. The applicant proposes two canopies for the pumping of gas, one on the north side of the site off Court Street and the other on the south side off Chestnut Street. Each canopy will have four gas pumping stations (one on each side of a pump). Popular gas stations often have most pumping stations full. Insufficient vehicular traffic area will produce bottlenecks on-site or onto the streets at driveways. The site plan submitted will produce such bottlenecks at the northern canopy. Vehicles parked at these pumping stations on the north side can back up on-site traffic flow for cars and delivery trucks, as well as the trash truck. Likewise, many vehicles parked at the northern canopy can restrict the tanker gas truck from exiting to Court Street. Off-site backups at the northern driveway on Court Street can also be created by many vehicles fueling at the northern canopy. On-site traffic congestion has not been minimized. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The existing character of the surrounding area is primarily offices and warehouses, with a utility plant under construction to the north of this site. Most surrounding buildings are one- and two-story in height with nondescript architecture. While the proposed building and canopies will reflect a Mediterranean revival style, the use is inconsistent with the intended/proposed character of the area. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. This automobile service station will operate from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily. Deliveries will generally be made via box trucks, beverage trucks and/or semi-tractor trailer trucks daily. There may be conflicts with deliveries should all pump islands be in use. The dumpster will be located at the northwest corner of the proposed building and will be screened from view. Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 10 i • SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review Committee on January 16 and February 13, 2003. Inconsistencies with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and pending Downtown Development Plan update are significant and have impacts beyond the borders of the proposed amendment site. In particular, an automobile oriented use in the heart of downtown does nothing to further the designed pedestrian orientation of an urban center. In addition, the proposed site plan is not properly designed and conflicts with the Pinellas Trail. When evaluated against the Redevelopment Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the Design Guidelines and Community Development Code, the proposal is inconsistent with the goals and recommendations. The Planning Department recommends DENIAL of the Flexible Development application to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District (as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project) under the provisions of Section 2-903.C for the site at 657 Court Street, with the following bases: Bases for Denial: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines; 2. The proposal is inconsistent with and prohibited within the Downtown Core of the pending update of the Downtown Plan; 3. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the Downtown District; 4. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to downtown redevelopment. 5. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803; 6. The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 7. The site design will create on-site and off-site traffic flow congestion at the northern canopy. Prepared by: Planning Department Staff: /,, La,? m - L,1k& Wayne . Wells, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Location Map Future Land Use Map Zoning Atlas Map Application Staff Report - Community Development Board - March 18, 2003 - Case FLD2002-12045 - Page 11 Page 1 1 F-xJ Original Update (give site #) FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE Version 3.0 11/96 Consult Guide To Historical Structure Forms for detailed instructions. Site Name(s) (address if none) Seaboard Air Line Railroad Depo Survey Clearwater Survey and Planning National Register Category (Please check one: consult with Site File before using last four): LX 1 building I-' structure Recorder # Field Date 07/16/97 Form Date 10/23/97 Multiple Listing [DHR only] Survey # [:1 district [-I site El object a•.,,ti„•.., ,,,.,.?r.,,,,,,,,.,.;..,.,•r,.;.; •i.,,..;...,,,.,.;.a, ,,;.,,.a,,,;.;.,r.,,y , ?. ,;.,,ti,,,,,.,.?.«a ,?ti,,?a,.?, :" „a,s..??„ „ .;r.,1,;.,•.,}, •.a,;.}u{},v,.;• :.. .... „w`.^•.?tiaa,x,,,,. ,.,, 1v..,.a...,.•.,...,.•.,.....a.,....ixi\,.?,:., „ \"•,C`i, ,Kia xi v.%;`.$.,, \.fi, , ..1a,. 4l. ti:a+.l. 1 T. ?? 1 hY`a >.1.?? iM1?a",'•'.} \ %, k.•. S %. S. SSv.• . ti. , ?11,11}S, ... %h•.x ,4 .\ ?tiat ..?., ?va, .?,\ •., `,2•. \\i\ .hK4`?ti..,,1.,,,x,;.,,+>, t.,,.,ti,.y,.,.,M1y., `;? .,`.`:. „ Sa+? •`•...., a,atitia.,•, „ ., ?.4,?.a•. ..1 v, \ •.v4vt 1?:i4y;.•y,a ti••;1x+•r.a•.,,av. a•,? a. 1.. •:,ti '•? ??, t. ? ?• ?, ?'`, , %+,? v\vtib4\e`'fi`?\a\'ti titia.`ti,?,:,Uo?at?ti?."ti',,.a,1? ti'`,s?.titi ,''Lvv v;.:,,>:.ii?:::.!:;c.:;..:ir.:x;;•1.x.:,a:.is:,a;:,:,,:,w.yit:?cw.,,.:,Y.sti,:.i;,:.c..xa? ?,,,•.,,.?,..,..,,. ,av.,,as:.,,:..,..,,.,.,,,:.,,.,•:s?,`,?;, ,fi.,...,a...,,t•Y,??','?,?i,,,.v'.,','x,•,.,.t?;,>;\v.? Address (Include N,s,E,w;#;St.,Ave.,etc.) 657 Court Street Cross Streets (nearest/between) S. East Avenue/S. Garden Avenue City/Town (within 3 miles) Clearwater In Current City Limits: [K y , n .7 unknown County Pinellas Tax Parcel #(s) 162515 18648 013 0090 Subdivision name Court Square Block 13 Lot 4 Ownership (Please check one): ::X] private-profit U private-individual LJ city CJ county Native American 1 private-nonprofit J private-unspecified -7 state ! federal foreign F-, unknown Name of Public Tract (e.g., park) _ Route to (especially if no street address) • 0 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE FORM Site #8 PI8422 corner of S. East Avenue and Court Street „ 4\RP rh\V\ l\L* \\,rtiar\l '.l*.Yr. r?:•. YrTYY•ri,gtr,ti•:Ptvti »TY•'ti \ ". Rt?, i T\\•tN,r, \+. r?.i itiQ %Vt•:1lYY't ti•.YY?V\k ti \ti^.: '•? t•?lttt. Vt:tiA'tt :\^.ti•Vt.:•?ii r'• .titit '?.\rt :1'tR' Y, . ', ,;, •l .a4 r r r .r..,??, rrt'•ttit:::V?Y.it.+:PtN:t ^:t: NthY \'tt%.:ti?Y•:S}K.'S,Y +: ...'\;}?;:?,.V??%i , \r 1. ..\. •.:a,. .a?•a,a ti . tXl \i iY.....•. T. % ...... .. ....................... . . .. .. ... ... Y.. ... ........, .. .. . . ,,.,a .••r •r. .1? ••r••rr •a,vr ar r:?:r\•rrv ,•rh?a•.Y,.?.,•.,t•`•.•.•r ?at., .l .. ?,i, ,}1:? ..a'?.., :.,fi¢•1%%•,• .,•,•.,,?.}v.; a';•,•¢'ti }:.;.•.??`.. ..r'1.. i1y.`2%r`..r':{av:%:•'%%:`v:•:`.%.%k%r•,+titirr. .. •ti ;.:.;i:"iirr,.•{•.:i.. .\ av \v=a{`,, rii, .a a.L i `. la at::ii+:i?%:ilti?•?`i\i+i:%.•..•.... M.,,., ,.,a„.},,.q •.hl'' „ vti. +,. •. .•+.,;;a.,,,.%u:{::?••,•;•;pr...r....•..;rr ............:.•;:'•.a. .14.ti•.•. \i?v:•r.%'r,:%. ?t. .. .. .. ,;.a.; t?ix.;ti ?\.•, an.,...•.., .•..\ .,,\`,,.... .. a,.. rr ::•:i•:?xr%xii;s::• ...2,. ,+x,^•.2•:Y:.2<`., `rr.,•rr:: r.,,,a ., \ \.a\aaa ra al•.,, ,?;`„ . ?.. „ +^.K. , •,? .::. :.,vr.a• •••vv, vf`?!? ::T:i'::•,•yi•,Y•i . .}:titir;•::• ,%a,,.,. a., r.,,a?•.,;.,+.v a }, .}::;.iti'fiti i': i;%::%: a%`+.\ai:i:'i%:%:tititi?: •t:•:ititi•. +,a,•)?\a\,,1,...::'?:%::,•%::::;r,,.:?:?>rSSxL•`.;.....•;....,.v;,h<:.a:??..x?;:.v:;:`i•'i:"Z•`::s?ive;:aw ::.....:...:::...v?,..,.,,,,,v,<,,.?\,:.,,,.?,..?'«.cS,`vv`v\v?i,:.`ai ?..,?«£av'a.?`?,iwaxxx??;R::a?i',?,?'av?.\a,wr?d USGS 7.5' Map Name & Date Clearwater 1974 (Photorevised 1987) Township 29S Range 15E Section 16 1/4 section: - NW El SW 7: SE X NE U Irregular-name: Landgrant UTM: Zone - 16 F_7 17 Easting Northing Plat or other map (map's name, location) YY•,??:, Yrt.Yr:ttt:•.Y-.:::.a'tt.•ttt:,rrt.Y•t;.t:.'..•,<,YY Y,.,t "txtaYrtt:...t:tr:.r?< t..-.;Y'tt:.,':,r.<„'tt.YY :aaa la Y„ a,«u•.,aaaa„av.•aY.aa.aaaav. •"•t'^.t;C.s": t:<^v: xtrx}' viii aaua:•.x, .. . ...... .......... .. `..?}as......}ia;.?,,;.,.aa«a«:.?u.aa; «aaaa;. rav,?a;.ya;.;.a,a;... ??ai?avva+.,vih; •.,iv.?...,..... ??' ???:\?i. .•.ay.•v..•. v..., a.•.r ..,...Y... ., ,;..::%%?? :•.,,,..,. ;.;.•r..•%•nyti; . ,+,%+ ..%..,.a,;;.. irri{.vr.aM1 vy, ?ir.,,a `y}\ . •S t •:•?'i\ii:+rr. rr. •.\aaY4.•`,,.:,, •::.•.:%+.•....... r.....,,..p%x.i,. ;.v,..%1..? , r.?:: ,a,.•.,..+.., ..?, .,?a?,`1v: ,•ih... ,...... .. 1.. %r`"rr.... x \+„? .na..ar.,..,,v. \a..,, ..5. .... S :.......:.r:rr: rr r:.,v......?a.,,.,.,..... \a?..a..,.,a.,?,.•..?ha.a.a.•...•...,.,.1........v...,,•.. :.. ., ., ,•.x.,: •., S ;.•.•.;.,.}.?. 44%. `: •: ` ,..\::.ri;:}i:?,k. •:.. .. ?.. •+l},.r.` ..+, a`•rr.•.a•.,•.,a,•. •"+.•.,•..,...:.,rr±r. •:r•• ,.:r••:.,,arrrr: •, . .:, r..t,,, ..k,, y ?;.a..; ., .,,\..?., a;.,?gy, ...,`?::ia•;:.`•,•.,^a:•r•`a;':; ..;;;?..%,,,%,,,, . rr:.r.,•;.,•.a„•rrr .r:r ••.:•...r.•., s......... ,,.,...... •%Y.. , . •. , .., rar;:•s:•:a •', .;•a? .2,`•. , r.`a\:;`,•:..`,"a, `aa ti. a •:: h, ., •...;:r.}vrr"... ........•.r.`ivv??rrv.•.,??.•......... r.•.,}v,•.v v...... ..,\. a...,A.,.•.vaa,,.k .y?F?y ??,}.•.. .•..,.;...,a.•..ti+,,.•.i•:},,.+.i ,;.,;?,'. .,,::.'fi?,i}fit}} ?.%,M1V.?l +,?a., tia ti%.'\?:4???:•'`v:?•`.::•':':.%,`.:`;;:t<a:::xa::,:::.. v...\..;, x,?'.ayea:?C,x,Q.?xa:;«::,'.ti?'::.l:;.a::a?,::.a.a:?.?vl''i,'_??F???.,?:?:.?a\,';.:.:..,<.,'.<a:,,\?a„\?.iv„tia?`',tiv?..\a?„a???aaroe;aa?ti.,'`,'Y<tk:?`?\v?'Ye,1i,\::a\'.ava??',\ 'Style* Frame Vernacular Exterior Plan* Rectangular Number of Stories 1 Structural System(s)* Wood frame Foundation: Type(s)* Continuous Material(s)* Poured concrete footer Exterior Fabric(s)* Stucco Roof: Type(s)* Hip Material(s)* Composition shingles Roof secondary struts. (dormers etc.)* Hip dormers Chimney: No Material(s)* Location(s)* Windows (types, materials, etc.)* DHS; wood; single; 6/1. Main Entrance (stylistic details) Four entry doors (2 at E. elevation & 2. at W. elevation); three light transoms; one-light doors. Porches: #open #closed #incised x Location(s) S/N/E/W Porch roof type(s) Exterior Ornament Continuous colonnaded incised galleries; columns on brick piers. Bay windows at E. & W. elevations. Boxed cornices. Hip dormers at N & S ends feature lattice paned windows. Interior Plan* Combination Station Condition (Please check one): (_1 excellent x good , fair deteriorated LJ ruinous Surroundings (N=None, S=Some, M=Most, A=A)Unearly all):A commercial -residential -institutional -undeveloped Ancillary Features (No., type of outbuildings; major landscape features. Use continuation sheet for descriptions of interior, landscaping, etc) Archaeological Remains none noted E] Check if Archaeological Form completed *Consult Guide to Historical Structure Forms for preferred descriptions (coded fields at the Site File). HR6EO6308-96 Florida Master Site File/Division of Historical Resources/R.A Gray Building/500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phone (904) 487-2299/Suncom 277-2299/Fax (904) 921-0372/E-mail fmsfile@mail.dos.state.tl.us Computer File P:IFSFIDOCSIFORMSISS _FORM_V3.ODOC Fick FWZ02--Iwo Page 2 • HISTORICAL STRUCTURE&RM site # 8 PI8422 Consult Guide to Historical Structure Forms for detailed instructions aa1,. :, , x. •.