04/18/2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 18, 2006
Present: David Gildersleeve Chair
Nicholas C. Fritsch Board Member
Kathy Milam Board Member
J. B. Johnson Board Member
Thomas Coates Board Member
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Jordan Behar Board Member
Daniel Dennehy Alternate Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
: March 21, 2006
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 21,
motion
2006, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The
carried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Item 1):
1. Case:
FLD2005-09093 – 279 Windward Passage Level Two Application
(Request for Continuance to May 16, 2006)
Owners/Applicants:
Harbour Estates, LLC.
Representative:
Bill Woods/Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting, Inc. (322 Ridge Road,
Palm Harbor, FL 34683: phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; e-mail:
billwoods@woodsconsulting.org).
Location:
1.45 acres on the south side of Windward Passage, approximately 300 feet
west of Island Way.
Atlas Page:
267B.
Zoning District:
Commercial (C) District.
Request:
Flexible Development approval to permit a 1,818 square-foot multi-use dock for eight
boat slips in the Commercial District with a reduction to the side (east) setback from 22.4 feet to
1.5 feet, under the provisions of Section 3-601.
Proposed Use:
Multi-use dock for eight boat slips.
Neighborhood Associations:
Island Estates Civic Association (Frank Dame, 140 Island Way
#239, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-442-2237); Islander Condo Inc. (Rex Clark, President,
113 Island Way, Apt. 245, Clearwater, FL 33767); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra
Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Community Development 2006-04-18 1
Member Coates moved to continue Item A1, Case FLD2005-09093 for 279 Windward
motion
Passage to May 16, 2006. The was duly seconded.
In response to a question, Senior Planner Wayne Wells said the City wishes to continue
the case due to legal issues.
Chair Gildersleeve disclosed he had some discussion with the owner’s representative.
carried
Upon the vote being taken, the motion unanimously. Alternate Board Member
Dennehy did not vote.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting (Items 1 – 6):
1. Case:
FLD2006-01001 – 1004 Tuskawilla Street Level Two Application
Owners:
1004 Tuskawilla Street LLC.
Applicants:
Hector Arango, 1004 Tuskawilla Street, Clearwater, FL 33756
Representative:
Jay Myers (9170 Oakhurst Road, Seminole, FL 33776: phone: 727-
595-7100; fax: 727-595-7138; e-mail: myersarch@ix.netcom.com).
Location:
0.75 acre on the north side of Tuskawilla Street approximately 150 feet west
of Martin Luther King Junior Blvd.
Atlas Page:
306A.
Zoning District:
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Request:
Flexible Development approval to construct an office building in the Office district:
- A reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to nine feet (to pavement);
- A reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement);
- A reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet seven feet (to pavement);
- A reduction to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to 11.83 feet (to pavement), as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-1004.B;
- A reduction to interior landscaping from 10 percent to 2.7 percent; and
- A reduction to the west perimeter landscape buffer from 12 feet to seven feet, as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, per Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use:
Office.
Neighborhood Associations:
South Clearwater Citizens For Progress (1120 Kingsley Street,
Clearwater, Fl 33756); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box
8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
John Schodtler, Planner II.
This 0.75-acre site is on the north side of Tuskawilla Street, approximately 150 feet west
of Martin Luther King Junior Blvd. The lot has 100 feet of frontage along Tuskawilla Street and
135 feet of depth. The site has long been developed with a detached single-family residence,
but has recently been demolished. There are several trees on the site. The site is located in
the middle of a block zoned Office district with primarily single-family residences to the west and
offices to the north, south and east.
The proposal includes the construction of a one-story, 2,333 square-foot office building.
The multi unit office building will be oriented to the west property line and built closer to the east
to allow parking on the west portion of the site. The proposed building complies with all Code
requirements.
Community Development 2006-04-18 2
The site design creates a building and parking lot configuration that runs north and south
on the site. Parking proposed along the western portion of the site as well as landscaping and a
six-foot tall PVC fence will mitigate the close proximity of the adjacent residential dwelling unit.
This site has historically had direct access to Tuskawilla Street and is necessary for proper
movement of vehicles and Fire Department trucks.
The proposed front (south) reduction to pavement from 25 feet to nine feet has been
designed to minimize site visibility triangle issues by placing the five-foot wide ADA (Americans
with Disabilities Act) walkway required adjacent to the proposed handicapped parking space.
The (east) side setback reduction from 10 feet to five feet is to the four-foot tall mechanical
equipment and garbage container enclosure and has been designed to minimize acoustic
interference with the adjacent office property to the east. The (west) side setback reduction to
pavement for the parking lot is from 10 feet to seven feet and will buffer the adjacent residential
property with a solid six-foot tall PVC fence and landscaping in excess of minimum code. The
rear (north) setback reduction to pavement from twenty feet to 11.38 feet is to pavement.
The proposed reductions to setbacks and the flexibility requested will upgrade and
enhance the community character and visual appearance of the immediate vicinity along this
portion of Tuskawilla Street. The proposal is in harmony with, and compatible with, the scale,
bulk, coverage and character of adjacent properties.
The proposed building is attractive including the use of stucco on the upper portion of
the building painted a light yellow. Other portions of the building façade will be accented with
natural brick masonry and window and door trim will be painted white. The roof will be covered
with a light grey shingle.
