07/18/2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 18, 2006
Present: David Gildersleeve Chair
Nicholas C. Fritsch Vice-Chair
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
Neil C. Thompson Planning Manager
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: June 20, 2006
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 20,
motion
2006, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The
carried
was duly seconded and unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not
vote.
D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE: (Item 1)
Community Development 2006-07-18 1
1. Case: FLD2005-09093 – 279 Windward Passage Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: 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; email:
billwoods@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 1.45 acres located 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.
At their meeting on March 21, 2006, the CDB (Community Development Board)
continued this application, at the applicant’s request, to April 18, 2006 to address legal issues of
the submerged land and proposed conditions of approval. On April 18, 2006, the CDB
continued this application, at the applicant’s request, to May 16, 2006, to address legal issues of
the submerged land and proposed conditions of approval. The applicant desires City Council
action on a request to declare the submerged land surplus to resolve legal issues prior to CDB
action. Due to scheduling issues for such a request, the CDB continued this application, at the
applicant’s request, to June 20, 2006, and then to July 18, 2006. The applicant has requested a
continuance to a date uncertain. Once issues regarding the submerged land have been
resolved, this application will be scheduled and advertised for the next available CDB meeting.
motion
Member Fritsch moved to continue Item D1 to a date uncertain. The was duly
carried
seconded and 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 – 10)
Community Development 2006-07-18 2
1. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2006-04018 – 138, 175, 214, 215 and 226 Sand Key Estates Drive and 1608,
1617, 1631 and 1635 Sand Key Estates Court
Owners/Applicants: James R. Barge, Kelly Wilken, Betty Salimi, Marianne F.
Meichenbaum Living Trust (Marianne F. Meichenbaum, Trustee), Marvin and Clara
Zoromski, Brian and Nadine Thomas, Dan L. Vo, Michael and Dawn Galasso and Craig
A. and Cathy L. Junkins.
Representative: Avery Coryell (1621 Sand Key Estates Court, Clearwater, FL 33767;
phone: 727-595-8989; fax: 727-595-6027; email: capt2aa@aol).
Location: Nine lots located in The Moorings of Sand Key Subdivision, approximately 600
feet east of Gulf Boulevard on Sand Key Estates Court and Sand Key Estates Drive.
Atlas Pages: 319B.
Zoning District: High Density Residential (HDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit rear deck/patio additions to existing detached
dwellings with a reduction to the rear setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to deck/patio) and a
reduction to the side setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to deck/patio), as a Residential Infill
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-504.F.
Proposed Use: Rear deck/patio additions to existing detached dwellings.
Neighborhood Association: Sand Key Civic Association (Mike Dooley, P.O. Box 3014,
Clearwater, FL 34630); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box
8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
These nine lots are located in The Moorings of Sand Key Subdivision, approximately
600 feet east of Gulf Boulevard on Sand Key Estates Court and Sand Key Estates Drive. The
subdivision was platted in 1991 and approved through a Certified Site Plan in 1993. The
subdivision is developed with a detached dwelling (zero-lot-line) on each lot. The applicant has
filed this request involving these nine of the 66 lots in this subdivision, rather than each lot filing
their own request. There already have been two similar requests approved in this subdivision at
1601 Sand Key Estates Court (FLD2003-09043, approved by the CDB on December 16, 2003)
and at 1648 Sand Key Estates Court (FL 02-01-01, approved by the CDB on March 19, 2002).
On March 22, 2005, the CDB approved a similar request for 54 additional lots within this
subdivision under FLD2004-12084.
The proposal includes allowing the location of wooden or composite material board
decks from the rear of the house (or rear pool apron) to the seawall, minor extension of the pool
aprons (if desired for additional seating space adjacent to the pool) and new walkway pavers six
feet or less in width to the seawall. The provision of the deck would reduce the rear setback to
zero feet, where 15 feet is required, would reduce one side setback to zero feet (same side as
zero-lot-line dwelling or to stay in line with the edge of the dwelling) and would reduce the other
side setback to five feet, where 10 feet is required (coinciding with a five-foot wide maintenance
easement adjacent to the zero-lot-line dwelling). The deck is proposed to extend into a 12-foot
wide private drainage and seawall maintenance easement adjacent to the seawall. The
maximum six-foot wide, paver sidewalk will provide safe access to the existing dock. The deck
will provide better use of the backyard and will still allow rainwater to pass through to the
ground, minimizing increases to stormwater runoff. The backyard generally slopes downward
toward the seawall. In the event access to maintain the seawall is required in the future, the
pavers, deck or deck segments can be temporarily removed to allow the work to be performed.
