APP2011-00005; CAY 1475 LLC; TODD PRESSMANAPP2O11-00005
Item: F.1.
Appellant: Cay 1475,
LLC
Agent: Todd Pressman
CDB Meeting Date:
Case Number:
Agenda Item:
Appellant:
Agent:
July 19, 2011
APP2011 -00005
F. 1.
Cay 1475, LLC
Todd Pressman
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: An appeal of a determination made by an administrative official in the
administration of Section 4- 202.G.1., Community Development Code, with
regard to an application not being accepted during the twelve month time
period after the denial of a substantially similar Level Three application
affecting the same property or any portion thereof
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:
In June 2010, a request was submitted by Belleair Development Group to amend the future land
use map and zoning atlas designations of the property located at 1475 Sunset Point Road from
Residential /Office General (R/OG) and Residential Urban (RU) to Commercial General (CG);
and from Office (0) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (C)
District, respectively. On July 20, 2010, the Community Development Board (CDB) recom-
mended denial of these requests and on August 5, 2010, the City Council denied the requests.
Subsequently, a second request was made with regard to the same property, and at its meeting of
May 19, 2011, the City Council denied a future land use map amendment from the R/OG, RU
and CG classifications to the Residential /Office /Retail (R/O /R) classification as well as an
associated zoning atlas amendment from the 0 and LMDR Districts to the C District. City staff
had recommended denial of the request based upon the following:
• That the proposed amendment was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the
Countywide Plan Rules and the Community Development Code;
• That the proposed amendment conflicted with the character of the neighborhood; and
■ That the available uses in the proposed C District would be incompatible with the
surrounding area.
Staff noted at the meeting that the future land use map dated 2018 depicts the current future land
use classifications and that there is no anticipated change for the subject property, as well as that
the citywide design structure map identifies activity centers, preservation areas, and
neighborhood shopping center areas, and that this map recognizes the east side of Highland
Avenue (east of the subject property) as being anchored by a neighborhood shopping center with
limited commercial use to its west (the subject property). It was further mentioned by staff that
additional commercial retail space is not in the long -term interest of the neighborhood; that there
is substantial inventory of commercial property that is economically underutilized today; and that
the subject section of Sunset Point Road is a residential corridor.
The City Council agreed with the recommendation and findings of staff and voted 4 -1 to deny
the proposed future land use map amendment, and 5 -0 to deny the proposed rezoning.
Subsequent to the City Council denying the future land use map amendment and rezoning, the
applicant submitted a concept plan (copy attached and labeled Concept Plan `B ") to staff on May
31, 2011, that would require virtually the same future land use map amendments and rezoning as
denied by City Council just twelve days prior, but on a smaller scale. This proposed future land
use map amendment and rezoning would involve the eastern 90 feet of property that is presently
designated R/OG (land use) and 0 (zoning) as well as the majority of that portion of the property
presently designated RU (land use) and LMDR (zoning). Upon review of this proposal with
staff, on June 1, 2011, the Community Development Coordinator issued the following
determination via email:
I recognize it to be a scaled back request. However, I believe it substantively and
materially similar to the two prior requests. That is to say it is the same use, in the same
general location, needing utilization of similar necessary components for approval.
"Similar" is defined as "having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way"
(Dictionary.com). I do not concur that mere placement of the parking on the former bank
site with the repositioning of the building to another portion of the site constitutes a
substantially dissimilar request.
The Community Development Code states that with regard to a "resubmission of
application affecting same property" that "no application shall be accepted during the
following time periods after the denial of a substantially similar application affecting the
same property or any portion thereof. " The CDC establishes twelve months for a Level
Three approval.
The Section of the Community Development Code (CDC) referenced above that is applicable to
this appeal is Section 4- 202.G.1, CDC, which reads as follows:
G. Resubmission of application affecting same property.
1. No application shall be accepted during the following time periods after the
denial of a substantially similar application affecting the same property or
any portion thereof
a. Nine months for Level Two approvals.
b. Twelve months for Level Three approvals.