The site will be extensively landscaped, including magnolia, pines, and oaks for shade
and wax myrtle for accent. Shrubs along the perimeter of the property will be viburnum and
rhododendron. Planting beds will be enhanced by dwarf yaupon holly and dwarf confederate
jasmine. The proposal includes a reduction to the interior landscape area from 10 to 2.7
percent. Adequate areas of landscaping have been proposed in other areas of the site to justify
the reduction to the interior landscaping areas. Landscaping includes tiering of landscape
materials for visual interest and improves the site appearance. Landscaping proposed may be
viewed as being more attractive than minimum landscape standards.
Code requires on-site utilities (electric, cable, telephone, etc.) to be located
underground. The proposed water lines will need to be run down the Ewing Avenue right-of-
way from Pinellas Street and then over to the site along Tuskawilla Street in order to provide
adequate water supply to a non-residential use. Careful consideration, such as directional
boring of the existing trees located in the rights-of-way, is required so as to not damage root
systems. Directional boring will be required to minimize damage
A retention pond is proposed in the front of the building. The pond is designed to have
4:1 side slopes adjacent to the right of way (Tuskawilla Street) and the adjacent eastern
property.
Findings of Fact: 1) The subject 0.75-acre site is zoned Office District and is located in a
mixed area of residential and office uses; 2) The current use of the site is vacant; 3) The
proposal is to redevelop the site for offices within a one-story, 2,333 square-foot office building;
4) The site is adjacent to offices on the north, south, and east and residential to the west; 5) The
Community Development 2006-04-18 3
proposed reductions to setbacks and the flexibility requested significantly upgrade and enhance
the community character and visual appearance of the immediate vicinity; 6) The proposal will
upgrade and enhance the community character and visual appearance of the immediate vicinity;
7) The proposed development is consistent and compatible in scale, bulk, coverage and
character with other commercial properties in the vicinity; and 8) There are no active code
enforcement cases for the parcel.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-1004.B; 2)
Staff further concludes that the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Landscape
Program criteria, per Section 3-1202.G; and 3) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in
compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other standards of
the Code.
The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting
materials on March 3, 2006. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval to construct a 2,333 square-foot office building in the Office district with a
reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 feet to nine feet (to pavement), a reduction to the
side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback
from 10 feet seven feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to
11.83 feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-
1004.B; and reduction to interior landscaping from 10 percent to 2.7 percent, a reduction to the
west perimeter landscape buffer from 12 feet to seven feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape
Program, per Section 3-1202.G. for the property at 1004 Tuskawilla Street, with the following
bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with Flexible Development
criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Section 2-1004.B; 2) The
proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria per Section 3-
1202.G; 3) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code, including the
General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 4) The proposal is compatible with the
surrounding area and will enhance redevelopment efforts. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That
the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted
to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2) That prior to the issuance of a building permit a note be
added to the landscape plans indicating: Per Section 3-1204.D. all landscaping must be
protected from vehicular and pedestrian traffic by the installation of curbing and wheel stops, or
other protective devices along the perimeter of any landscaping which adjoins vehicular use
areas and sidewalks. These protective devices shall have a minimum height of six inches
above grade; 3) That the landscape plan and plant list be revised to correct the quantity of the
plant "IVR" - Indian Hawthorn, prior to issuance of a building permit; 4) That all proposed utilities
(from the right-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed underground, including outdoor
lighting lines; 5) That a tree preservation plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting
arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture be provided prior to
the issuance of a building permit; 6) That the civil drawings be revised prior to the issuance of a
building permit to consider removing the Myrtles, actually Cherry Laurels, at the northwest
corner, the eight-inch Cherry Laurel, south of the northwest corner and the Pines and the
Unknown, actually Avocados, near the northeast corner; 7) That a survey of all trees located in
and within 25 feet of the right of way line be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit;
8) That prior to the issuance of a building permit a note be added to the civil drawings indicating
directional boring of the relocated fire hydrant supply line to avoid trenching under the existing
trees: and 9) That all future signage be architecturally integrated into the design of the site and
building.
Community Development 2006-04-18 4
See motion of approval on page 10.
2. Case:
ANX2006-01001– 1212 Claire Drive Level Three Application
Owner:
Wallace Vinson (1212 Claire Drive, Clearwater, FL 34615; Telephone 727-449-
0202).
Location:
A 0.156-acre parcel of land located on the north side of Claire Drive
approximately 260 feet west of Stockton Drive.
Atlas Page:
269B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.156 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use:
Single-family detached dwelling.
Neighborhood Association(s):
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President,
P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.158-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
north side of Claire Drive, approximately 135 feet west of McMullen-Booth Road. The property
is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the north and west; therefore, the proposed
annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The
applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste
service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan
designation of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR).
Pursuant to Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63, the PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) staff
has reviewed this annexation and determined it complies with all applicable ordinance criteria.
Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63(1)(a) requires that a proposed annexation be both contiguous
to the existing municipal boundaries and compact. This site is contiguous with the existing City
boundaries to the north and west and represents a logical and appropriate extension of the
existing boundaries. The compactness standard requires that the annexation not create an
enclave or a serpentine pattern of municipal boundaries. The annexation of this property is
consistent with this standard and no new enclave will be created. In summary, the annexation
of this property is consistent with Florida law. There are no current code enforcement violations
or any code enforcement history on this site.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends: 1) Approval of the
annexation of 0.158 acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) Approval of the Residential Low (RL)
Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) Approval of the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
See motion to recommend approval on page 10.