Community Development 2006-07-18 3
Building Code requires an 18-foot separation between seawalls and any structures. Because
these decks are within this setback, relief from the Building Code will be required.
An unintended result of the approval of the case for 54 lots in this subdivision in March
2005 under FLD2004-12084 was that one lot received a building permit to construct a deck as
an extension of the living area (1647 Sand Key Estates Court). This was not discovered until
most of the structure was completed. This produced a deck at a height at the seawall of
approximately five feet. The applicant was informed that no such future similar decks would be
permitted. A condition of approval to prevent such is recommended.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residential Infill Project criteria (Section 2-504.F) have
been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with any of these lots.
Findings of Fact: 1) The subject nine lots are located in The Moorings of Sand Key
Subdivision, approximately 600 feet east of Gulf Boulevard on Sand Key Estates Court and
Sand Key Estates Drive; 2) The current use of each of the lots is for zero-lot-line detached
dwellings; 3) The proposal includes the ability for property owners to construct rear deck/patio
additions to existing zero-lot-line detached dwellings at a rear setback of zero feet (from the
seawall) and at a minimum side setback of zero feet; 4) The proposal is to allow wooden or
composite material board decks from the rear of the house (or rear pool apron) to the seawall,
minor extension of the pool aprons (if desired for additional seating space adjacent to the pool)
and new walkway pavers six feet or less in width to the seawall; 5) The reduction to the side
setback would permit the deck on the same side as the zero-lot-line dwelling or to stay in line
with the edge of the dwelling and would reduce the other side setback to five feet, where 10 feet
is required for the dwelling (coinciding with a five-foot wide maintenance easement adjacent to
the adjoining zero-lot-line dwelling); 6) The proposed deck extensions will extend into a 12-foot
wide private drainage and seawall maintenance easement adjacent to the seawall; 7) The
proposed deck extensions will provide better use of the backyard and will still allow rainwater to
pass through to the ground, minimizing increases to stormwater runoff; 8) In the event seawall
maintenance is required in the future, the pavers, deck or deck segments can be temporarily
removed to allow the work to be performed; 9) The maximum six-foot wide, paver sidewalk will
provide safe access to the existing individual docks; 10) Two lots in this subdivision were
granted similar approval in 2002 and 2003, whereas 54 additional lots were granted similar
approval in March 2005 (of the total 66 lots in this subdivision); and 11) There are no active
code enforcement cases for any of these lots. AND Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that
the proposal will permit decks of a similar nature for all of the lots in this subdivision (except
one); 2) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the as a Residential Infill Project per
Section 2-504.F; and 3) Staff 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 June 1, 2006. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval to permit rear deck/patio additions to existing detached dwellings with a
reduction to the rear setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to deck/patio) and a reduction to the side
setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to deck/patio), as a Residential Infill Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-504.F, at 138, 175, 214, 215 and 226 Sand Key Estates Drive and 1608,
1617, 1631 and 1635 Sand Key Estates Court, based on the above Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, and with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1) That building
Community Development 2006-07-18 4
permits be required for the construction of any sidewalks, minor pool apron extensions and
decks; 2) That decks be constructed at the same setback as the dwelling on one side (zero-lot-
line side) and not encroach into the five-foot wide maintenance easement on the other side; 3)
That decks be constructed of wood or composite material board; 4) That paver sidewalks to the
seawall not exceed six feet in width; 5) That sidewalks and decks within the drainage and
seawall maintenance easement be constructed in a manner to be removable in the event
seawall maintenance is necessary; 6) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the
Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; and 7) That the intent of the approval of this
request is to provide deck extensions at or near the existing grade elevations, and is not
intended as an extension of living levels at greater elevations.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
2. Case: FLD2006-04020 – 801 Howard Street Level Two Application
Owner: Trust No. 801 c/o Lance Reilmann.
Applicant: Sal Maggio.
Representative: Richard Donoghue (332 Skinner Boulevard, Dunedin, FL 34698;
phone: 727-735-0411; fax: 727-734-2927; email: dwai@tampabay.rr.com).
Location: 0.137 acre located at the southeast corner of Howard Street and Myrtle
Avenue.