-..-..--,v.....--• ....... ................... .. ..... .. ..... ......... .v..v--v.-v-..v.-k.-v .v-.v\:•:\•: v .-.v.vvv.-•---.v:a.{.; \•:•:x. -•{•: w?:.:r•\,, ,•.•.a';.•vx::n v4,.? ?}'`av v\%••'v--•v}i'iv v -\,•,. .::},v.. •-\$:? is},%.:::,:::,•--'v v.\ r{i-}vvv? ..;ti:vv •-,h, , - 1-, , vv ?:.;,4-ti vSv'.viv •.• ` ;,-r-- '. `.\i `: `.'r: L`•::-•-{,,,rv v: •-v.•.•.,.vvr•.••.vsv.•r-vav: •:r {-•.'{ .,,-?}v,-:v .. ': ...",v,. {•. ;?..v .,.•ti.•rr:.vv::,:rxvvv,v:.v::?.vr-...-•---,•-••: ,--, xrv v...-:v •1..-,:•}: rrr- .. .. .. •i ? % ,,,:.-• .: vti\%• }, .:, - -v!ti;.}:i•.:y; ry• v ,r', . , , h, x-'iti-: ., l:, •. .{ X•S v - ? r••\4v .•.vv .,.r,.,.x:-,::-X{•???}}:.,: ,.v:: r: fi'-,vw:-,}X:,.:;• v-.v.-,r•-vv vv, .-v-:??v.?.;:. r.-vv.., `:•>c`:r't?.:°:?-•:::;?.5: ,i •a ,•:xrr<{,:-?,•::,a..,? r.?`e?:;.`-`-:: ,'':: +{;; ;2;:%is%; S:i::;,:i: :`.>'??:::aii.<-•, : . ,..,,,.... ?...,.,,a\'•i ?e:?i?kik:,2:i:;C.i.•`.i.•„ `:,•y1`i;\4Jn+.y?i;....,,.,..,..,...,, ...:.,....,,,.,u,,,,a . k \i;..,.,.,..,,,.,.,.,•.,,,.,b.,,,.:,lU,,,At,u,,,:,,,a.,.iM, .,,hvafit .a:,....:,,.,a,,.«., Construction date: Exactly (year) Approximately 1923 (year) Earlier than (year) Later than (year) Architect (last name first): Builder (last name first): Moves: yes no ` unknown Dates Original address Alterations ! yes no unknown Dates c.1996 Nature* metal crimp roof replaced; interior remodeled Additions: yes ; no unknown Dates Nature* Original Use* (give date ranges) RR Depot Intermediate Uses* (give date ranges) Present Use* (give date ranges) Vacant; in process of being converted to restaurant ownership History (especially original owner, dates, profession, etc.) 1924-50 owner:Seaboard Airline RR. Current: Porpoise Pool & Patio, Inc. *Consult Guide to Historical Structure Forms for preferred descriptions (coded fields at the Site File). ^T\°. SSA `21.av «1v,. ?,,.rv-, ;r.,::i -:?:.-.•?n•:: -:?. .. .. .? 1 "{ ? {,:? •v.,.? v v} ii},} -t:-.;?,:, v?..} 'it•{.???•{:%'.:;:vti ?'???;•v,??,i •ti?,: ::v'.?i ?'` .•.•.tia?i•. ?? `i`ce vr., i1. %{:Yip:'' ?i } ??; y ~?;.!!, %'.' K:•? ?j h :.,,,,. :1.,?. 1`A,?i,?1?C ::ti•.rti:2> ,x?: .' `•.?.?'••?.?•?:i>FiK??.fi?'.•'• ?W?? ' ,•,. .... a,.,. ..., ,..?!3?i.a,.,,,,.,,a???4'ir,,,,,,????, ,a,,,,,,, . .:. formal archaeological survey ; past surveys search at FMSF j] local library research' [K Sanborn maps ? informal archaeological inspection ; past sites search at FMSF non-local library research subdivision maps ? Public Lands Survey (DEP) = FL Archives (Gray Building) J building permits Q plat maps ? tax records/property deeds 1 FL Photo Archives (Gray Building) i demolition permits local newspaper files ?x tax records only J occupantlowner interview = commercial permits 7, interior inspection neighbor interview II occupation permits 7x other methods (specify) Windshield; pedestrian; Pinellas County Heritage Village Photographic Collection. «..,. .. .+... ................. . v„v ;,+•,+,:: s:..i :...•nv::,•m:x :,...., .,,..,s,t..•.: ,.r.,v;.., v.: ,, a,,: Cd vn}i,:..a}},. vr.,: r,..? ,-.. -v , a. -?k.. - .-T-...vv}ti:,.,} - .;\}R}, v.::,S,\: •C%.,:yti ti, ,}l„?: .vt.va ..vv .v.-•- -..,.,., v,..vn.?::::::?...:.,.,v:.: •:. .v •' :: ?%'::: •: -.. •- .\;.;v t,:,l, ?:: ??ti:{i\:::- .vi~:}\'?Q::%-%:i\ti?tiii?tiv?l' il.,.?:r>{r'{{iv:.;v:{.•.??r.';:r?:: Yiiv:•:.,:l.?y.»:.;;.; -• : t, ? •-: : {•,. ', r. { :r :. : .'fi., ?:::?'•1 i\'.,. .v:\y v, a`\i? vi` , \-, ,r-\.,a •- ?EM??:?%i y??Q(ti~ ::???p?'-, v, „?v v ?.{ ,,ate ?a,\,.a .,y 'y:{•.•\?a?'?`:ai,'.i;'.(,{: ,?l'i a:4: ???!`t•, ::'?. ••`'••?`.•••'•.•?-•v iR1Ra?`-,•'.?,,%wlil;?{?:,,,,:..,,.«,..,,,u„a:,,:?.,,.,,???::•:.1£a,,,,.-0u„u,a:a,:,,.?„?5,.Ya41?111:,,4 :,x.1., ., ,i,ti, Potentially eligible for local register? yes: name register at right - no insufficient info Name of local register if eligible: 'Individually eligible for National Register? ; yes ,. no insufficient info `` Potential contributor to Nat. Reg. district? Xj yes no =l insufficient info Area(s) of Historical Significance (See National Register Bulletin 15, p. S for categories: e.g. "architecture," "ethnic heritage," "community planning & development," etc.) Transportation; community planning and development; architecture Explanation of Evaluation (required, whether positive or not; limit to three lines; attach longer statement, if needed, on separate sheet) The Seaboard Air Line RR Depot is the only depot left in Clearwater. The depot is significant for its association with the railroads which stimulated the economic development and residential settlement of Clearwater. It is also a good example of a one story, frame combination station constructed in Florida in early 20th century. ,;a,?.,,lak,,,?„?„???;?,?:?:?,,,vti,,,,,,,>,;?';,,?,, .,?.,,x:zx-::^::z••:xa:? -ti-y:,;.,,:rr-?:?::.,.;??::,?.?.,.?,,.... „rzr-, },::...:.,,,,•-,•: r;, ?:-:,-?::.,,.,., •,•.:::a,.,•?:.: tirrr.,•;,',.•..,,,:•:?^:.?:?:,ti,,:..a t.,,,,S;.,h••. .}v:,-;.v. •,. •,: •vx::?; a: v •\\v:.•.,•.v..,• ?y vn\\,vv- v\v,• r:.a•±:•;::•`..:::i:S:i:: <:::..::'<cs::" ,',,. , >:a`?ti „ ',. `til ? , : ,..,.. ,ag.'1'i'•'.?ii:#? ? ?•. .,.,.,,?{,:>?:,'„•?;,ti?i;,ti',,,?.?;ti..»a,?','t,'sti:`.?','2??:iti':??,"l..•x.:,,,,;,roi•:ati %tiia{titivl?iti:'::Xii:ii;:%•:::::•::i:7?',+ia nv.,ii:14`K{„riiiti?:`}:::•:ii{i?til,,4,1•:,ti{•i'::,`::x:,»».i»„A».,,.»,,»,1.ti».nti»..,»,»,A.,,n,,»..n:nh•.:,a,?•:,•l,?S•l?•.•.,-.••,v..i?•.,- ,S». . Bibliographic References (Use Continuation Sheet, give FMSF Manuscript # if relevant) CD: 1950:20; 1947:240; 1944:336; 1941:204; 1939:197; 1937:168; 1934:158; 1931:166; 1926:245; 1924-25:42; 1920-21:(Street not listed). Sanborn Map: 1923, 29-60. Photographs (required) B&W print(s) at least 3x5, at least one main facade. Location of negatives & negative numbers Florida Division of Historical Resources :{.l: a?:?iiiv,,,v,.,?x???vi.,?v,.vi,v:.iv,;;.i},,. ti.,;{,v,.;?,:ti{•i:,:.v;,;.,,M1?.^.,M1i,.,,.; t; v,??????;i,,;,,,}:: ..,,,,,,....:.,,,-.,,,,-.,......,,.::.,,,-:.,,,.rr.,-.,v,..,,•::.,. .:............xii,-,.,?-.,,,,,,..,.:::.,.i •.;..?:c,;i'.i; i;iiii?; ,:.,- .<..,r.,,'...x,,:.,,it: ', ..:...,.,-x,ir,.::.: •>i ixiw' ,"aa•- »ti ,;,., •.:,.:,,a,k,. >a•-, fix :,,:r:.,.-ar:r::r::...,-::.r.,r:::::r::::.,•.:: r.rrr-,•..?::: ,•rrrri.,<„r.,•. ...., ,,,•: ,.::::.:. .. ..., ..-..--a- -v.... , ............ ................. »......,.,. ,.... »,.. ,,....,......,.,.v ,, r.,•:: Ar: :.. •: •. vrr:.•.•}•v:: r: •::., ,. ... :rr i.:: •. :::!•S,? r: ?.,:.:.. ,..:.•r::-v:,:vrrv:r.•.•.,v:.,v.,r.•:r:r:r::r:.v::,,•.•r.vr....,....... ,: .,...,.,»,i;.,.,::: `..: W:::: nv: v:.?.: •:,,,.::.. ., .,q{r .,.. , .. ,1•?.?1...\•?Sti.,v ., ., v ',..:nv: ?:. --1.?:v is r::;:rr.,.: ,.,..,..»,-::1•::,:::4:::..::::,•. 1. ..,T. vrr,r..,..ri, .} ,:\•-..•v: ,.,?,.rv,, ,, ,%vr,. ..i,..?, v;-vv,{- •••••••,avrr-•r:r.•vvv:: rr.v::r-,-.•.vr::.avv-•{.;,,,,, ...1.a...;;;; ,,,•:, L Sl,Ql'\`:ir::??:{.: isfi::{{: `:;:isi.?i::•:{•Xi{q??:{{-:•iXi•:ii{{•?:ivi::?iia,-::::n»,•:.»,v,•:.,v:?::,,y»..:::.,•.a,l•:i{{i{•,ll»•::::::::.»„•:x.,vn,.t,-:::::.,::::::}: Xiii;:,,,-n,».a.,,»,•,•,•?1.»..a..,,.»»,..:,.,'r».:n,?.»?,v,.',,,.,i.,.,,,,tin, ti»..»»\vv,.»,,,•,• Name (last name first)/Address/Phone/Fax/Email/AffiliatiorSherrie Stokes, Archaeological Consultants, Inc. P.O. Box 5103, Sarasota, FL 34277-5103; 941/925-9906; Fax 941/925-9767; E-mail 102052.2203@compuserve.com Remember: Use a Supplement for Site Forms or other continuation sheet for descriptions that do not fit in the spaces above. EQUIRED: (1) USGS 7.5' MAP WITH STRUCTURE PINPOINTED IN RED (2) LARGE SCALE STREET OR PLAT MAP (3) PHOTO OF MAIN FACADE, PREFER B&W, AT LEAST 3x5 V Page 4 s ?N Light !7 J G da1'i B *... RzmO. ji. 2,r ._ _ gym! h n .. , C\al\ ? i ??Ra(WTAN) C MN GN 3• 53 MIlS 0.21' 6 MILS U7M GRID AND 1988 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET • HISTORICAL STRUCTURE F >D? ;ST Fz:k: _ _ G -- ; Co ,:r z?Eh ?cn 14' ? elt r-e tE O LicKtc ) FiEiO fI?L?- ,r ie e: jl Sr.zr9. CLEARWATER, FLA. 1974 SCALE 1:24 000 1 .5 0 1 MILES 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10 000 FEET 1 .5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2 1000 0 METERS 1000 2000 Site #8 PM -i_ r PL a`12,?? Page 3 HISTORICAL STRUCTURE F(W Site #8 {> M ' j::•ii}ii::•iiii:. :^i}i:•ii; ............* .... .i::i<C•i:•i ii:•i::.iiiii:.i:.i}ih::i::+::i••i:.i::'.`ii;.ii:tG:!^i:•i:•::O::i• v:•i'::::.•::::4i:w:::!:::t:L:•i"v'<::; ....?: iiiiiiiiii:. ....:?:: ? is<;:;Y_•':::i::::•,:S> ..5...:::••j:::{.::i:::!:i:::`'':`::`$;:?.::;::::::::::L:::::::"!%>'?;ifi:y:?rFi.i?`Y:i:i::::i t I i vac. 7701 FRANKL c b -297 x0140 39300 96 00 41 38 42 37 > CO 3 6 .0 a 44 7-35- 4867- 1478 'I )° bo 40vlmol W ?1 wc. 1599-299 46 33 FJ1 [15 16 • MARKLEY ST b 0 47 32 iool ZF- 41jS 48 31 24y 49 30,2o vi 1 25 50 29 426 51 28 27 q 15 lL_-!?lJ I I I I I I STREET e b 6 1 cI b i 4 o9 2 q b b b b 301 303 O A , ° 7 2 ,.? 12 5 6 7 4 1 0 3 4 5 8 s ? 1 2 3 4 8 2 9 soa 1 1 19 10 S ibi 15 14 13 12 315 11 10 9 10 9 1 8 7 6 S U 11 12 1 14 16 12 b tp tp b b f4 8 O COURT w b t?Otdl6 b w °13 b b 5 53 1 2 4 6 7 v - R es. 41035 -- 4 18 17 16 15 14 13 11 111 10 13 b b $ b N b b p rp b STREET _ f-647 KI ZI STREET $ 1 2 3 4 5 14 1/a 10 9 8 7 6 140 n ? NORTH "Jwff"% .Conditions Associated With • Case #: FLD2002-12045 +.-Eire 3/11/2003 11:42:31 AM Condition Status Updated Code Title Hold Status Changed By, Tag Date' By, FIR1 Fire Condition Warn NOT MET 2/4/2003 J_C FIR1 2/4/2003 J_C Subject to meeting all applicable Fire Codes FIR1 Fire Condition Warn NOT MET 3/6/2003 J _C FIR1 3/6/2003 J_C Driveway over vault area must be built to HS-20 Bridge Design-Show prior to any permits. LAND Landscape None NOT MET 3/6/2003 MTP That a landscape plan which exceeds the intent of Code be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits. STRM Storm Water Condition HwO MET 2/27/2003 RJM 2/27/2003 RJM Prior to issuance of a building permit the stormwater detention volume is to be increased to 6400 cubic fe et per city criteria, approved SWFWMD permit. SW1 Solid Waste Condition Warn NOT MET SWR1 1/6/2003 MTP Dumpster Enclosure must be built to City specfications, and shown on detail sheet SW1 Solid Waste Condition Warn MET 3/6/2003 WW SWRl 3/6/2003 WW 2/7/03 - Landscape Isles need to be drawn back - TJG 3/6/03 - Landscape islands not full length of parking space. Discussed with Don Melone - WW TERI Traffic Eng Condition Warn NOT MET TERI 2/12/2003 C_M Transportation Impact Fee to be determined and paid prior to C.O. Page 1 of 1 CaseConditions..rpt Y 3/11/200 Case Activity Listing 11:40:02AM T I D E M A R K Case #: FLD2002-12045 COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. 