The point of disagreement between the appellant and Staff is whether or not what is now being
proposed (albeit in conceptual form and not a complete and formal application) is substantially
similar to the application affecting the same property that was denied by City Council on May
19, 2011. It is clear that the appellant believes that the applications are not similar, while the
Community Development Coordinator has determined that the applications are, in fact,
substantially similar; thus the appeal.
The Community Development Coordinator's position that the current proposal is substantially
similar to the applications that were denied by City Council, is based upon the very same reasons
that the City Council had in denying the prior applications. The denial of the proposal was in
substantial part due to the proposal being a westward expansion of the C District into a
residential corridor; an expansion that is neither desired, nor supported by the City's
Comprehensive Plan. What the appellant desires to propose at this time is a future land use map
amendment and rezoning of a portion of the very same lands to the very same C District in the
very same adverse westward direction that City Council has already determined to be
undesirable and has already denied on two separate occasions.
APPEAL PROCESS:
The appeal from the aforementioned determination was filed on by Mr. Todd Pressman on behalf
of the appellant, Cay 1475, LLC, on June 3, 2011, consistent with the timeframe established for
an appeal to be initiated in Section 4- 502.B., CDC. Pursuant to Section 4- 501.A.1., CDC, the
Community Development Board (CDB) has the authority to hear appeals from orders,
requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative official in the
administration of the development code.
Pursuant to Section 4- 504.A., CDC, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation
of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the
application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4- 206.D.5., CDC,
granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal.
It is noted that pursuant to Section 4- 504.B., CDC, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or
modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent
evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the following
criteria are met:
1. The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of
this development code; and
2. The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of
this development code; and
3. The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Robert G. Tefft,
Development Review Manager
Robert G. Tefft
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
(727) 562-4539
robert .teffWmvclearwater.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
• Development Review Manager
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida August 2008 to Present
Direct Development Review activities for the City. Supervise professional planners, land resource
specialists and administrative staff. Conduct performance reviews. Serve as staff to the Community
Development Board.
• Planner III
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida June 2005 to August 2008
Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land
development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and
provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees.
• Planner II
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2005 to June 2005
Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land
development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and
provide status reports.
• Senior Planner
City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 2003 to May 2005
Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as,
but not limited to: site plans, conditional uses, rezoning, land use amendments, and text amendments.
Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Make
presentations to various City Boards.
• Planner
City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida March 2001 to October 2003
Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as,
but not limited to: site plans, conditional use and text amendments. Organization of data and its
display in order to track information and provide status reports. Provided in -depth training to the
Assistant Planner position with respect to essential job functions and continuous guidance.
• Assistant Planner
City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 1999 to March 2001
Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for site plan development applications.
Performed reviews of building permit applications. Provided information on land use applications,
ordinances, land development regulations, codes, and related planning programs /services to other
professionals and the public.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, Geography (Urban Studies),
University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
Clearwater
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727 - 562 -4567
Fax: 727 - 562 -4576
SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
RECEIVED
JUN 03 2011
CASE #:
DATE RECEIVED:
RECEIVED BY (staff initials):
❑ SUBMIT 12 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ., !UAL �S AND
❑ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ � LEC!sL T1y SRC DEPT
APPEAL APPLICATION
Level One and Level Two Reviews (Revised 03/29/01)
—PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT—
APPLICATION/NOTICE OF APPEAL (Code Section 4 -502.A & B)
An appeal of a level one approval (flexible standard) may be initiated by a property owner abutting the property which is the subject of the approval
within seven days of the date the development order is issued. The filing of an application/ notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision
pending the final determination of the case.
An application/ notice of appeal of appeal of any decision of the city, as provided in Section 4 -501, may be initiated by the applicant or any person
granted party status within 14 days of the decision. Such application shall be filed with the city clerk in a form specified by the community
development coordinator identifying with specificity the basis for the appeal and accompanied by a fee as required by Section 4- 202.E. The filing
of an application/ notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case.