Atlas Pages: 314A.
Zoning District: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a detached dwelling in the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District with a reduction to the front (west along Myrtle Avenue) setback from
25 feet to 10 feet (to building), as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-
304.G.
Proposed Use: Detached dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.137-acre lot is located at the southeast corner of Howard Street and Myrtle
Avenue. The site is shaped like a wedge, with the lot 60.4 feet in width narrowing toward the
south of the lot where it is 31.96 feet in width. The site is currently vacant, but was developed
with a detached dwelling that was deemed unsafe by Development Services. The dwelling and
a shed were demolished under Permit BCP2006-03188. While the South Myrtle Avenue is
located to the west of this property, it is undeveloped.
Properties directly to the north and east are developed with detached dwellings, while
properties to the south and west are developed with attached dwellings. The surrounding area
is a mixture of detached and attached dwellings, with two churches to the east. There is a
nonconforming storage use to the northeast. Commercial uses are located to the south along
Belleair Road.
The proposal includes the construction of a detached dwelling of 1,340 square-feet in
area. Two parking spaces within the driveway off Howard Street are proposed.
The proposal includes a reduction to the front (west along Myrtle Avenue) setback from
25 feet to 10 feet (to building). This proposal is being processed as a Residential Infill Project,
Community Development 2006-07-18 5
as the MDR District does not provide flexibility standards and criteria for detached dwellings as
a Flexible Development use. As noted above, the site is wedge shaped, narrowing from its
greatest width on the north to its least width on the south. Required setbacks would produce an
extremely small buildable area of 24 feet on the north side narrowing to three feet on the south
side, producing in essence a “shotgun” design for a dwelling on this parcel. Therefore, the
design and placement of any dwelling on this site would appear to necessitate a reduction of
most likely the west front setback along South Myrtle Avenue. The applicant has placed the
dwelling on the lot to maintain the minimum side setback on the east, adjacent to another
detached dwelling, while also exceeding the minimum front setback from Howard Street. The
proposed dwelling greatly exceeds the minimum side setback from the south (five-feet required;
46 feet provided). Due to this wedge shape of the lot, the applicant has located the dwelling on
the lot parallel with South Myrtle Avenue at a 10-foot setback. South Myrtle Avenue on the west
side of this lot is undeveloped, whereby the reduction to the required setback visually is
minimized. Based on discussions with the Engineering Department, it is highly unlikely that
South Myrtle Avenue will ever be developed along the west side of this lot. There is a drainage
ditch within this 40-foot wide right-of-way, which is also adjacent to the CSX railroad right-of-way
and tracks. There is a railroad-crossing arm on Belleair Road that also is a factor in not
developing South Myrtle Avenue in the future. There is also a commercial business with its
driveway and parking areas on the east side of South Myrtle Avenue and the CSX tracks on the
north side of Belleair Road that presents additional reasons for South Myrtle Avenue not being
developed in the future. Parcels to the south of the subject parcel take access to Scranton
Avenue, having no reason for access to South Myrtle Avenue. A reduction to the front setback
along South Myrtle Avenue is appropriate given these circumstances outlined. The proposed
detached dwelling is consistent and compatible with the character of the surrounding area, as
well as an improvement and upgrade over the previously unsafe structure on the lot. Since the
parcel is more than one platted lot, a Unity of Title should be recorded in the public records prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, Residential
Infill Project criteria (Section 2-304.G) and General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) have
been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site.
Findings of Fact: 1) The subject 0.137-acre lot is located at the southeast corner of
Howard Street and Myrtle Avenue; 2) The site is currently vacant but was previously developed
with a detached dwelling that was deemed unsafe and demolished; 3) The subject parcel meets
the lot width and lot area requirements under the Medium Density Residential District; 4) The
subject parcel is shaped like a wedge, with the lot 60.4 feet in width narrowing toward the south
of the lot where it is 31.96 feet in width; 5) As a corner lot, required setbacks would produce an
extremely small buildable area of 24 feet on the north side narrowing to three feet on the south
side, producing in essence a “shotgun” design for a dwelling on this parcel; 6) Placement of the
dwelling on this lot maintains the minimum side setback on the east, adjacent to another
detached dwelling, while also meeting the minimum front setback from Howard Street; 7) South
Myrtle Avenue on the west side of this lot is undeveloped, contains a drainage ditch within its
40-foot wide right-of-way and is adjacent to the CSX railroad right-of-way and tracks; 8) The
Engineering Department finds it highly unlikely South Myrtle Avenue will ever be developed, due
to the drainage ditch, being adjacent to the CSX railroad right-of-way and tracks, the existence
of a railroad-crossing arm on Belleair Road and the location of a commercial business with its
driveway and parking areas on the east side of South Myrtle Avenue and the CSX tracks; and 9)
There are no active code enforcement cases for this parcel.