'r 657 COURT ST Assigned Dolie pdated FLDA008 Amendment Application 12/20/20W None WW 12/20/200: Received WW FLDD070 Traffic Eng Review 12/20/200: 2/12/2003 None HOLD C_M 2/12/2003 a) Flow of traffic on site is very poor. C M b) How will deli verie s b e handled. _ c) Transportation Impact Fee to be determined and paid prior to C. 0. FLDD080 Engineering Review 12/20/200: None HOLD MEL 2/10/2003 1) Dumpster enclosure to be constructed per City Standards RLG Detail #701, 1 thru 3 of 3. • FLDA245 Documents attached in 12/20/200: None 12/20/200: PPlan WW FLDA235 Letter To Abutting Prop 12/20/200: None 12/20/200: Owner WW FLDA230 Letter of Completeness 12/20/200: 1/13/2003 None DONE WW 1/13/2003 WW FLDA244 D.O. Mailed Out 12/20/200: None 12/20/200: WW FLDA018 Tree Survey Recd 12/20/200: 2/18/2003 HwO DONE WW 3/4/2003 WW • FLDA130 Map Created 12/20/200: 2/27/2003 None DONE WW 3/4/2003 WW FLDA016 Drainage Calculation 12/20/200: 2/4/2003 HwO DONE RJM 2/4/2003 Recd RJM FLDA015 Verify Traffic Impact 12/20/200: HwO 12/20/200: Fees WW Page 1 of 6 CaseActivity..rpt T I D E M A R K COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. Case Activity Listing 3/11/2003 11:40:03AM Case #: FLD2002-12045 657 COURT ST Assigned Done Updated Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 HOW Disp To By By Notes FLDD060 Legal Review 12/20/2002 1/6/2003 None DONE MTP 1/6/2003 MTP FLDD050 Land Resource Review 12/20/200: 2/21/2003 None DONE FLDD010 Stormwater Review 12/20/2002 1/7/2003 3/6/2003 None DONE FLDD020 Fire Review 12/20/200: FLDD030 Park & Rec Review 12/20/2002 2/4/2003 None DONE 1/9/2003 None DONE R A 2/21/2003 a) Show the trees drip line on the Paving and Grading Plan. R A b) Provide a Tree Preservation Plan. This plan must show _ how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) and how you propose to address these impacts ie; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan- must show actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barcica e detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation c) It appears that most of the trees are to be removed from the site - replacement will be required inch for inch or at $48/inch; and d) All of the above to be addressed in full prior to CDB review. RJM 3/6/2003 Prior to CDB review the site plan is to address storm water WW attenuation. This site will not qualify for storm water payment-in-lieu of retention as it contributes to a flood prone area on Chestnut Street. The existing site has a stormwater detention pond with an outlet control structure and pipe tieing into the Chestnut St. storm system It is recommended that the existing pond be expanded to accommodate the increased runoff from the proposed project. The revised site plan is to address all the criteria as outlined in section H of FLEXIBLE . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.(met 214/03) 3/6/03 - Drainage acceptable, as long as Environmental (Terry Finch) is okay. - WW (per RJM) J_C 2/4/2003 1) The shown building orientation will not allowthe attendant J C to meet the requirements of State of Florida Statute 546.141, _ State Fire Marshal Rule 4A49.004, NFPA 1, Section 28-2.8.4.3 or NFPA 30A, Secti on 94.7 2) Provide a Fire Hydrant within 300 feet of the structures and on the same side of the street and of the railroad tracks. **SEE CONDITIONS DWR 1/9/2003 No P&R Comment since nonresidential property less than 1 DWR acre. Page 2 of 6 CaseAcdvity-rpt Case Activity Listing 3/11/2003 11:40:03AM T I D E M A R K Case #: FLD2002-12045 COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. 657 COURT ST Assigned Done Updated Activity Description Date I Date. 2 Date 3 Mold Disp To By By Notes FLDD040 Solid Waste Review 12/20/2M 2/7/2003 2/7/2003 None DONE TJG 2/7/2003 see conditions TJG FLDA140 Site Visit 12/20/200: 1/13/2003 None DONE FLDA010 Application received 12/19/200: None DONE WW 1/13/2003 WW WW 12/20/200: WW E C Page 3 of 6 CaseActivity.spt Case Activity Listing 3/11/2003 ?__ - - s, 11:40:03AM T I D E M A R K Case #: FLD2002-12045 COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. 657 COURT ST Assigned Done Updated Activity Description Date I Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By By Notes FLDD012 Zoning Review 12/20/200: 2/10/2003 1/13/2003 None DONE WW 3/6/2003 1/13/03 - WW WW a) Dimension the width of the landscape buffer areas along Chestnut Street, East Avenue and Court Street. b) Provide an explanation why the terminal landscape islands adjacent to parking spaces do not extend to the full length of the parking spaces. c) 'Site Data is provided on Sheets A1.1 and C1.1, but the data is different on each sheet. Delete the incorrect Site Data from either Sheet A1.1 or C1.1 so there is only one place where Site Data is provided. d) The proposed site design does not provide adequate 40 vehicular traffic circulation abilities for two-way flow when vehicles are fueling from the end pumps and/or when delivery and tanker trucks are on-site. Traffic circulation is and will be confusing to motorists when vehicles are parked in particular locations. Need to discuss traffic flow. Staff has identified several areas of concern regarding vehicular movement on the site; e) Note: A Unity of Title will be required to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 0 Note: Staff is not supportive of the use, as it is not permitted under the Downtown District or the underlying land use classification of Central Business District. The policy directive from the City Commission is not to support auto-oriented uses within the Downtown District. g) Place a note on Sheet A3.1 that the bands and accents on structures will be darker shades of the general wall color. The colors on the canopy and the main building need to match. • additi on, render the elevations for the canopy; h) Signage, since not shown, may be required in the future to be reviewed by the Community Development Board when submitted. Signage location indicated appears to be greater than the maximum six percent permitted. Signage needs to be either shown at this time or all reference to signage removed from the elevations. 3/6/03 - see Staff Report - WW Page 4 of 6 CaseActivity-rpt Case Activity Listing 3/11/2003 11:40:03AM T I D E M A R K Case #: FLD2002-12045 COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC. 657 COURT ST N Assigned Done Updated Activity Description - Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By By Notes FLDD014 Landscaping Review 12/20/200: 3/6/2003 3/6/2003 None DONE MTP 3/6/2003 see conditions MTP a) Live oaks are spaced between 15 and 20 feet on center. This is too close - increase spacing to about 35 feet on center (MET); b) There's an opportunity in the landscape island at the northwest corner of the site to provide better landscaping - instead of j ust plugging in almost nothing but india hawthorn how about getting a different type of mid-sized plant in front of the silverthorn and something in front of that. I've made some sketches on the submitted landscape plan we can copy(NOT * MET - IDENTIFY WHAT PATTERN NUBER SEVEN IS) c) In the landscape island at the southeast corner of the building there is a 35-inch oak tree to be saved. I'm concerned about digging all those holes to plan all those india hawthorns. Provide a tree preservation plan and thinK about alternative ways of handling that space to better preserve that tree (MET); d) I'd like to see a general tree preservation plan indicating how the trees to remain at the edge of the retenti on area will do with the grade changes proposed (NOT SURE IF THIS HAS BEEN MET); e) There are better ways to treat the entrances to the site. I suggest locating something with more colour than just liriope and india hawthorn (NOT MET - IDENTIFY PATTERN NUMBER SEVEN). 0 In general, the landscape plan is a good start but needs some more work. I provided a landscape plan at the January 16, 2003 DRC meeting that, while the site plan has changed, is sti applicable to the current proposal. I suggest enlisting the ai a landscape professional and/or utilize the landscape plan prepared, for free, by Staff (NOT MET IDENTIFY PATTERN NUMBER SEVEN); g) Address all of the above prior to CDB review. FLDD042 Environmental Review 12/20/2002 3/6/2003 None HOLD TJF 3/6/2003 Underground vaults may not be used for stormwater treatment. T F Underground vaults may only be used for attenuati on after the _ treatment volume has been accomodated in an open system. Top elevati on of vault shown on plans appears to be above grade. Vault volume inconsistent with text. Verti cal walls not typically permitted on the sides of detention ponds; in no circumstance will vertical walls be permitted adjacent to parcels ofpropoerty and on no more than two sides. Stormwater treatment and attenuation must be managed in accordance with City of Clearwater drainage policy. Page 5 of 6 CaseActivity..tpt T I D E M A R K COMPUTER SYSTEMS. INC. Case Activity Listing Case #: FLD2002-12045 657 COURT ST 3/11/2003 11:40:02AM Assigned Done Updated Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By By.. Notes FLDD090 Harbor Master Review 12/20/2002 1/6/2003 None DONE MTP 1/6/2003 MTP • • Page 6 of 6 caseActivity..rpt 0 0 10:40 a.m. Case: FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street. Owners: The CEPCOT Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc. Applicant: The CEPCOT Corporation. Representative: Mr. Randy Wedding (work: 727-821-6610/ fax: 727-894-4216/ email: rand weddingarchitects.com). Location: The 0.95-acre site is located on the west side of East Avenue between Court Street and Chestnut Street. Atlas Page: 286B. Zoning: D, Downtown District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile. service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. Proposed Use: The proposal is for the construction of a 3,200 square-foot convenience store with gas pumps. Neighborhood Association(s): Pierce 100 Condominium Association (Terry Turner, 100 Pierce Street, #710, Clearwater, FL, 33756). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner. Attendees included: City Staff: Mark Parry, Frank Gerlock, Lisa Fierce, Joe Colbert, Diane Hufford, Cory Martens, Rick Albee, Don Melone, Wayne Wells and Tom Glenn Applicant/Representative: E.D. Armstrong, Randy Wedding and Bill Davenport The DRC reviewed these applications with the following comments: 1. Environmental: a) Fully concur with Stormwater (see 10 a below). Site must provide stormwater attenuation and treatment. Not eligible for Downtown Stormwater Service District. Address prior to CDB review. 