Community Development 2006-04-18 5
3.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case:
ANX2006-01002– 1969 N. Betty Lane Level Three Application
Owner:
Marie Honorat-Telfort (1969 N. Betty Lane, Clearwater, FL 33755; Telephone
727-418-8779).
Location:
A 0.234-acre parcel of land located on the northeast corner of Betty Lane and
State Street.
Atlas Page:
251B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.234 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Urban (RU) Category (County) to
Residential Urban (RU) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-4, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use:
Single-family detached dwelling.
Neighborhood Association(s):
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President,
P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.234-acre property consisting of one parcel, on the
southeast corner of Betty Lane and State Street. The property is contiguous with the existing
City boundaries to the north; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida
Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order to receive solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a
Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Urban (RU) and a zoning category of Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Pursuant to Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63, the PPC staff has reviewed this
annexation and determined it complies with all applicable ordinance criteria. Pinellas County
Ordinance 00-63 requires that a proposed annexation be both contiguous to the existing
municipal boundaries and compact. This site is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to
the north and west and represents a logical and appropriate extension of the existing
boundaries. The compactness standard requires that the annexation not create an enclave or a
serpentine pattern of municipal boundaries. The annexation of this property is consistent with
this standard and no new enclave will be created. In summary, the annexation of this property
is consistent with Florida law. There are no current code enforcement violations or any code
enforcement history on this site.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services solid waste,
police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level.
The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends: 1) Approval of the
annexation of 0.234 acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) Approval of the Residential Urban (RU)
Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) Approval of the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
Planner Cky Ready reported that after discussing issues of concern with staff, the
person who requested that this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda was satisfied and left
the meeting.
Community Development 2006-04-18 6
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Item E3, Case ANX2006-01002 for
motioncarried
1969 N. Betty Lane. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate
Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
4. Case:
ANX2006-01003–1824 Marilyn Drive Level Three Application
Owner:
Shaip Avdullahu (1824 Marilyn Drive, Clearwater, FL 33759; Telephone 727-
724-0691).
Location:
A 0.169-acre parcel of land located on the west side of Marilyn Drive
approximately 280 feet south of Woodring Drive and 320 feet north of Morningside Drive.
Atlas Page:
264A.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.169 acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use:
Single-family detached dwelling.
Neighborhood Association(s):
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President,
P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.169-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
west side of Marilyn Drive, approximately 280 feet south of Woodring Drive and 320 feet north
of Morningside Drive. The property is located within an enclave and is not contiguous to
existing City boundaries; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County
requirements with regard to voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in
order to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste service from the City. It is proposed that the
property be assigned a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and zoning
category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Pursuant to Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63, the Pinellas Planning Council staff has
reviewed this annexation and determined that it complies with all applicable ordinance criteria.
Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63(1)(b) provides for the voluntary annexation of property that is
located within and reduces an enclave on the effective date of the ordinance. The subject site is
located within an enclave, is noncontiguous to City boundaries and reduces the enclave. The
property proposed for annexation is located within an enclave and its annexation will reduce
such enclave; therefore, the annexation of this property is consistent with Pinellas County
Ordinance 00-63. There are no current code enforcement violations or any code enforcement
history on this site.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with both the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 regarding
voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following
actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of 0.169-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2)
Approval of the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan classification; and 3) Approval of
the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning classification pursuant to the City’s
Community Development 2006-04-18 7
Community Development Code.
See motion to recommend approval on page 10.
5.
Level Three Application
Case:
TA2006-03003 Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant:
City of Clearwater, City Attorney’s Office
Request
: Amendment to the Community Development Code proposing to add: sections 4-
202A.26, Application Procedures; 4-610, review procedures; Chapter 34, creation of a rental
assistance fund and supporting procedural process. The purpose of these changes are to
ensure compliance with statutory requirements as well as appropriate local oversight when
considering changes impacting mobile home residents and owners in the City of Clearwater.
These changes will provide for affirmative findings that adequate mobile home parks or other
suitable facility exists for relocation of those impacted by such changes. These changes will
further provide for relocation assistance both in terms of counseling and when necessary and
appropriate rental assistance or other alternative means of assurance. Provides standards for
review and evaluation of changes impacting mobile home residents and/or owners.
Neighborhood Association:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President,
P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter
: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney
Florida Statutes Section 723.083 restricts the ability of local governments to take action
including rezoning that would result in removal or relocation of mobile home owners without first
making an affirmative finding that adequate mobile home parks or other suitable facilities exist
for such relocation. The City Attorney’s Office, following direction from the City Council, has
drafted an ordinance providing for a Mobile Home Transition Program to operate in such
situations. Pinellas County adopted a similar ordinance in December 2005. A portion of the
Ordinance involves amendments to the Community Development Code.
Proposed Amendments:
Proposed Ordinance 7616-06 includes the following amendments:
1. Amendment to add Subsection 4-202A.26 adds to application procedures requirement that if
approval will result in removal/relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park,
information must be provided sufficient to show that adequate parks or other facilities exist for
relocation.
2. Amendment to add Section 4-610, providing for procedure to determine that adequate parks
or other facilities exist. Provides for review by staff, Community Development Board, and City
Council review. Provides for conditional approval in lieu of affirmative finding upon deposit by
applicant into Supplemental Rental Assistance Payment Fund or alternative means of
assurance. Provides standard for review.