Community Development 2006-07-18 6
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria under the provisions of Section 2-304.G; 2) Staff concludes that the
proposal is in compliance with the General Applicability criteria per Section 3-913 and the other
standards of the Code; and 3) The proposed detached dwelling is consistent and compatible
with the character of the surrounding area, as well as an improvement and upgrade over the
previously unsafe structure on the lot.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 1, 2006. The
Planning Department recommends approval for the Flexible Development application to permit
a detached dwelling in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with a reduction to the
front (west along Myrtle Avenue) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building), as a Residential
Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-304.G, for the site at 801 Howard Street, based
on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, with the following Condition of Approval:
1) That prior to the issuance of any permits, a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
3. Item pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2004-02009 – 1455 Court Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Linda S. Griffin (1455 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-
449-9800; fax: 727-446-2748; email: Linda@lawyergriffin.com).
Location: 0.17 acre located on the south side of Court Street approximately 300 feet
west of the Court Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, and Highland Avenue intersection.
Atlas Page: 297A.
Zoning: O, Office District.
Request: Extend the time frame of the Development Order.
Proposed Use: Parking lot improvements.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Behar 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.
Senior Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. Both properties are located on the
south side of Court Street, approximately 300 feet west of the Court Street, Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard, and Highland Avenue intersection. The property at 1455 Court Street is 0.17-acre in
size and currently is developed with a small office building with limited parking in the front and
parking in the rear accessed by a drive on the east side of the building, which straddles the
common property line with the property at 1459 Court Street. This office building was most
likely developed as a dwelling (built in 1951) and later converted to an office use.
The property at 1459 Court Street is 0.33-acre in size and currently is vacant. On April
15, 2003, the CDB approved Flexible Development case number FLD2003-01002 for the
development of this property at 1459 Court Street for offices with various reductions to setbacks
and landscape buffers and with the following conditions: 1) That a Unity of Title be recorded
prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2) That a Code compliant trash enclosure, consistent
Community Development 2006-07-18 7
with the material and color of the principal building, be shown on the site and/or building plans
prior to the issuance of a building permit; 3) That any freestanding signage be designed as a
monument sign, at a maximum height of six feet above grade and consistent with the materials
and color of the principal building; 4) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the
issuance of any permits, including fire hydrants; 5) That tree replacements be provided on an
“inch for inch” basis for all trees previously removed without authorization, to the satisfaction of
the Planning staff, prior to the issuance of any permits; 6) That, prior to the issuance of any
permits, copies of a SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) permit and all
required State right-of-way permits be submitted to staff; 7) That soil borings, seasonal high
water determination, percolation test and drawdown calculations meeting City criteria be
submitted prior to the issuance of any permits; and 8) That a six-foot high solid masonry wall,
stuccoed and painted to match the building, be installed along the south property line.
The site plan approved by the CDB for 1459 Court Street included a building of 2,789
square-feet of floor area and a total of 15 parking spaces accessed from a driveway on Court
Street (only 10 parking spaces required). The development of this property at 1459 Court Street
anticipated the removal of the encroaching drive accessing the rear parking area at 1455 Court
Street. At the CDB meeting on April 15, 2003, there was no opposition to the request at 1459
Court Street, although a revision to the buffering was requested by adjoining property owners to
the south and approved by the CDB. Months after the CDB meeting, the owner of 1455 Court
Street inquired about the approved site plan for 1459 Court Street and the loss of access to the
rear parking area. The property at 1459 Court Street has not yet been developed in accordance
with the prior approval. Negotiations between the two property owners have produced the
current request.
The proposal is to continue to develop the property at 1459 Court Street in accordance
with the approval granted under FLD2003-01002, but combine it with plans for the site at 1455
Court Street. This will result in a loss of two parking spaces on the southwest portion of 1459
Court Street to provide a driveway to the rear parking area for the property at 1455 Court Street.