2. Fire: a) The shown building orientation and design will not allow the attendant to meet the requirements of State of Florida Statute 546.141, State Fire Marshal Rule 4A-49.004, NFPA 1, Section 28-2.8.4.3 or NFPA 30A, Section 9-4.7. Cannot view pumps from the store due to solid walls, b) Provide a Fire Hydrant within 300 feet of the structures and on the same side of the street and of the railroad tracks. c) Address the above (2 a - b) prior to CDB review 3. General engineering: a) Need an engineered site plan showing all existing and proposed utilities, drainage, etc. prior to CDB review. 4. Harbor Master: a) No comments 5. Land resource: 6. 7. 8. a) A 28-inch oak tree located within the south island in front of the proposed convenience store has the curb cut too close to it -The tree does not appear to be in the best of shape and should probably be removed. That island should shift south one parking space; b) A 24-inch oak and a 36-inch jacaranda, shown on the survey, appear to be trees to remain on the west side of the site but the location of the trees on the site plan are not consistent the location indicated on the survey - label all trees to remain and to be removed on the site with dbh (diameter breast height) and type of tree; c) A 35-inch oak tree located on the north side of lot 11 is to be removed but the tree is an excellent tree. The site plan should be redesigned to accommodate the tree; d) Utility plan required in order to better understand the impacts to the root system of the trees to remain; e) It appears that most of the trees are to be removed from the site - replacement will be required inch for inch or at $48/inch; and f) All of the above to be addressed in full prior to CDB review. Landscaping: a) That the view triangles at the southwest corner of Court Street and East Avenue and the northwest corner of Chestnut Street and East Avenue be shown; and b) The landscape plan is a great start - I've provided a landscape plan that more meets the intent of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. c) All of the above to be done prior to CDB review. Parks and Recreation: a) No comments. Planning: a) Provide the proposed hours of operation of the convenience store; b) Revise the direction of the utility substation under construction under General Applicability Criteria #5; c) Provide the anticipated value of the property after construction under Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria #2; d) Provide on Sheet Al.1 the location and setback from property lines for freestanding signage. Additionally, provide the design, height, color and elevation (front and side) of proposed freestanding signage (monument signage preferred) and attached signage. Signage must meet Code requirements. Ensure freestanding signage is not located within any sight triangles, which also occur on the site at street intersections, and work together with proposed landscaping; e) Revise the existing gross floor area and building coverage on Sheet Al. 1, including both buildings; f) Revise the proposed building coverage to match the gross floor area of 3,200 square feet on Sheet A1.1. The gas canopies are structures, but not buildings; g) Revise on Sheet A1.1 the proposed FAR to include only the enclosed building floor area of 3,200 square feet; h) Revise the proposed height of the building and gas canopies in the Site Data on Sheet ALL to the mid-point of the roof structure. Additionally, provide the same height dimensions on the Exterior Elevations on Sheet A3.1; i) There is a discrepancy of proposed building/structure color between Sheet A3.1 and the rendering in that the gas canopy columns and trusses are called out as driftwood gray (preferred), yet the rendering indicates a red color. Provide the proposed trim color and stucco band color; j) Still unclear as to whether the 10 feet of additional right-of-way along Chestnut Street indicated on Sheet A1.1 has already been dedicated or is proposed to be dedicated. Advise. If already dedicated, ensure it is noted in the legal descriptions; k) Revise legal description on Sheet Al.I to the current, correct legal description on the survey submitted by Brendla and Associates; 0 0 1) In the resubmission material for the Community Development Board, delete the survey by Cornerstone Engineering and Surveying and insert the survey by Brendla and Associates; m) A Unity of Title will be required to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits; n) Staff is not supportive of the use, as it is not permitted under the Downtown District or the underlying land use classification of Central Business District. The policy directive from the City Commission is not to support auto-oriented uses with the Downtown District; o) Address the Downtown Design Guidelines and how the application meets them in writing; p) Reduced, rendered elevations will be required prior to CDB review. q) Address all of the above prior to CDB review. 9. Solid waste: a) Dumpster Enclosure must be built to City specifications, and shown on detail sheet prior to CDB review (See City Standard Detail #701, 1 thru 3 of 3.) 10. Stormwater• a) Prior to CDB review the site plan is to address storm water attenuation. This site will not qualify for storm water payment-in-lieu of retention as it contributes to a flood prone area on Chestnut Street. The existing site has a stormwater detention pond with an outlet control structure and pipe tying into the Chestnut Street storm system. It is recommended that the existing pond be expanded to accommodate the increased runoff from the proposed project. The revised site plan is to address all the criteria as outlined in section H of Flexible Development Application (City of Clearwater Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) as outlined below: • STORMWATER PLAN including the following requirements: ¦ Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; ¦ Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; ¦ All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; ¦ Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ¦ Stormwater calculations for attenuation and water quality; ¦ Signature of Florida registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations • COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable; • COPY OF STATE AND COUNTY STORMWATER SYSTEM TIE-IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS, if applicable. 11. Traffic enaineerina: a. Show location of fuel storage tanks and tanker travel path prior to CDB review. b. Transportation Impact Fee to be determined and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy. NOTES: 1. Send comments to Randy at randy@weddingarch.itects.com and Ed Armstrong at mailto:ed(n?jbpfirm.com; 2. That 13 sets of the application and all supporting materials be submitted to Staff on or before noon January 31, 2003 in order to be scheduled for the February 13, 2003, DRC meeting. DRAFT CONDITIONS: 1. That Transportation Impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 2. That a Unity of Title be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. +? • Community Response Team Planning Dept. Cases - DRC Case No. aZ,2! ?Ooa- /PO(S" Meeting Date: 1(o D3 Location: 6yoff CTRA??.34- T/an) ,C Current Use: .2tive Code Enforcement Casq?oyes: DAddress numbero(no) (vacant land) a--Landscaping es (no) za -Dvergrown (yes) o) Debris (yes no) mr--fnoperative vehicle(s) (yes) fhoL; w-Building( (goo (fair) (poor) (vacant land) ? Fencing (none) (good) (dilapidated) (broken and/or missing pieces) or--Paint oo (fair) (poor) (garish) Grass Parking (yes) a residential Parking Violations (yes) t d'-Signage (none?0(not ok) (billboard) Parking ( str' (handicapped) (needs repaving) .a-- mpster cl (not enclosed) Outdoor storage (yes) Comments/Status Report (attach any pertinent documents): V?ry N rc? -- Date of Review: Reviewed by: Revised 03-29-01 9 0 Wells, Wayne From: Gerlock, Frank Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:00 PM To: Parry, Mark; Wells, Wayne; Schodtler, John; Dittmer, Arden Cc: Fierce, Lisa Subject: FW: Neighborhood associations Hi Folks, Well after re-visting the Code with Lisa today we are making a slight adjustment on the notifying of Neighborhood Asso. The Code actually reads "notice shall be mailed to any affected registered local neighborhood asso." We will make the distance call on a case by case basis as to the perceived impact of the application. I know, this sounds "gray" , but some will actually only be abutting properties potentially, while others may need up to 2,500 ft. thanks, chip -----Original Message----- From: Gomez, Julie Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 4:22 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Furlong, Mike; Fierce, Lisa; Gerlock, Frank; Parry, Mark Subject: RE: Neighborhood associations FLD2002-11040 - 20505 US Hiohwav 19 N. - Atlas Pape: 300A Seville RO Association Association President 2640 Seville Blvd. Clearwater, FL 33764 FLD2002-12044 - 100 North Ladv Marv Drive - Atlas Paae: 287B Gateway Neighborhood Pat Vaughn 1326 Pierce St. Apt. #2 Clearwater FL 33756 461-7599 FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street - Atlas Paae: 286B Pierce 100 Condominium Association Terry Turner 100 Pierce Street #710 Clearwater FL 33756 > -----Original Message----- > From: Wells, Wayne > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 9:41 AM > To: Gomez, Julie > Cc: Furlong, Mike; Fierce, Lisa; Gerlock, Frank; Parry, Mark > Subject: Neighborhood associations > Julie - > Please provide the neighborhood associations, and contact person and mailing address, within 2,500 feet of the following cases: > 1. FLD2002-11040 - 20505 US Highway 19 N. - Atlas Page: 300A. > 2. FLD2002-12044 - 100 North Lady Mary Drive - Atlas Page: 287B. > 3. FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street - Atlas Page: 286B. > If you have any questions regarding the location or size of the property involved, just ask Mark Parry or myself. > Thanks - > Wayne Pinellas County Property AppraiseWrmation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0090 Page 2 of 5 15 1 29 / 15 18548 I 913 I 0070 27-Dec-2002 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 09:42:08 Non-Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 651 COURT ST of Jan 1, 2002, based on Census Tract: 259.01 sales from 2000 - 2001: 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 10/1,996 9,4931 665 162,000 (Q) I 1922: Book 005 Pgs 053- 0 /1,972 3,8671 189 70,000 (Q) I 0000: Book Pga - 0 /0 0/. 0 0 (U) 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 2002 Value EXEMPTIONS Juat/Market: 308,700 Homestead: 0 Ownership % .000 Historic : 0 Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 308,700 Tax Exempt %: .000 Other Exempt: 0 Taxable: 308,700 Agricultural: 0 2002 Tax Information Land Information District: CWD Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater Downtown Dev Bd view: 02 Millage: 24.2911 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 02 Taxes: 7,498.66 1} 80 x 133 7. 