3. Amendment to Code of Ordinances to create Chapter 34, Article I. Creates Supplemental
Rental Assistance Fund and provides method of calculating deposits into Fund. Provides for
housing counseling services to mobile home owners. Provides for supplemental rental
assistance payments for qualified mobile home owners for whom affordable replacement
housing has not been identified, with eligibility criteria specified. Payments are to be made to
the lessor of the mobile home owner for up to a 24-month consecutive period.
Community Development 2006-04-18 8
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text
amendments.
Any Code amendment must comply with the following.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, Objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendments are consistent with and further the following Goals,
Objectives, and Policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan:
Goal 13 - An affordable variety of standard housing units in decent and safe
neighborhoods to meet the needs of current and future residents regardless of race, nationality,
age, marital status, handicap, or religion.
Objective 13.1 - Assure an adequate supply of housing in Clearwater by providing for
additional new dwelling units in a variety of types, costs, and locations to meet the needs of the
residents of the City of Clearwater.
Policy 13.1.5 - City of Clearwater shall continue to provide information, incentives, and
technical assistance to the private sector in order to achieve housing production that meets the
needs of very low, low, moderate, and middle income households.
Objective 13.2 - The City of Clearwater shall continue to provide assistance and
incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate
Income households, including those with special needs, consistent with the level or growth in
these income categories.
Objective 13.4 - Continue to provide zoning and land use regulations, which allow for the
development of affordable housing in stable neighborhoods.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
These proposed amendments further the following purposes of the Code:
Section 1-103.A – It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the
Comprehensive Plan of the city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life
in the city; to guide the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of
procedure for land development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the
preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property
owners of the city.
E. - It is the further purpose of this Development Code to: 2. - Protect the character and
the social and economic stability of all parts of the city through the establishment of reasonable
standards, which encourage the orderly and beneficial development of land within the city.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The Planning Department and City Attorney’s Office recommend approval of Ordinance 7616-
06 amending the Community Development Code in the manner described above.
Community Development 2006-04-18 9
See motion to recommend approval below.
6. Case:
FLD2003-09050 – 1925 Edgewater Drive
Owner/Applicant
: Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
Representative:
Harry S. Cline, Esq. (625 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33766; phone:
727-441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470).
Location:
2.572 acres at the southeast corner of Sunnydale and Edgewater Drives.
Atlas Page:
251A.
Zoning:
T, Tourist District.
Request:
Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use:
Attached multi-family residential units.
Neighborhood Association:
Edgewater Drive Homeowners Association (Chip Potts, 1150
Commodore St., Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-448-0093); Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Alternate Member Dennehy declared a conflict of interest and recused himself.
Harry S. Cline, on behalf of Top Flight Development, LLC, requests a time extension for
the project. A one-year extension is being requested, which would expire on April 26, 2007.
Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis…significant
downturn in the national economy, etc…” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that
the project is being delayed for economic reasons as it relates to housing, further complicated
by rising construction costs, which have occurred for a variety of reasons. It should be noted
that, pursuant to Section 4-407, a six-month extension has previously been granted.
The Code further directs that the CDB (Community Development Board) may consider
whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are pending
or approved code amendments, which would significantly affect the project. It should be noted
by the Board that in the intervening period subsequent to the original approval, the City has
adopted a new parking standard for multi-family development going from a minimum of 1.5
spaces per residential unit to a minimum of 2 spaces per residential unit. Planning Director
Michael Delk said this development request meets the current standard of 2 spaces per unit.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item E1, Case FLD2006-01001 for 1004 Tuskawilla
Street with Conditions of Approval as listed and Item E6, Case FLD2003-09050 for 1925
Edgewater Drive and recommend approval of Item E2, Case ANX2006-01001 for 1212 Claire
Drive, Item E4, Case ANX2006-01003 for 1824 Marilyn Drive, and Item E5, Case TA2006-
motion
03003 Amendments to the Community Development Code. The was duly seconded
carried
and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
F. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
Community Development 2006-04-18 10
1. Case:
FLD2005-09094 – 1091 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application
(Continued from March 21, 2006)
Owner/Applicant:
Carlouel Yacht Corp.
Representative:
Robert M. Thompson Jr. (1230 South Myrtle Avenue, Suite 301,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-446-2200; fax: 727-447-6524; e-mail:
rcompan3@tampabay.rr.com).
Location:
3.523 acres located on the east side of Eldorado Avenue, approximately 300
feet north of Bay Esplanade.
Atlas Pages:
227A and 238A.
Zoning District:
Institutional (I) District.
Request:
Flexible Development approval for the expansion of an existing commercial dock by
adding three floating docks (two 10-foot x 70-foot and one 10-foot x 76-foot floating dock
additions) to the existing 10-foot x 250-foot floating dock for transient vessel mooring, with a
reduction in side (north) setback from 226.13 feet to 76 feet, under the provisions of Section 3-
601.
Proposed Use:
Expansion of an existing commercial dock.
Neighborhood Associations:
Carlouel Yacht Homeowners Association (Kris Hampsey, 1031
Bay Esplanade, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-441-4188); Clearwater Beach Association
(Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-443-2168; e-mail:
papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box
8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter:
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Johnson moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of
motion
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Tim Johnson requested party status.