A. APPELLANT AND AGENT INFORMATION:
Cay 1475, LLC
APPELLANT NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS: Please use agent
727 - 804 -1760
PHONE NUMBER:
Todd Pressman
AGENT NAME:
FAX NUMBER:
888 - 977 -1179
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 6015, Palm Harbor, FL 35684
727 - 804 -1760
PHONE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER:
1- 888 - 977 -1179
B. APPEAL INFORMATION
CHECK THE SPECIFIC APPEAL:
Appeals to the Community Development Board
❑ Orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by
an administrative official in the administration of the
development code, except for enforcement actions.
NI Administrative interpretations of the development code
❑ Level One (Flexible and Minimum Standard) approval
decisions
❑ Denials of any permit or license issued under the provisions
of this Code
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT APPEAL (if applicable):
SPECIFIC CASE NUMBER TO BE APPEALED (if applicable): j„ /1)4441Iv,7 074) CO ! — («16_-(6
DATE OF DECISION: 6/1/11 K -so( 4-61 d- e- tr.:ac,((k)
Appeals to a hearing officer
❑ Decisions of the community development board regarding
level two approvals
❑ Decisions of the community development board regarding
level one approvals
❑ OTHER (as allowed by Code)
Whether a revised development plan is a substantial change
Page 1 of 2 – Appeal Application (Level One and Level Two Reviews)– City of Clearwater
M. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT:
. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names:
CAY 1475, LLC
2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location):
CAY 1475, LLC
That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request)
Reconsideration to file a petition to rezone the East 100 fee of the property as per the
attached Exl4ibit
4. That the undersigned (has /have) appointed and (does/do) appoint:
Todd Pressman
as (hls/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition;
. That this affidavit has been executed to Induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property;
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;
7. that (1/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
CAY 1475, LLC
Property Owner
BY: ITS MANAGER CARLOS YEPES
Property Owner
Property Owner
ST E OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Property Owner
Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Florida, on this
JUNE
2011
personally appeared CARLOS YEPES AS MANAGER
2
(deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she sighed.
Notary Seal/Stamp
�"N. DARLENE W. FEEKS
MY COMMISSION N E629213
N EXPIRES: November 27, 2014
1jp0344Agy Fl. Nmry Diwam AMC. Co.
day of
who having been first duly sworn
Notary Public Signatu /
My Commission Expires: I I
SAPIBnning ❑epPARHnMpAlitalI n Pom1Developritent RM5w+2008 Forrne1pesident8il 1n811 Prejed (F!3) 200807,111ot
PngeSof8
C. BASIS OF APPEAL:
Explain in detail the basis for the appeal. Use additional sheets if necessary.
The development plan is substantially changed in that the amount of area proposed to be zoning/LU
changed is substantiallyless. In that regard, the clear message from the staff and especially City
- --
Point Rd This deyeloraint plan leaves a majority of the land in the existing zoning/LT T category -
where the prior development plan did not. The Zoning Administrator misses this critical point
completely in only considering the foot print of the building and parking lot as the changed elements.
Since the critical point of consideration was the amount of zoning and LU to be changed - and it's affect
vii iicigliboring properties - tli e newly proposed developirieiit plan must be substa��tiallydiffe1 eu t.
D. SIGNATURE:
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this
application are true and accurate to the b -st of my knowledge.
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Sw. •! to and subscribed before me this day of
A.D. 20 / ( to me and /or by
who is personally known has
ed f—L__ YI∎.G4(S L )C txt S P as
cation.