00 10,608. 00 S Special Tax CWI .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2002 taxes will be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 7,498.66 6) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without any exemptions, Total Land Value: 74,256 2002 taxes will be 7,498.66 Short Legal COURT SQUARE BLK 13, E 8IN OF LOT 6 & Description ALL OF LOT 7 & W 30FT OF LOT 8 & N 1/2 UAC ALLEY Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&X... 12/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraiseormation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0090 0 Page 3 of 5 10 / 29 / 15 / 18048 / 013 / 0070 :01 27-Dec-2002 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 09:42:08 Commercial Card 01 of i Improvement Type: Retail Store Property Address: 651 COURT ST Prop Use: 320 Land Use: 11 Structural E1emE3nTs Foundation Spread/Mono Footing Floor System Slab on Grade Exterior Wall Cone Block/Stucco Height Factor 14 Party Wall None Structural Frame Masonry Pillar&Steel Roof Frame Flat Roof Cover Built Up/Composition Cabinet & Mill Average Floor Finish Carpet Combination Interior Finish Drywall Partition Factor 0 Heating & Air Heating&Cooling Pckg Fixtures 4 Bath Tile None Electric Average Shape Factor Rectangle Quality Average Year Built 1,948 Effective Age 15 Other Depreciation 0 Function Depreciation 0 Economic Depreciation 0 Su'b Areas Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1) Base Area i. 00 5, 518 7) . 00 0 2) Base Semi Finished .85 1,922 6) .00 0 3) .00 0 9) .00 0 4) .00 0 10) .00 0 5) .00 0 11) .00 0 6) .00 0 12) .00 0 Commercial Extra Fcatur?s Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCO Year 1) ASPHALT 2000SF 1.00 21000 0 21000 999 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 21000 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F+_1 R Fil ® Pq Pq http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&X... 12/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraise formation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0090 0 Page 4 of 5 rQ O Sr ANKL' ST L N rr? gT. AMFR; N RED CROSS I 640 . 6 FsT T L1 64 8 V 701 ANT L I 4U'T FIOSU R T 7 ST PETE T IMES COURT STREET )9 )R T STREET 72t MI. ST t>1,4 CH STNr `TCH P 64 T TII HTNUT 645 4 T CHESTNUT I ST 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph http://pao.co.pinellas. fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&X... 12/27/2002 Plindiac County Properly Appraise ' tfi -mat.io:n: 16 29 15 18648 013 0090 Page S of'h Pinellas County Property Appraiser P reel :l:l -formation 1.zttl7:ii ao.c?3.l?if. 19a?..fl.?? (ht(?it 'c i lick'>'o 1cZ?r===1 c 1aYzc-:-1& - 1.b s::: t:::1?Y ?z:::t)? .., 1-2/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraise formation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0090 • Page 2 of 5 10 / 29 / 15 / 15048 / 013 / 0090 27-Dec-2002 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 09:41:23 Non-Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 655 COURT ST of Jan 1, 2002, based on Census Tract: 259.01 sales from 2000 - 2001: 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information i0/1,994 8,939/1,468 89,000 (Q) I 1922: Book 005 Pgs 053- 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 01 0 0 ( } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( } 2002 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 1151000 Homestead: 0 Ownership x .000 Historic : 0 Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 115,000 Tax Exempt %: .000 Other Exempt: 0 Taxable: 115,000 Agricultural: 0 2002 Tax Information Land Information District: CUD Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater Downtown Dev Bd View: 02 Millage: 24.2911 Land Size Un it Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 02 Taxes: 2,793.48 1) 70 x 133 7.00 9,282.00 S Special Tax CUI .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2002 taxes will be 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 2,793.48 6) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without any exemptions, Total Land Value: 64,974 2002 taxes will be 2,793.48 Short Legal COURT SQUARE BLK 13, LOT 9 & E 20FT OF Description LOT 8 Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/egi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&p=... 12/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraise*' formation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0090 0 Page 3 of 5 10 / 29 / 15 / 18648 / 013 / 0090 :01 27-Dec-2002 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 09:41:23 Commercial Card 01 of 1 Improvement Type: Retail Store Property Address: 655 COURT ST Prop Use: 325 Land Use: 21 S-tructural E1?men?s Foundation Continuous Footing Floor System Slab on Orade Exterior Wall Frame Stucco Height Factor 0 Party Wall None Structural Frame None Roof Frame Gable & Hip Roof Cover Composition Shingle Cabinet & Mill Average Floor Finish Hard Tile Interior Finish Drywall Partition Factor 0 Heating & Air Heating&Cooling Pckg Fixtures 8 Bath Tile Hone Electric Average Shape Factor Rectangle Quality Average Year Built 1,915 Effective Age i0 Other Depreciation 0 Function Depreciation 0 Economic Depreciation 0 Sub Arras Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1) Base Area i. 00 1,200 7) . 00 0 2) Open Porch .30 2,000 8) .00 0 3) .00 0 9) . 00 0 4) .00 0 10) . 00 0 5) .00 0 11) .00 0 6) .00 0 12) .00 0 Comrrierc3.a1 Extra Features Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCO Year 1) ASPHALT 5000SF 1.00 51000 0 51000 1,998 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 51000 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F*11;?Tflilmm http://Pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&p:... 12/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraise* formation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0090 Page 4 of 5 W F A 1 L N 57 AN°L I 704 Q TRT Z z 0L)R-T STI5 624 SAO 700 COURTR?AN STIOSTRT S7 PETE' CROSS 864 8 T IMES LRED STREET CCH 6 EP 17 T T ST -11 TNUT) CH S4 NUT 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph I-- Mtn COURT STREET http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&p:... 12/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraise- ',;.fiormation., 16 29 1.5 18648 01.3 0090 Pago 5 of "Pinellas County Property Appraiser Pa reel Inforniatio U. Elack to Sear ell 11:we ._ . _ Wokellas County Property Appraise ormation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0070 Page 2 of 5 15 / 29 / 15 / 54450 / 013 1 0100 27-Dec-2002 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 09:42:40 Uacant Property Use and Sales Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 0 of Jan 1, 2002, based on Census Tract: 259.01 m 2000 - 2001: l f sa es ro 0 Sale Date OR Book/Pag e Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 10/1,996 9,4931 66 7 138,000 (M) I 1913: Book 001 Pgs 070- 0 /1,974 4,1461 73 1 22,000 (Q) I 1914: Book 003 Pgs 043- 0 /0 01 0 0 } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( } 2002 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 76,100 Homestead: 0 Ownership % .000 Historic : 0 Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 76,100 Tax Exempt %: .000 Other Exempt: 0 Taxable: 76,100 Agricultural: 0 2002 Tax Information Land Information District: CWD Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater Downtown Dev Bd View: 02 Millage: 24.2911 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 02 Taxes: 1,848.55 1} 77 x 166 7.00 12, 782.00 S Special Tax CWI .00 2} 0 x 0 .00 .00 3} 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4} 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2002 taxes will be : 5} 0 x 0 .00 .00 1,848.55 6} 0 x 0 . 00 .00 Without any exemptions, Total Land Value: 89, 474 2002 taxes will be 1,848.55 Short Legal MAGNOLIA PARK BLK 13, LOTS 10 AND 11 Description LESS ST & LESS W 23FT & S 1/2 OF ALLEY ADJ Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&X... 12/27/2002 inellas County Property Appraise ormation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0070 15 29 15 / 54450 / 013 I 0100 Page 3 of 5 27-Dec-2002 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 09:42:40 Vacant Parcel Property Use, 000 Land Use: i0 Vacart? Extra Fea-tur?s Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) .00 0 0 0 0 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE; 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) U-1 I F4(w H Ft-I T Fq http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&X... 12/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraiseormation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0070 el- COURT STREET Page 4 of 5 STREET CHE§°9rrT 7 HE ST NU CHESTNUT X946 ---I 26 -,_! 5 50 18 504 MYRTLE AVE 606 1509 TURNER E VW ? ' SRI 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&X... 12/27/2002 . _ Pinellas County Property Appraiseormation: 16 29 15 18648 013 0070 Page 5 of 5 Ya a 7h.J a 'rE?"Y WIN ?i.}.^YV S ? ?• s ? Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&x... 12/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraiserwrmation: 15 29 15 54450 013 0100 • 15 / 29 / 15 / 54450 / 013 / 0120 Page 2 of 5 27-Dec-2002 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 09:43:32 Uacant Property Use and Sales Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 0 of Jan 1, 2002, based on Census Tract: 259.01 2000 - 2001 l f : sa es rom 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 10/1,996 9,493/ 667 138,000 (M) I 1913: Book 001 Pgs 070- 0 /1,973 4,051/ 894 27,000 (Q) I 1914: Book 003 Pgs 043- 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( ) 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 01 0 0 ( ) 2002 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 52,400 Homestead: 0 Ownership % .000 Historic 0 Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 52,400 Tax Exempt %: .000 Other Exempt: 0 Taxable: 52,400 Agricultural: 0 2002 Tax Information Land Information District: CUD Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater Downtown Dev Bd View: 02 Millage: 24.2911 Land Size U nit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 02 Taxes: 1, 272.85 1) 53 x 166 7. 00 8.814. 00 S Special Tax CWI .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2002 taxes will be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 1,272.85 6) 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, Total L and Value: 61, 698 2002 taxes will be 1,272.85 Short Legal MAGNOLIA PARK BLK 13, E 30FT OF LOT 12 & Description S 1/2 OF ALLEY ADJ. LESS ST & U 23FT OF LOT 11 LESS Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&X... 12/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraise or nnation: 15 29 15 54450 013 0100 • 15 29 / 15 54450 r 013 / 0120 Page 3 of 5 27-Dec-2002 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 09:43:30 Vacant Parcel Property Use; 000 Land Use; 10 VacanT ExTra FE3aTurE:s Description Dimensions Price Units Value RC? Year 1) .00 0 0 0 0 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) 00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) 00 0 0 0 0 b) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE; 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F*1 FE F-f-I ®M Fq http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&X... 12/27/2002 Pinellas County Property Appraise ormation: 15 29 15 54450 013 0100. Page 4 of 5 624 COURT AMERERN RED CROSS 12 60 COURT CHES TtT C 617 ` ?j ?' 