Member Coates moved to grant Tim Johnson party status as representative for four
neighbors, with three immediately north, south, and west of this property.
motioncarried
The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Pat Maguire, representative, objected to the board granting party status to anyone but
Mr. Byars, as he is the only property owner with a legal interest in this case due to his riparian
rights.
Senior Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. He said the original application was
for the expansion of an existing commercial dock (10-foot x 107-foot floating dock addition to an
existing 10-foot x 250-foot floating dock for transient vessel mooring), with a reduction in side
(north) setback from 226.13 feet to 3.3 feet. At their meeting on December 20, 2005, the CDB
continued this application, at the applicant’s request, to the January 17, 2006, agenda in order
to address neighbor concerns. The applicant modified their application to only relocate the
existing 10-foot x 250-foot floating dock out 81 feet from the seawall and removed the dock
extension that projected farther out from this relocated floating dock. The CDB, at their January
17, 2006, meeting again continued the proposal to the March 21, 2006, meeting to further
address neighbors’ concerns. To address a potential legal issue, staff requested this case be
continued from the March 21, 2006, agenda to the April 18, 2006, agenda. This Staff Report
has been amended to reflect the current proposal.
Community Development 2006-04-18 11
The 2.813-acre site is on the east side of Eldorado Avenue, approximately 300 feet north
of Bay Esplanade. The site currently is developed with the Carlouel Yacht Club (Social and
Community Center use), which is unique in the community in that this institutional-type use is in
an area dominated by detached dwellings. The site currently contains a fixed dock of 12 slips,
approximately in the center of the waterfront property, and a 10-foot long by 250-foot wide
floating dock on the north side of the property located four feet from the seawall. The CDB
approved the existing floating dock on January 21, 2003 (Case FLD2002-10033).
The applicant now seeks to maintain the approved 10-foot x 250-foot floating dock in its
existing location and expand it by adding three floating docks (two 10-foot x 70-foot and one 10-
foot x 76-foot) as extensions from this existing floating dock. Members and guests of the
Carlouel Yacht Club while visiting the Club will only use this floating dock for transient mooring,
not for the permanent mooring of vessels. Since constructing the existing floating dock in 2003,
the Club has discovered they are violating the requirement of the Florida Council of Yacht Clubs
to provide a minimum of four tie-up spaces for visiting boats of 40 feet. The original purpose of
the existing floating dock was to provide tie-up facilities for small boats belonging to members,
allowing members to access the Club by water and thereby reducing vehicular traffic on the
roadways and parking demands. These larger boats historically tied up along the seawall and
now tie up to the existing floating dock, not allowing the small boats to also moor at this floating
dock. The proposed configuration of the floating dock with the three additions will allow
increased usage of the floating dock by both large and small boats, rather than having to anchor
their vessels and use a small boat to ferry persons over to the existing dock to access the site,
and allow the Club to be in compliance with the requirements of the Florida Council of Yacht
Clubs.
The proposal does not appear to have any adverse impact upon the recreational or
commercial use of the waterway and the floating dock additions do not impose any navigational
hazards. There is a deep-water channel running between the applicant’s seawall and a wide
sea grass bed and mangrove island estuarine type environment over 350 feet to the east. The
proposed dock is located a safe distance from this natural marine habitat, grass flats or marine
life and, therefore, does not pose any adverse impacts. Studies provided by the applicant do
not indicate any evidence of hard-bottom communities (e.g., oysters, soft corals, bryozoans, and
tunicates), or any evidence of marine sea grass, within the area of the proposed floating dock.
The City’s Harbormaster, William Morris, does not oppose this request, but reserves the right,
should Dunedin Pass ever be re-opened either by act of nature or legislation, to require a re-
evaluation of the floating dock location at such time. Such re-evaluation would include, but not
be limited to, waterway depths and dynamics such that if the floating dock or vessels moored on
the outboard (east) side encroaches into a proposed channel, such floating dock be moved
back (west) so as not have moored vessels encroach on the Mandalay Channel.
Since the Club is adjacent to detached dwellings, the commercial dock is required to
locate within the center one-third of the property. The applicant is requesting a setback
reduction on the north side from 226.13 feet to 76 feet to the northernmost floating dock
addition. The existing floating dock will remain at a six-foot side (north) setback. The detached
dwelling lot directly to the north does not have the physical dwelling on it, rather the dwelling is
on the west side of Eldorado Avenue and the dock is on the east side of Eldorado Avenue. The
dock for the detached dwelling lot to the south is at an approximate zero setback to the common
property line. The proposed floating dock additions (including the existing fixed slips) are
proportional to its upland waterfront lot width and are in harmony with the scale and character of
the surrounding single-family docks. The proposed dock is in harmony with the scale and
character of the Yacht Club, which has a 678.4-foot waterfront lot width, and is much greater
Community Development 2006-04-18 12
than the surrounding detached dwelling lot widths. The Club is located within a large detached
dwelling area. The Club is a unique circumstance not generally found within the community.
Most docks, obviously, in the vicinity are in a length and setback in relation to the detached
dwelling character of those lots. The proposed floating dock additions are proportionally
compatible with the other docks within the neighborhood.