A cross-access easement will be necessary to provide legal access through the parking lot of
1459 Court Street to the rear parking area at 1455 Court Street. While the owner of the
property at 1459 Court Street requested a time extension through the Planning Department in
order to retain the prior approval Under FLD2003-01002, the Planning Department cannot
approve the time extension due to the proposed reduction of the west side setback from the
previously approved seven feet to zero feet (to pavement). The CDB must approve this further
reduction of required setback, which is to provide for this proposed cross-access to 1455 Court
Street. Other than this proposed cross-access drive, there are no other changes to the site plan
for 1459 Court Street. The proposal must be processed as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project due to the proposed reduction to setbacks to pavement.
The current (and previously approved) proposal at 1459 Court Street is for the
construction of a 2,789 square-foot office building. The rectangular building is proposed to be
oriented north to south, with the front doors facing west. The building will be stucco, with stone
for the first four feet from the ground, where the stucco will be painted white sapling, trim will be
painted sea gull gray and the pitched roof will be darker gray shingles. Awnings will be a palace
gate color. Drainage facilities, including a vault under the building, are located along Court
Street and to the east of the building. While only 10 parking spaces are required, and even
losing two parking spaces to provide the cross-access to 1455 Court Street, 13 parking spaces
will be provided. Excess parking is anticipated to be used by employees of the owner’s dentist
Community Development 2006-07-18 8
office located farther west on Court Street. Employees of the owner’s dentist office continue to
park on the grass on this parcel, which is not permitted by Code. Unused driveways will be
eliminated, providing a cleaner “curb” appearance at this location. Prior to the issuance of any
permits for the site at 1459 Court Street, the site plan will need to be revised, acceptable to
Traffic Engineering, to show wheel stops for all parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas or
the sidewalk and an accessible handicap path to the public sidewalk along Court Street.
Landscaping improvements in the front will complement landscaping improvements planned in
the Court Street right-of-way as part of the City’s improvements to the gateway corridor to the
downtown and beach. Trees previously removed from the 1459 Court Street site without
authorization will need to be replaced as part of the development of this parcel on an “inch for
inch” basis, to the satisfaction of the Planning staff, prior to the issuance of any permits for the
1459 Court Street parcel.
The current (and previously approved) proposal at 1459 Court Street includes a
reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17 feet (to pavement and building), a
reduction to the side (east) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side
(west) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement; previously approved at seven feet) and a
reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 11 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to
three feet (to dumpster enclosure). The proposal includes a reduction to the rear (south)
landscape buffer from 12 feet to three feet (to the dumpster enclosure). While only attached
signage has been indicated, the approval of this request should continue to be conditioned that
any future freestanding signage be a monument-style sign. The proposed construction of the
office building at 1459 Court Street will aesthetically enhance this area of the Court Street
corridor and will still be compatible with the detached dwellings to the south with the buffering of
the required wall.
The proposal for the property at 1455 Court Street is to continue the use of the building
for offices and for the repaving of the existing parking areas in front and rear of the building,
providing two parking spaces in front and four parking spaces in the rear. Existing pavement
will be removed along the frontage to provide a five-foot wide landscape buffer that does not
exist today (15-foot wide buffer required by Code; site is nonconforming). Pavement also will be
removed from the west and south sides of the property to provide greater pervious areas. While
the drive along the east of the building will be removed, pedestrian access will be improved from
the rear to the front through the installation of a sidewalk with an accessible handicap path to
the public sidewalk along Court Street. A previously approved sign for this site will be relocated
to the west side of the site, outside of visibility triangles. A six-foot high solid wood fence is
proposed for buffering of the detached dwellings to the south. The proposal includes retaining
the existing three-foot wide foundation landscape area in front of the building (five-foot required
by Code).
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria
(Section 2-1004.B) have been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated
with either property (1455 or 1459 Court Street).