BHARTI PATRAWALA prod
Notary Public - State of FloiAlggpt
My Comm. Expires Oct 19, 2013
Cf mission # DD 93;rV1
Signatu
IIMS2 ' •SVPlannin
Notary public,
My commission expires:
DepartmentlApplication Formsldevelopment reviewlAppeal Application.doc
Page 2 of 2 — Appeal Application (Level One and Level Two Reviews)— City of Clearwater
From: <michael.delk @MyClearwater.com>
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: New Proposal
Date: June 1, 2011 10:07:32 AM EDT
To: < Catherine. Lee@ myClearwater.com >, <todd @pressmaninc.com>
Cate — Section referred to is Section 4 -202 (G).
michael
From: Lee, Catherine
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:05 AM
To: 'todd @pressmaninc.com'
Cc: Delk, Michael
Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: New Proposal
Hi Todd,
Michael formalized his language as a follow -up to his brief response yesterday. It appears below:
I recognize it to be a scaled back request. However, I believe it substantively and
materially similar to the two prior requests. That is to say it is the same use, in the same
general location, needing utilization of similar necessary components for approval.
"Similar" is defined as "having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way"
(Dictionary.com). I do not concur that mere placement of the parking on the former bank
site with the repositioning of the building to another portion of the site constitutes a
substantially dissimilar request.
The Community Development Code states that with regard to a "resubmission of
application affecting same property" that "no application shall be accepted during the
following time periods after the denial of a substantially similar application affecting the --
same property or any portion thereof." The CDC establishes twelve months for a Level
Three approval.
My interpretation in this case remains unchanged.
Michael
Best Regards,
Cate
From: todd @pressmaninc.com [mailto:todd @pressmaninc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:43 PM
kU i
r
1 4zU .• ""
WILSON RI?
�
,�.
114.1, RU
-'
Fr.
._____. _
Q
Ct
ERIN LN
I A111
-
-
�f
11
SUNSET POINT RD
R/OG
CG
raav
CG
tar,
SPRING LN
CG
RU
1
RU,�.,�
51
IA
THAMES LN
„"
2
Z
td7
�'S ►�i'L R I.J'"'
rA:�
M11•■••
■
.'sY
JOEL LN Z
RU= - =
-Rai
FUTURE LAND USE M A P i Iv Z
OwrIt .: B•or•. of ArT'.E?rIc'l
Case: LUZ201O- 06001
10TAL PARCEL: 1.52 ACRES
Site: A portion ._,t 1 475 C"r)!,ut coins Rcod S zo Ac'u I. PORTION INCLUDED IN LUZ
REQUEST: I .23 ACRES
Land Use_ Zoning
PIN: 02-29-15-00300-320-0200
From R /OG. R. O. L►. *.D=
To: CG C
1 At!os Foyta_ 261A
a
.*
...:. _., ..
.... ....
-,40?
WILSON
_-
RD •.
.-.1 .
—4
LA D
0
cr
ERIN LN
IL
...9
, VO2
f
• IIII * *-1**-11-111-111-11-* 0 * *
r Avi+
I
'411
DR.
,
.
. ,..
....,
' t..)■•
1 f177
s-pabvG
.
I_ N
. ,•••.: :
,•,!,
*..t.P...
_I _
I
I
1
• ,..(5
-r.-
1
7..14 f
,
...a
LAIDR THAMES LN
- ____________ ._
7 -•••
7- 7
7
7
C)
I
, ,., I •
....
....i
L.
4Ct
la
••• '" '', % "4'4 rx •
..<:;-P,..-4;:',,,•"..."'....$:,*"..1
• 7
7.:
I
-Y.
7
111.24
Z
• r,..1 7
z
.../ "al.;
X
52
JOEL LN
-
ZONING MAP AOVCCPr VS(
OWI'lGrl: HUI' lk Or ArT14-srlea
_____________ __ ___ ..___
Site. A port on ct 4/5 SA...rlol Port Rood
_ono Usr, Zor r-o
R100. RU 0. LM DR
i(.... cc r_:
C ,...ISC: Li/ 2010-06001
TOTAL PARCEL: 1.52 ACRES
Pr opur ty
Sue A I I . PORTION INCLUDE0 IN LUZ
REQUEST: I .23 ACRES
PIN. 02-29-15-0D0-10-320-0200
A."las P :Jut:. 261A