Prior to the signoff by the Planning Department for the County building permit for the
floating dock additions, a building permit to install fire risers on the floating dock acceptable to
the Fire Department must be submitted. Prior to completion of the dock additions, the fire riser
permit must be finalized. Dock supported signage will need to be permanently installed warning
boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity. Lighting should
be installed at each end of the floating dock additions to make the dock more visible to
recreational boaters at night. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this
site.
Findings of Fact: 1) The subject 2.813-acre site is zoned Institutional (I) District; 2) The
current use of the upland is a “social and community center” (Carlouel Yacht Club), which is
unique in the community in that this institutional-type use is located in an area dominated by
detached dwellings; 3) The site currently contains a dock of 12 slips, along the east,
approximately in the center of the waterfront property, and a 10-foot long by 250-foot wide
floating dock on the north side of the property located four feet from the seawall. The CDB
approved the existing floating dock on January 21, 2003 (Case FLD2002-10033); 4) The
existing floating dock was originally approved at a side (north) setback of six feet, which will
remain in this approved location; 5) The proposal is to expand the existing commercial dock by
adding three floating dock additions (two 10-foot x 70-foot and one 10-foot x 76-foot) to the
existing floating dock; 6) The proposal includes a reduction to the minimum side (north) setback
from 226.13 feet to 76 feet for the northernmost floating dock addition; 7) The proposed dock
expansion complies with maximum dock width and maximum dock length requirements of the
Code; 8) The proposed dock is in harmony with the scale and character of the Yacht Club,
which has a 678.4-foot waterfront lot width, which is much greater than surrounding detached
dwelling lot widths; 9) There does not appear to be any adverse impact by the floating dock
additions upon the recreational or commercial use of the waterway and the floating dock
additions do not impose any navigational hazards; 10) Fire protection is required for these
floating docks, which must be permitted prior to or in conjunction with the floating dock additions
construction; 11) The proposed dock expansion (including the existing fixed slips) is proportional
to its upland waterfront lot width and is in harmony with the scale and character of the
surrounding single-family docks. The proposed dock is proportionally compatible with the other
docks within the neighborhood; and 12) There are no active code enforcement cases for the
parcel.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria of Section 3-601; 2) Staff further concludes that the proposal is in
compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) Based on the above
findings and the proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of this application.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on November 3, 2005. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval for the
expansion of an existing commercial dock by adding three floating docks (two 10-foot x 70-foot
and one 10-foot x 76-foot floating dock additions) to the existing 10-foot x 250-foot floating dock
for transient vessel mooring, with a reduction in side (north) setback from 226.13 feet to 76 feet,
under the provisions of Section 3-601, for the site at 1091 Eldorado Avenue, with the following
Community Development 2006-04-18 13
bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601; 2) The proposal is in compliance
with other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria per Section 3-913p
and 3) The dock development is compatible with the surrounding area. Conditions of Approval:
1) That the floating dock be for the exclusive use by members and guests of the Carlouel Yacht
Club, that boats moored be transient and that there be no commercial activities at the docks
(bait sales, vending, etc.); 2) That the City reserves the right, should Dunedin Pass ever be re-
opened either by act of nature or legislation, to require a re-evaluation of the floating dock
location at such time. Such re-evaluation would include, but not be limited to, waterway depths
and dynamics such that if the dock or vessels moored on the outboard (east) side encroaches
into a proposed channel, such floating dock be moved back (west) so as not have moored
vessels encroach on said channel; 3) That dock-supported signage be permanently installed
containing wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in
the vicinity; 4) That lighting be installed at each of the eastern ends of the floating dock to make
the floating dock more visible to recreational boaters at night; 5) That a building permit to install
fire risers on the floating dock acceptable to the Fire Department be submitted prior to Planning
Department sign-off on the County dock permit application. Prior to completion of the floating
docks additions, the fire riser permit shall be finalized; and 6) That a copy of the SWFWMD
(Southwest Florida Water Management District) and/or FDEP (Florida Department of
Environmental Protection) Permit, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of permission to use
State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
commencement of construction.
Mr. Maguire said Carlouel Yacht Club is the only property in the area with no pier. He
said this proposal provides Carlouel a minimum amount of safe and environmentally friendly
dockage to service its members. He said additional dockage would prevent stacking and idling
of boats and address safety and environmental hazards. He said the proposed docks would not
be permanent piers. He said during the past 10 years, the Club has reconfigured each of its
proposals in response to citizen input. He said the current proposal does not impact neighbors’
riparian rights or water views, nor would ingress and egress setbacks prevent nearby
homeowners from using their docks. He noted some nearby residents have compromised their
own water views with their docks. Mr. Maguire stated that adjacent property owner, Mr. Byars,
supported the original proposal but objects to this design. He said Carlouel has spent
significant time, effort, and money on this application, partially based on Mr. Byar’s previous
approval. He said the proposal will result in less parking and area traffic and addresses safety
issues and neighbors’ legal interests. In response to a question, he said four meetings with
neighbors have occurred since December regarding the club’s last three proposals.
John Meek, Jr., representing the Carlouel Yacht Club, reviewed the application process,
noting the proposal will alleviate area traffic. He said members opposed to the dock were
encouraged to serve on the club’s dock committee, which held many meetings. He said those
who oppose the proposal have never offered an alternative proposal and seem to feel that the
Yacht Club should have no docks. Mr. Meek said Club docks are full on weekends and demand
has increased. He reviewed Florida Yacht Club Council requirements, which leave only a
dozen slips available for members. He distributed a drawing and photographs of the Club’s
floating docks where the project is proposed.