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on April 1, 2004. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application (1) to
retain an existing office use with proposed parking improvements at 1455 Court Street with a
reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to existing/proposed pavement), a
Community Development 2006-07-18 9
reduction to the side (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to existing/proposed pavement), a
reduction to the side (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to existing/proposed pavement) and
a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 9.5 feet (to existing/proposed pavement),
as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B,
and a reduction to the landscape buffer along Court Street (north) from 15 feet to five feet, a
reduction to the landscape buffer along the rear (south) property line from 12 feet to 9.5 feet and
a reduction to the foundation landscaping from five feet to three feet (existing), as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and (2) to
amend a previously approved Flexible Development request to permit offices at 1459 Court
Street to additionally reduce the side (west) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to proposed
pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section
2-1004.B [prior approval under FLD2003-01002 on April 15, 2003, was to permit offices with a
reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17 feet (to pavement and building), a
reduction to the side (east) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side
(west) setback from 20 feet to seven feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the rear (south)
setback from 20 feet to 11 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to three feet (to dumpster
enclosure), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-1004.B, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the rear (south) property line
from 12 feet to three feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the
provisions of Section 3-1202.G], for the sites at 1455 and 1459 Court Street, with the following
bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-1004.B; 2)
The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The proposal is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria per Section 3-1202.G; and 4) The development is
compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND
Conditions of Approval: 1) That permits for the construction of site improvements at 1459 Court
Street be issued prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of permits for site improvements at
1455 Court Street. The issuance of final inspections for 1455 Court Street shall be contingent
on final inspections also being obtained for 1459 Court Street; 2) That, prior to the issuance of
any permits for 1455 Court Street, an access easement be recorded over the property at 1459
Court Street for 1455 Court Street; 3) That the following conditions of approval shall apply to
1459 Court Street: (* Indicates prior condition of approval adopted April 15, 2003, under
FLD2003-01002 that is carried forward) a) That a Unity of Title be recorded prior to the issuance
of a building permit; *b) That a Code compliant trash enclosure, consistent with the material and
color of the principal building, be shown on the site and/or building plans prior to the issuance of
a building permit; * c) That any freestanding signage be designed as a monument sign, at a
maximum height of six feet above grade and consistent with the materials and color of the
principal building; * d) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any
permits, including fire hydrants; * e) That tree replacements be provided on an “inch for inch”
basis for all trees previously removed without authorization, to the satisfaction of the Planning
staff, prior to the issuance of any permits; * f) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, copies
of a SWFWMD permit and all required State right-of-way permits be submitted to staff; * g) That
soil borings, seasonal high water determination, percolation test and drawdown calculations
meeting City criteria be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits; * h) That a six feet high
solid masonry wall, stuccoed and painted to match the building, be installed along the south
property line; * i) That a revised landscape plan be submitted prior to the issuance of any
permits reflecting the changes to the parking lot providing for cross-access to 1455 Court Street;
j) That a tree preservation plan acceptable to the Planning Department be submitted addressing
Community Development 2006-07-18 10
the retention of existing trees prior to the issuance of any permits; k) That wheel stops be
installed for all parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas or the sidewalk and be shown on
revised plans prior to the issuance of any permits; and l) That an accessible path be shown on
revised plans prior to the issuance of any permits, acceptable to the Traffic Engineering
Department.
Concerns were expressed that this project was approved in 2003, that previous
extensions had been granted, and that extensions would be necessary for most projects if they
had to depend on the actions of adjoining property owners.
Mr. Wells said Code Enforcement staff has been working with the adjoining property
owner, who is violating City parking regulations by using that vacant property for staff parking.
The adjoining property owner’s engineering consultant is working on plans for a parking lot and
there is evidence that the project is moving forward. Mr. Wells said the subject property owner
would not have applied for permits had the adjoining property owner not obtained Flexible
Development approval for a project that impeded access to the rear of the subject property.
The applicant does not want to lose prior approval of the project due to delays next door. A
maximum one-year extension is permitted.
Owner/Applicant Linda Griffin reviewed her request. She said she had spent substantial
money on the engineering plans, which were coordinated with the next-door project. She said
the next-door property owner now proposes to only construct a parking lot. She did want to pay
for new engineering plans. She said she had an agreement with the adjoining property owner
for an easement over that property, to access the rear of her property. She said the projects are
interconnected. Concern was expressed that the adjoining property owner may not act within
the next year.
Mr. Wells said if the adjoining property owner removes the illegal parking from his lot and
does not develop the property, Ms. Griffin would not need to do anything. MCEB (Municipal
Code Enforcement Board) will address adjoining property parking violations. Planning Director
Michael Delk said if the extension expires, Ms. Griffin would have to apply again for a Level Two
approval process. It was recommended that the extension be granted to permit Ms. Griffin to
protect her rights. It was felt that three years should have been sufficient to complete the
project.