94626 640 R511W --7 STREET T 631 HESTNu 70 7 ST PETE T IMES CH?O$U7 19 50 STREET 18 MYR E E I SOS 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t=1 &u=0&X... 12/27/2002 Pinollas County Property Appraiser ' formation, 15 9 15 54450 013 0100 Page 5 of'5 Pinellas Count? Property Appraiser Parcel Information 12i27;'2002 0 0 *'-'-REVISED (MEETING DATE CHANGE)'-'-* CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF SPECIAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, March 22, 2005, beginning at 1:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following requests: NOTE: All persons wishing to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meeting. Those cases that are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. will be placed on a consent agenda and approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. (cont. from 2/15/05) Haddon House Inn, Inc. & Roland Rogers (Haddon House of Clearwater, LLC) are requesting (1) Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings with reductions to the front (south) setback from 25 ft to 1.5 ft (to building) and from 25 ft to 4.2 ft (to trash staging area), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 ft to 8 ft from the Coastal Construction Control Line (to pool deck), reductions to the side (north) setback from 10 ft to 5.9 ft (to building) and from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pool deck) and from 10 ft to 2 ft (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 ft to 3.2 ft (to sidewalk), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 ft to 6 ft (to sidewalk), and an increase to height from 30 ft to 64 ft (to roof deck) with an additional 4.16 ft for perimeter parapet (from roof deck) and an additional 15.83 ft for a rooftop pavilion (from roof deck), and change of use from Overnight Accommodations to Attached Dwellings, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-404.F; and (2) Transfer of Development Rights for 1 dwelling unit from 321 Coronado Dr, under the provisions of Sec 4-1403 (TDR2004-10014). (Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (14 condominiums) at 12 Idlewild St, Columbia Sub, No. 2, Blk A, Lot 6 and Clearwater Beach Rev, Blk 3, Lots 1, 13-15 and part of lot 12. FLD2004-10076/TDR2004-10014 2. (cont. from 2/15/05) JMB&A Developers LLC (R&S Investments of Pinellas, LLC & La Fiesta Brightwater, LLC) is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings with a reduction to lot area from 10,000 to 7,214 sq ft, a reduction to lot width from 100 ft to 60 ft and an increase to building height of an additional 3 ft for perimeter parapets (from roof deck - roof deck at 35-ft height) and to permit a building within the visibility triangles, under the provisions of Sec 2-803.B. (Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (3 condominiums) at 105 Brightwater Dr, Bayside Sub, No. 2, Lot 2. FLD2004-09065 3. (cont. from 2/15/05) Valerie L Avers, Tre (Jonnatti Architecture, Inc.) is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a 351 sq ft addition to an existing building with a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 ft to 2.9 ft (to pavement) and 16.9 ft (to existing building), the front (north) setback from 25 ft to 3.9 ft (to pavement) and 20.7 ft (to existing building), a reduction in the side (east) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement), and the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 3 ft (to pavement) under the provisions of Sec 2-704.C., as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west side from 15 ft to 2.9 ft, a reduction to the landscape buffer along the north side from 15 ft to 3.9 ft, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the south side from 5 ft to 3 ft, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Sec 1202.G. (Proposed Use: Dental office) at 501 S. Missouri Ave, Hibiscus Gardens, Blk R, Lots 21, 32-35 & part of 30A. FLD2004-11079 4. Richard T. Heiden, PA is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit an office with a reduction in the minimum lot area from 10,000 sq ft to 7,152 sq ft, reduction in the minimum lot width from 100 ft to 60 ft, reduction in the required number of parking spaces from 7 spaces (3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft of GFA) to 6 spaces (2.5 spaces per 1,000 sq ft of GFA), reduction in the front (north) setback from 25 ft to 15 ft (to pavement), reduction in the rear (south) setback from 20 ft to 10 ft to building, reduction in the side (east) setback from 20 ft to 5 ft to building and to 1.5 ft to walkway, reduction in the side (west) setback from 20 ft to 10 ft to building and parking, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-1003.B. (Proposed Use: A two-story office building 2,428 sq ft in area) at 2723 S.R. 580, Acker's Sub, Blk 1, Lot 5 less NW'ly 10.7 ft for Rd R/W. FLD2004-11082 5. Robert G. & Ana C. Zakel, James H. & Ann R. Slavin, Tre, Robert D Francis & Lorraine Y. Hori, Rosalia Menna, John J. & Margaret D. Rubino, William D. & Patricia A. Gross, Robert R. & Sharron A. Rankine, Marcus L & Roswita A. Schmiedt, Avery & Ann Corvell, Henry A. & Juliane Hale, Carol D. Larson, Christopher P. Gleason, Thomas & Claudia Dunne, Richard A. & Rose-Marie Hamilton, Gregory L. & Cheri U. Boudreau, Tamara Ustianowski, William J. McNally, Tre, Dames Limited Partnership, Karl D. & Joanne M. Jones, Izabela L. Veigel (Durvin/Christian), Pamela K. Roberts, Debra L. & Christopher C. Early (Lavin), Stephen N. & Barbara D. Vallari, Brian P. & Kristie K. Hickok, Thomas J. & Paticia A. O'Connor, Patrick C. & Dawne Smith, Sirun & Avda 0 0 Sarafian, Phillis L. Eagle, Caryn A. & George A. Kast, Sandra Kay Wintereu (Gregory Winteregg)Robert W. & Barbara H. Thacker, Thomas J. & Patricia A. O'Connor, Ronald T. & Patricia A. Franciose, Michael B. & Frances B. Sosslau, Edward & Susan Grant, Eugene Edward Fitzpatrick, Patrick & Barbara K. Nacol, Nikolas T. Spiridellis, Leonard & Geraldine Mennen, Deborah Hinson, William & Patricia Adams, Paul & Nancy Bergstrom, Jay & Gail Jorgensen, Klaus & Kaye HariE, Siegfried Adam (Ursala Adam), Joseph & Michele Smi, David Barnett, Leon & Linda Welch, Adrian Allen, Luigi Del Basso & Louise Ward, Chui & Soon Lee, Sung Tae & Assami Byun, Lenore J. Smith Trust/Tres (Meier) & Wondel Smith, Jr. Trust/Tres and KAJA Enterprises, LLC (John J. Anthony) are requesting a Flexible Development approval to permit rear deck/patio additions to existing detached dwellings with a reduction to the rear setback from 15 ft to zero ft (to deck/patio) and a reduction to the side setback from 10 ft to zero ft (to deck/patio), as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-504.F. (Proposed Use: Rear deck/patio additions to existing detached dwellings) at 1603, 1605, 1607, 1609, 1612, 1613, 1616, 1620, 1621, 1624, 1625, 1628, 1629, 1632, 1633, 1636, 1637, 1639, 1640, 1641, 1643, 1644, 1645 and 1647 Sand Key Estates Ct; and 130, 134, 142, 146, 147, 150, 154,155,158,159,162,166 ' 167, 170, 174, 178, 182, 186, 190, 194, 198, 202, 206, 210, 218, 219, 222, 223, 230 and 231 Sand Key Estates Dr, Moorings of Sand Key, Lots 2-10, 12, 13 & 14 together with subm land, 15-17, 19, 21-23, 25-29, 31-34, 38-41, 43-44, 46-63, 65 & 66. FLD2004-12084 6. North Bay Community Church, Inc. (CWMC, LLC) is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a medical clinic with a reduction to front (east) setback from 25 ft to 15 ft (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 ft to 6 ft (to pavement) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 ft to zero ft (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-1204.A, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the south property line from 5 ft to zero ft (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Sec 3-1202.G. (Proposed Use: Medical clinic with a gross floor area of 20,481 sq ft) at 3190 McMullen Booth Rd, Turtle Brooke Sub, Parcel A. FLD2004-12083 7. Liberty Bank is requesting Flexible Development approval (1) to permit retail sales and service (bank) and offices in the Commercial District with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 to 23.5 ft (to pavement), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 ft to 20 ft (to building), an increase to building height from 25 ft to 28 ft (to roof deck) with an additional 3.33 ft for parapet (from roof deck) and an additional 8.83 ft for architectural embellishments (from roof deck) and a deviation to allow direct access to a major arterial street (Gulf to Bay), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C; (2) to permit non-residential parking in the Medium Density Residential District with a reduction to front (east) setback from 25 ft to 15 ft (to pavement) and a deviation to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the west and south sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of 2-304.G. (Proposed Use: Bank and office space) at 1611 Gulf to Bay Blvd, Longview Sub, Lots 3-4, & 19-21. FLD2004-11080 8. Clearwater Grande Development, LLC (Steve J. Page) is requesting (1) Termination of Status of a Nonconformity for VD density (retain existing 91 overnight accommodation rooms/units); and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a 91- room/unit overnight accommodation use with an accessory restaurant with a reduction to the.front (north) setback from 15 ft to 1-ft (to dumpster staging area), a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20 ft to zero ft (to pool deck) and to increase the building height from 35 ft to 100 ft (to roof deck), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-803.C. (Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of 91 rooms/units) at 645-655 South Gulfview Blvd, Bayside Sub No. 5, Blk C, Lots 8-11 and RIP RTS. FLD2004-12088 U C- 9. David L. and Kathleen A Jaye, Tre are requesting Flexible Development approval to permit car wash with a reduction J` to the front (north) setback along Stephenson Dr from 25 ft to 23 ft (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-704.C, as an amendment to a previously approved Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Case No. FLD2004-04032 [which permitted a car wash with reductions to the front (north) setback along Stephenson Dr from 25 ft to 8 ft (to dumpster enclosure), from 25 ft to 24 ft to building, a reduction from the front (east) setback along Betty Lane from 25 ft to 20 ft to building, a reduction from the side (west) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft to the freestanding vacuum area and from 10 ft to 9 ft to pavement, and a reduction to the required number of parking spaces from 7 to 3 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Sec 3-1202.G]). (Proposed Use: A three-bay, self-service car wash with a reduced front (north) setback along Stephenson Dr from previously approved 24 ft to 23 ft) at 1410 North Betty Lane, Stevenson's Heights, Blk A, Lot 27. FLD2004-04032A 10. Clearwater Depot Inc. (C/O Pinch A Penny Inc.), Clearwater Depot Inc., Cepcot Corp. & Porpoise Pool & Patia Inc. (Clearwater Train Station, Inc.) are requesting a remand by Circuit Court for action consistent with Court's order including imposition of conditions of approval. (Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C). 