David Allbritton, representing the Carlouel Yacht Club, said a recent Club survey
indicated that members’ highest priority was increased dockage. He said proposed dockage will
have a minimal impact on the neighborhood.
Community Development 2006-04-18 14
Bobby Thompson, representing the Carlouel Yacht Club, reviewed the considerable
FDEP requirements that had to be met. He said the FDEP had approved the proposed docks
on August 5, 2005 with caveats that required: 1) City and County approval; 2) Carlouel to
provide for 12 signs specified by the State, at a cost of $4,000, to be placed in the vicinity of the
flatlands near Carlouel; and 3) that Carlouel perform new surveys to address dockage and
submerged lands. He said once these issues are addressed, the Club can approach its
membership for approval.
Mr. Maguire said the proposed location for the docks has the least environmental
impact.
Party status grantee Tim Johnson said the four neighbors he represents oppose the
application, and suggested that the Club comply with the Yacht Club Council by removing the
floating dock installed in 2003. He said this request will expand a nonconforming use and the
application does not meet Code. He said Mr. Byars opposes the application because the docks
would extend farther from the seawall than originally proposed. He said all neighborhood
meetings were instigated by neighbors and the applicant had not presented this proposal to the
neighbors.
In response to a question, Mr. Johnson opined that the Carlouel Yacht Club is a
nonconforming use. He said the current floating dock is not seen by neighbors, is not a
problem, and does not jut into the Intracoastal. He said the proposal is not in harmony with the
adjacent area.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the only improvements made to the Yacht Club
were an elevator and 1,000 square-foot addition, approved in 2000 and constructed according
to Code.
Mr. Johnson requested all memorandum related to the case be part of the record.
In response to questions, Mr. Wells said under Code, the Club is a social and community
center. He said the 2000 approval of the addition to the Club was based on Code. Properties
to the south and west of Carlouel are zoned LMDR; the property to the north is zoned LDR. He
did not know if the Carlouel property meets Code’s perimeter buffer requirements, as that
portion of the upland is not part of this application. Carlouel’s off-street parking does not meet
landscaping standards, as most is located in the right-of-way. He said staff has determined that
Carlouel is not a nonconforming use, that the use is provided for in the Institutional zoning
district, and that Carlouel does not need to request termination of nonconformity. He said
Carlouel has not filed an application for termination of nonconformity, including when they filed
an application in 1999 for an elevator.
Six persons spoke in opposition to the application.
Mr. Wells said this case was continued on March 21, 2006, due to staff’s desire to have
legal questions addressed. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said even if the
property were nonconforming, the Code does not prohibit reconfiguration or expansion of an
accessory use to a nonconforming principal use, nor does case law. In response to a question,
Ms. Grimes said the City, not the Board, is responsible for making legal interpretations of the
Code.
Community Development 2006-04-18 15
Mr. Johnson said this application would result in the unlawful expansion of a
nonconforming use, which never was terminated and the application does not meet Code.
Mr. Maguire said a large number of boats are in the area near Carlouel. He said aerial
photos show that many residents have built docks nearby. He said Carlouel has no piers
extending into the waterway and is one of the least developed yacht clubs. He said docks are
an accessory use for members of this social club.
Discussion ensued with comments that Club membership approval of the application still
is necessary, that some boats in the area are larger than those proposed, that the boat slips
would not change area traffic patterns, and that it is understandable that neighbors want to
continue to swim off their docks. It was suggested that the board consider the issue of
nonconformity. Ms. Grimes said if a Development Order is approved, construction must begin
within one year.
Member Tallman moved to approve Item F1, Case FLD2005-09094 for 1091 Eldorado
Avenue, based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as listed and the Staff report, and
motion
including Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval, as listed. The was duly
seconded. Members Gildersleeve, Milam, Coates, Tallman and Behar voted “Aye”; Members
carried
Johnson and Fritsch voted “Nay.” Motion . Alternate Member Dennehy did not vote.
G. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION (Item 1):
1.
Level Three Application
Case:
TA2006-03002 Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant:
City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request
: Amendments to the Community Development Code regarding sandwich board signs,
signs during public construction projects, and increasing parking requirements for Residential
Infill projects in the High Density Residential District.
Neighborhood Association:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, (Sondra Kerr, President
P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter
: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Senior Planner Michael Reynolds reviewed proposed amendments. The Planning
Department is recommending three amendments to the Community Development Code. These
amendments address parking in the High Density Residential District and sandwich board signs.
Below is a summary of these proposed amendments. Ordinance 7630-06 includes the
specific amendments.
Article 2 – Zoning Districts
Parking Requirements
(Pages 1 - 2 of Ordinance)
??
Ordinance 7630-06 increases the Residential Infill Project minimum parking space
requirement for residential dwellings from 1 space to 2 spaces per unit in the HDR Zoning
District. This amendment addresses concerns raised by the Planning Department, the City
Council, and the public regarding the need for additional parking for new residential
development and was inadvertently left out of Ordinance 7605-06.
Community Development 2006-04-18 16
Article 3 – Development Standards
Prohibition of Sandwich Board Signs
(Page 2 of Ordinance)
??