Member Coates moved to approve a one-year extension for Item F3, Case: FLD2004-
02009 for 1455 Court Street based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff
motion
report, with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed. The was duly
seconded. Members Milam, Coates, Tallman, and Behar and Chair Gildersleeve voted “Aye”;
carried.
Members Johnson and Fritsch voted “Nay.” Motion
Community Development 2006-07-18 11
4. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2006-04023 – 1100 Cleveland Street and 103 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Centre, LLC.
Representative: Keith E. Zayac, Keith Zayac and Associates, Inc. (701 Enterprise Road
East, Suite 404, Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855;
email: keith@keithzayac.com).
Location: 2.48 acres located at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and Martin
Luther King Jr. Avenue and at the northeast corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and
NE Cleveland Street.
Atlas Page: 287A.
Zoning District: Downtown (D) District and Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval for a mixed-use development consisting of 88 attached
dwellings and 21,498 square-feet of non-residential floor area within the Downtown (D) District
with an increase to the building height of an additional 15 feet (as measured from roof deck to
mean roof line), and a 26-space Off-Street Parking Lot within the Commercial (C) District as part
of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Sections 2-704.C and
2-903.C of the Community Development Code; and a Termination of Status of Nonconformity
for height (148 feet to roof deck where a maximum of 75 feet would be permitted under current
Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109 of the Community Development Code.
Proposed Use: Mixed-Use (Attached Dwellings, Office and Retail Sales and Services).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); and Pierce 100 Condo Association (Terry Sue, 100 Pierce
Street, Clearwater, FL 33756).
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III.
The subject property totals 2.48 acres and is located at the northeast corner of
Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue (within the Downtown (D) District) as well
as at the northeast corner of NE Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue (within the
Commercial (C) District). Both parcels are within the boundaries of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan and are within the Town Lake Residential character district. The subject
property consists of a 151,000 square-foot, 148-foot high office building with an accessory 164-
space parking lot. The surrounding area consists of a variety of uses including: automotive
sales (vacant), detached dwellings, offices, overnight accommodations, restaurant, and retail
with these uses being located within structures that are typically between one and three stories
in height.
On October 18, 2005, the CDB approved a Flexible Development request for a mixed-
use on the subject property consisting of 71 attached dwellings and 44,300 square-feet of non-
residential floor area with an increase to the building height of an additional 15 feet (as
measured from roof deck to mean roof line), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C of the Community Development Code; and a
Termination of Status of Nonconformity for height (148 feet to roof deck where a maximum of 75
feet would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109 of the
Community Development Code.
The applicant proposes to modify the previously approved development proposal,
increasing the number of attached dwelling units from 71 to 88, and decreasing the amount of
non-residential floor area from 44,300 square-feet to 21,498 square-feet. The differences in
density and floor area between the two variations of the development proposal nearly balance
Community Development 2006-07-18 12
out, and result in a request from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool that is one dwelling unit, or
1,881 square-feet larger than previously approved.
Those portions of the request concerning the increase to building height and the
Termination of Status of Nonconformity for height remain unchanged from that which was
previously approved. It is noted that the current request includes the approval of an Off-Street
Parking Lot within the Commercial (C) District, which was not identified as part of the previous
request. However, the property involved and the proposed use was a part of that previous
request, but an error was made at that time in the identification of that parcel being located
within a zoning district separate from the balance of the property. That error will be corrected as
part of this request.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable
density for attached dwellings within the Town Lake Residential character district is 30 dwelling
units per acre and the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) is 1.0. As such the 2.48-acre subject property is
permitted a maximum of 74 attached dwellings and 580 square-feet of non-residential floor
area. However, the development proposal consists of 88 attached dwellings and 21,498
square-feet of non-residential floor area, which is 14 dwelling units and 20,918 square-feet more
than is allowable.
Based upon the above, the applicant has requested the use of 14 attached dwellings
and 20,918 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool as
made available by the Plan.
The development proposal includes a request for termination of status of nonconformity
with regard to the existing building height of 148 feet (to roof deck) where a maximum of 75 feet
would otherwise be permitted under current Code. The criteria for termination of status of
nonconformity, as per Section 6-109, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements,
the provision of required landscaping for off-street parking lots and bringing nonconforming
signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance with the Code will be met with this
development proposal.