0 9 (Proposed Use: The redevelopment of the site with a 3,200 sq-ft convenience store with gas pumps) at 657 Court Street, Magnolia Park, Blk 13, Lot 10, Lot 11 & part of Lot 12 less St & part of alley adj. Court Square, Blk 13, Lots 7 & 9, parts of Lots 6 & 8. FLD2004-12045 a Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearings or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need to request a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Sec 4-206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board in quasi-judicial cases if the person requesting such status demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests, and needs to be requested and obtained during the case discussion before the CDB. An oath will be administered swearing in all persons giving testimony in quasi-judicial public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons without party status speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the case presenter, at 562-4567 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan. Cyndi Tarapani Planning Director City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC City Clerk A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REOUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL (727) 562-4093 WITH THEIR REQUEST. Ad: 03/06/05 I DENNIS HERNANDEZ & ASSOC 3339 W KENNEDY BLVD TAMPA FL 33609 - 2903 HELO INC 439 ISLAND WAY CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2139 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 TIMES PUBLISHING CO INC PO BOX 1121 ST PETERSBURG FL 33731 - 1121 TIMES PUBLISHING CO INC PO BOX 1121 ST PETERSBURG FL 33731 - 1121 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOU 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 CEPCOT CORP PO BOX 6025 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 6025 CONNELLY, JOHN 630 CHESTNUT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5337 KAPETANOPOULOS, THANASIS KAPETANOPOULOS, DIMITRIOS 1117 CARLTON RD TARPON SPRINGS FL 34689 - i 5q c'? LIKMETA, ALI LIKMETA, SHERIFE 9 N CIRUS AVE CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 3102 ALL AROUND YOUR HOME INC PO BOX 413 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 0413 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CEPCOT CORP 14480 62ND ST N CLEARWATER FL 33760 - 2721 OSBURG, SYBIL M OSBURG, STEPHEN C 700 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5508 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY BOARD OF 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 CEPCOT CORP PO BOX 6025 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 6025 INTERVEST BANK 625 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5528 CLEARWATER VILLAGE MINKOFF, SUE THE 423 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4005 .NEWSPAPER PRE CO OF CLW 227 W TRADE ST CHARLOTTE NC 28202 - 1661 ALL AROUND YOUR HOME INC PO BOX 413 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 0413 CLEARWATER= CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 COURT STREET ENTERPRISES INC HIRSCHFELD, JOSEPH J THE 13 CAMBRIA ST CLEARWATER BCH FL 33767 - PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY BOARD OF 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 FRANCHISE EQUITY GROUP INC 630 CHESTNUT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - BASKIN, H H SR RENTAL PROP INC 703 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - G T LEISURE CORP 440 S GULFVIEW BLVD # 406 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2510 PROSPECT TOWERS OF CLEARWATER 801 CHESTNUT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5626 HOSE & HYDRAULICS INC 504 S MYRTLE AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5614 PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOU 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY BOARD OF 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 JIFFY PROPERTIES INC 411 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5511 ROGERO, MARY H 2300 ALLIGATOR CREEK RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 2205 HOSE & HYDRAULICS INC 504 S MYRTLE AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5614 PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY BOARD OF 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY BOARD OF 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 KERR, ANN L 425 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5515 •PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 639 CHESS L L C BASEMENT OFFICE 347 W 44TH ST NEW YORK NY 10036 - PINELLAS COUNTY 315 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOU 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY BOARD OF 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 ROPERTI, ROBERT J 609 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5505 ROPERTI, ROBERT J 411 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5511 JIFFY PROPERTIES INC CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERVEST BANK 411 S GARDEN AVE RELIGIOU 625 COURT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5511 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5528 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 CEPCOT CORP • P O BOX 6025 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 6025 AGAJ, GEMAL AGAJ, FLORESHA 8727 IMPERIAL CT TAMPA FL 33635 - 1513 WALLACE, WILLIAM D THE WALLACE, JOHN L 606 TURNER ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5315 WALLACE, WILLIAM D THE WALLACE, JOHN L 606 TURNER ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5315 0 CEPCOT CORP PO BOX 6025 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 6025 WOLFE, WILLIAM H JR THE WOLFE, JOE R THE PO BOX 2924 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 2924 PONTRELLO, WILLIAM G 619 CHESTNUT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5336 Terry Turner 100 Pierce Street, #710 Clearwater, FL, 33756 657 Court Street FLD2002-12045 OCLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 WALLACE, WILLIAM D THE WALLACE, FRANCES L THE 606 TURNER ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5315 WILLIAM D & FRANCIS L WALLACE WALLACE, WILLIAM D THE 606 TURNER ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5315 CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, beginning at 2:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following requests: NOTE: All persons wishing to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meeting. Those cases that are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. will be placed on a consent agenda and approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. The Cepcot Corp /Clearwater Depot, Inc /Porpoise Pool & Patio Inc. (Clearwater Train Station, Inc.) are requesting a flexible development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. (Proposed Use: The redevelopment of the site with a 3,200 sq ft convenience store with gas pumps) at 657 Court St., Magnolia Park, Blk 13, Lots 10 & 11 less St & less W 23 ft & S '/zof alley adj and the East 30 ft of Lot 12 & S '/zalley adj less St. & W 23 ft of Lot 11 less St and Court Square, Blk 13, E 8 inches of Lot 6, Lot 7 and West 30 ft of Lot 8 & N '/zvac alley adj on S, Lot 9 & E 20 ft of Lot 8. FLD2002-12045 2. Decade 80 - XIV (Clearwater Bay Marina, LLC) are requesting a flexible development approval to increase the height of a building with attached dwellings from 30 ft to 138 ft (as measured from base flood elevation), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, and to reduce the buffer width along the north property line from 10 ft to 5 ft (to fire access drive), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. (Proposed Use: A mixed-use development with 134 attached condominium dwelling, four attached townhome dwellings and a 120-slip marina (62 public slips and 58 slips reserved for condos) at 900 N. Osceola Ave., F.T. Blish's Sub, Lots 1-3 & 8-10 & Tringl land to W adj to Lots 9&10; J.A. Gorra's Sub, Blk 2, W 120 ft of Lot 1, Lots 2 & 3, and vac Nicholson St. adj S of Lot 3; E'ly 150 ft of Lot 1 and Sue Barco Sub, Lot 1, 13-14, 23, and part of Lot 22. FLD2002-10036 3. Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. are requesting a flexible development approval to reduce the front (south) setback along Nicholson Street from 25 ft to 17.66 ft to house and reduce the front (east) setback from 25 ft to 10 ft to driveway, as part of the Residential Infi11 Project under Section 2-304.G. (Proposed Use: A single- family dwelling totaling 1,636 sq ft) at 914 Nicholson St., Pine Crest Sub, Blk 2, Lot 6. FLD2003-04018 4. Nation Land Trust / Lennie Jacobs, THE is requesting a flexible development approval as a Comprehensive infill Redevelopment Project to reduce the lot width from 200 ft to 70 ft, reduce the front (west) setback from 25 ft to 15 ft, reduce the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 0.44 ft, reduce the side (north) setback from 10 ft to 4 ft, and reduce the lot size from 40,000 sq ft to 19,250 sq ft (Proposed Use: Vehicle sales and display in association with an existing auto sales use) at 19246 US 19 N, Sec. 19-29-16, M&B 14.04. FLD2003-04020 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearings or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearings. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. All individuals speaking on public hearing items will be sworn in. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756, or call 562-4567. Lisa Fierce Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC r • Planning Department City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. City Clerk YOU ARE BEING SENT THIS NOTICE IF YOU ARE THE APPLICANT OR OWN PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FT. OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQWMG REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICEPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL THE OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT WITH THEIR REQUEST AT (727) 562- 4090. Ad: 06/01/03 Deegan, John F THE Helo Inc All Around Your Home Inc 1j60 Gulf Blvd # 1504 439 Island Way P O Box 413 Clearwater FL 33767 - Clearwater FL 33767 - Clearwater FL 33757 - 0413 Cepcot Corp Ewart Holdings Inc Times Publishing Co Inc 14480 62nd St N P O Box 747 P O Box 1121 Clearwater FL 33760 - 2721 Largo FL 33779 - 0747 St Petersburg FL 33731 - 1121 Osburg, Sybil M Osburg, Stephen C 700 Court St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5508 Pinellas County Attn:Gen Serv/R E 315 Court St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5165 Church of Scientology Religious Trust 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Church of Scientology Board of Trustees 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Church of Scientology Board of Trustees 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Clearwater Depot Inc P O Box 6025 Clearwater FL 33758 - 6025 Intervest Bank 625 Court St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5528 Kapetanopoulos, Thanasis Kapetanopoulos, Dimitrios 1704 Simmons Ct Dunedin FL 34698 - 5507 Baskin, H H Sr Rental Properties Inc 703 Court St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5507 Church of Scientology Board of Trustees 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Church of Scientology Board of Trustees 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - Connelly, John P 630 Chestnut St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5337 Baskin, H H Sr Rental Properties Inc 703 Court St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5507 Kapetanopoulos, Thanasis Kapetanopoulos, Dimitrios 1704 Simmons Ct Dunedin FL 34698 - 5507 Pinellas County Attn: Real Estate Mgmt 315 Court St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5165 Church of Scientology Board of Trustees 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Clearwater Depot Inc c/o Pinch A Penny Inc P O Box 6025 Clearwater FL 33758 - 6025 Connelly, John 630 Chestnut St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5337 Baskin, H H Sr Rental Properties Inc 703 Court St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5507 Clearwater Village Minkoff, Sue THE 423 Cleveland St Clearwater FL 33755 - Frontier Properties 504 S Myrtle Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5614 Frontier Properties Pinellas County Pinellas County 504 S Myrtle Ave Attn: Real Estate Mgmt Attn: Gen Services Clearwater FL 33756 - 5614 315 Court St 315 Court St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5165 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5165 FILE 4JZ? 1,22 Pelican Bay Ltd Inc Pinellas County Pinellas County 639 Chestnut St Attn: Gen Serv Real Est Attn: Real Estate Mgmt Clearwater FL 33756 - 5336 315 Court St 315 Court St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5165 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5165 Pinellas County Pinellas County Church of Scientology Attn: Gen Services Attn Real Estate Mgmt Div Board of Trustees 315 Court St 315 Court St 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5165 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5165 Clearwater FL 33756 - Clearwater, City of Clearwater, City of Church of Scientology P O Box 4748 P O Box 4748 Religious Trust Clearwater FL 33758 - 4748 Clearwater FL 33758 - 4748 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Church of Scientology Church of Scientology Church of Scientology Board of Trustees Board of Trustees Board of Trustees 319 S Garden Ave 319 S Garden Ave 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Pinellas County Krug, Dell Jiffy Reprographics Inc 315 Court St 4738 Pebble Brook Dr 411 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5165 Oldsmar FL 34677 - 4848 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5511 Kerr, Arm L Roperti, Robert J Jiffy Reprographics Inc 2817 W Hawthorne Rd 411 S Garden Ave 411 S Garden Ave Tampa FL 33611 - 2827 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5511 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5511 Church Of Scientology Church of Scientology Church of Scientology Board Of Trustees Board of Trustees Board of Trustees 319 S Garden Ave 319 S Garden Ave 118 N Fort Harrison Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Clearwater FL 33755 - 4019 Church of Scientology Intervest Bank Cepcot Corp Religious Trust 625 Court St P O Box 6025 319 S Garden Ave Clearwater FL 33756 - 5528 Clearwater FL 33758 - 6025 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5423 Porpoise Pool & Patio Inc Clearwater, City of Jordan, Esther F P O Box 6025 P O Box 4748 611 14th Ave NW Clearwater FL 33758 - 6025 Clearwater FL 33758 - 4748 Largo FL 33770 - 1111 Wallace, William D THE Wallace, William D THE Pontrello, William G Wallace, Frances L THE Wallace, John L 619 Chestnut St 606 Turner St 606 Turner St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5336 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5315 Clearwater FL 33756 - 5315 Wallace, William D THE Wallace, John L THE 606 Turner St Clearwater FL 33756 - 5315 0 Randy Wedding 300 1" Ave S Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Pierce 100 Condominium Assoc. Terry Turner 100 Pierce St. #710 Clearwater, FL 33756 ?r e C ITY OF C LEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 LANG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW June 20, 2003 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street Dear Mr. Wedding: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On June 17, 2003 the Community Development Board reviewed your Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C at 657 Court Street. The Community Development Board (CDB) DENIED the application with the following bases: Bases for Denial: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines; 2. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the Downtown District; 3. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to Downtown redevelopment; 4. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803; and 5. The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER ED HART, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER ® BILL JONSON, COMMISSIONER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" -# June 20, 2003 Wedding - Page Two Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4-502.13 by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of this Development Order. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on July 7, 2003 (14 days from the date of this Development Order). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner, at 727- 562-4504. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.clearwater-fl.com. ?Vererjy truly yours, _ "? gxa/? Cynthia Tarapani, AICP Planning Director Cc: Mr. E. D. Armstrong IIMS5clPDSIPlanning Departmentl C D BTUA11nactive or Finished Applications lCourt 657 Auto Service Station -Den ie& Court 657 Development Order.doc `. CITY OF C LEARWAT E R PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW April 11, 2005 Mr. Randy Wedding Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc. 300 First Avenue South, Suite 402 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street Dear Mr. Wedding: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On March 22, 2005, the Community Development Board reviewed your request to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C. The Community Development Board (CDB) APPROVED the application, pursuant to the Sixth Judicial Circuit grant of writ of certiorari on January 19, 2005, thereby reversing the prior decision of the CDB and the City's hearing officer, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That this approval is for site plans and related materials as provided to the CDB for their review and consideration on June 17, 2003. 2. Future development of the parcel shall occur in a manner materially and substantially in conformance with the site plan and related materials as provided to the CDB, for their review and consideration on June 17, 2003. Non-material or minor changes shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 4-406 of the Code. 3. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 4. That a complete pen-nit application including site plans be submitted within 1 year of the purchase date; 5. That the Certificate of Occupancy be issued within 1 year of the issuance of building permit; 6. That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 7. That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 8. That all utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 9. That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future under grounding of existing utilities within the abutting right(s)-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of BRIAN J. AUNGSr, MAYOR FRANK HIBBARD, VICE MAYOR HOYr HAMILTON, COUNCILMEMBER BILL JONSON, COUNCILMEIIBER ® CARLEN A. PETERSEN, COUNCILMEMBER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" R i April 6, 2005 Wedding - Page Two conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 10. That all signage meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally-integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any sign permits which includes: a. All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color, font style and size; b. All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; c. All attached signs consist of channel letters; and d. Any freestanding sign be designed as a monument-style at a maximum height of four feet. Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (March 22, 2006). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within one year of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The Community Development Board may approve one additional extension of time after the community development coordinator's extension to initiate a building permit application. The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4-502.B by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of the CDB meeting. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on April 5, 2005 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Michael Delk, AICP, Assistant Planning Director, at 727-562-4561. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/planning. *Make Us Your Favorite! Sin erely, Cynthia H. Tarapani, AICP Planning Director S:Wlanning DeportmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)Vnactive or Finished Applications lCourt 0657 Auto Service Station (D) - ApprovedlCourt 657 Development Order #2 4.11.05.doc