The Planning Department has drafted an amendment that will remove the exception to
the prohibition of sandwich board signs for the Downtown District, to be consistent with the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. A new exception is proposed to be added that
provides for temporary sandwich board signs for businesses during lengthy public construction
projects.
Sandwich Board Signs During Public Construction Projects
(Pages 2 – 3 of
??
Ordinance)
This ordinance amendment provides for temporary sandwich signs for businesses
abutting public construction projects. The amendment regulates the number of such signs
allowed per parcel, as well as the appearance, height and size of signs. The amendment
provides for such signs during the timeframe of construction. The intent of the amendment is to
offset potential business access confusion.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Code Section 4-601 specifies the procedures and criteria for reviewing text
amendments.
Any code amendment must comply with the following.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies,
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Below is a list of goals, policies, objectives from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that
are furthered by the proposed amendments to the Community Development Code:
??
Goal 4 – The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment
initiatives meet the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the City through consistent
implementation of the Community Development Code.
The proposed amendments provide for increased parking requirements for residential
development, strengthening the Residential Infill Project Criteria with regard to parking.
2. The proposed amendments further the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of Section 1-103 that lists
the purposes of the Code.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code.
The amendments will ensure adequate parking in high-density areas and will assist business
during lengthy public construction projects.
Community Development 2006-04-18 17
The Planning Department Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 7630-06, which
makes revisions to the Community Development Code.
In response to a question, Mr. Reynolds defined “adjacent” as “contiguous and within
limits of construction” and could include property across the street.
One person spoke in opposition to the amendments. In response to questions, she said
this final version of the amendments was not presented to the Clearwater Beach Chamber of
Commerce. She expressed concerned regarding the words “contiguous” and “abutting” with
respect to sandwich board signs.
Mr. Delk said these amendments include most of the Beach Chamber’s requests to the
City Council. Temporary signage will be permitted Citywide within the defined limits of
construction. Properties with multiple businesses will be allowed to display two sandwich board
signs. The City is not specifying aesthetic or location criteria, only that the signs do not block
pedestrian walkways or vehicular traffic and that they be removed nightly. The ordinance
requires that sandwich board signs be removed within ten days of the City accepting
improvements.
It was suggested that the City limit the size of signs or issue design criteria to ensure
consistency. Mr. Delk said signs would be consistent only if the City purchases, and then sells
them to the businesses. It was suggested that businesses may support that approach. Mr.
Delk said the City is allowing more latitude regarding the uniqueness of each sign. City
involvement in the process would require staff time. In response to a question, Mr. Delk said all
businesses within defined construction zones will be permitted to display sandwich board signs.
Concern was expressed that temporary signs could be displayed at the same time along
17 blocks of one street during construction. It was felt that sandwich board signs along
Clearwater-Largo Road in Largo are excessive. It was recommended that staff ensure that
related language is considered thoroughly. It was suggested that a time certain be added or
that the sandwich board signs be tied to the Beachwalk project.
Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of Item G1, Case TA2006-03002,
motion
Amendments to the Community Development Code. The was duly seconded and
carried
unanimously.
H. DIRECTOR’S ITEM:
(1)
1. Election of Officers: Chair and Vice-Chair
motion
Member Fritsch moved to re-appoint Member Gildersleeve as Chair. The was
carried
duly seconded and unanimously.
motion
Member Coates moved to appoint Member Fritsch as Vice-Chair. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
Community Development 2006-04-18 18
-.
.
.
Other
Development Review Manager Neil Thompson said the board will receive new sheets for
their notebooks.
I. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
Attest:
.~f1 dRff! O~~
Board Reporter
Community Development 2006-04-18
t Board
19
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 18, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items:
Case: FLD2005-09094 ~l Eldorado Avenue
Yes V no
Level Two Aoolication
Cases: FLD2005-09093 -319 Windward Passage
Yes V no
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications
Case: FLD2006-01001-1004 Tuskawilla Street
~ Yes no
Level Three Applications
Case: ANX2006-01001-1212 Claire Drive
/Yes no
Case: ~X2006-01002-1969 N. Betty Lane
V Yes no
Ca~X2006-01003-1824 Marilyn Drive
Yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning
Date: f( --I6-tJb
nt\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 18, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items:
castLD200S-09094 -1091 Eldorado Avenue
Yes no
casrD200S-09093 -279 Windward Passage
Yes no
Level Two ADDlication
Level Two Avvlication
Level Two Applications
cas~D200~1001-1004 Tuskawilla Street
Yes no
Level Three Applications
Case: ANX2006-010071212 Claire Drive
Yes no
Case: ~X2006-01002-1969 N. Betty Lane
J Yes no
Case: ANX2006-01003-1824 Marilyn Drive
J no
Yes
Signature~ ~ Date: 4\ \+~_r-
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 18, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Items:
Case: FI1>2005-09094 -1091 Eldorado Avenue
V Yes no
Level Two Aoolication
C:~D2005-09093 -279 Windward Passage
Yes no
Level Two Application
Level Two Avvlications
Case: ~2006-01001 - 1004 Tuskawilla Street
7 Yes no
Level Three Avvlications
Case: ANX2006-01001- 12~laire Drive
Yes / no
Case: ANX2006-0100~ N. Betty Lane
Case: ~~:OO6-0100~arilYn Drive
Yes no
Signature: '
S:\Planning Depart
Date: HI J ~ /0(,
DB, property investigation ch~c