Pursuant to Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code and the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable height within the Town Lake
Residential character district is 75 feet. The existing building that is to remain as a part of this
development proposal has a nonconforming height of 148 feet (to roof deck), for which the
nonconformity is to be terminated. In addition to terminating the status of nonconformity with
regard to the existing building height, the applicant also has proposed the addition of a 15-foot
tall “high-hat” (as measured from roof deck to mean roof line) to provide balance between the
architectural improvements to the building façade and the roofline, as well as to conceal the
building’s elevator overruns and associated mechanical equipment.
Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the CDB may consider
granting an increase in the maximum building height specified in a character district if the
developer of a site plan application provides a major public amenity, and the increase in height
does not exceed 20% of the maximum permitted height. The maximum permitted height within
the Town Lake Residential character district is 75 feet; therefore an increase in building height
may not exceed 15 feet.
Community Development 2006-07-18 13
To obtain the additional 15 feet of height permitted by the Plan, the development
proposal will provide major public amenities including: residential dwelling units within the
Downtown area, a mixed-use project that will further the Plan’s major redevelopment goals and
character district vision, as well as significant contributions to the Master Streetscape and
Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the provision of the above amenities, the requested additional 15
feet of height for the “high-hat” is supportable.
It is noted, however, that extending above the pitched roof component of the “high-hat” is
a six-foot tall rounded parapet. This parapet serves to conceal the elevator overruns within the
building; and therefore as per the definition of building height (Height, building or structure), is
permitted to project up to 16 feet higher than the maximum height otherwise specified for the
zoning district. Thus, the six-foot tall parapet is allowed.
Pursuant to Section 2-704 of the Community Development Code, within the Commercial
(C) District, off-street parking lots are required to have a front setback of between 15 feet and 25
feet, and a side setback of between 0 feet and 10 feet. However, as part of a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, there are no minimum setback requirements. As the parcel on
which the off-street parking lot is proposed has frontage on two rights-of-way (NE Cleveland
Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue), the parcel consists of two front setback areas and
two side setback areas. The off-street parking lot is set back five feet from the majority of the
south property line, while along the west property line the off-street parking lot has a proposed
setback of nine feet at its closest point to said property line. On the north side of the off-street
parking lot (specifically at the northeast corner) there is a proposed five-foot setback, although
the majority of the parking is set back between 11 feet and 24 feet in order to preserve existing,
mature Oak trees. Finally, the east side of the off-street parking lot has a proposed setback of
five feet from the east property line.
The shape of the subject parcel and its adjacency to two rights-of-way make it difficult to
be developed without some deviation from setback requirements. A difficulty made greater with
the preservation of existing, mature Oak trees and the land area necessary to do such is taken
into consideration. It is noted that the subject parcel previously was approved as it currently is
proposed. In association with the balance of the development proposal as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, the requested setback deviations for this parcel can be supported.
Pursuant to Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code, within the Downtown
(D) District off-street parking is required to be provided at a rate of 1.5 parking spaces per
attached dwelling unit, at 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area for retail
sales and service, and 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area for offices.
Therefore, the proposed 88 attached dwellings (132), the 15,498 square-feet of retail floor area
(61.99) and the 6,000 square-feet of office floor area (18) require a total of 212 parking spaces.
Pursuant to Section 3-1405 of the Community Development Code, when any land,
building or area is used for two or more uses that are listed in the shared parking table, the
minimum number of required parking spaces shall be determined by multiplying the individual
minimum parking requirements by the appropriate percentages listed in the table. The
development proposal requires a minimum of 187 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 214
parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal exceeds its parking
requirement.
Community Development 2006-07-18 14
Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed
underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is attached as a condition of
approval that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are placed
underground as part of the redevelopment of the site and that a notation to this effect is
provided on the site plan prior to the issuance of any building permits.
The development proposal includes the provision of a refuse/recycling holding area or
“trash room” at the ground level of the tower. The holding area will have access to the internal
circulation drive aisles of the parking garage, which in turn access the proposed staging area on
the north end of the development with access to NE Cleveland Street.
The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal.
Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building.
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
The subject property is located within the Town Lake Residential character district of the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
envisions the district as being redeveloped as a residential district with neighborhood
commercial uses and more intense commercial and office development along Myrtle and Martin
Luther King, Jr. avenues, and Cleveland, Court and Chestnut streets. The Plan further states
that the addition of new residences in the Town Lake Residential District will enliven Downtown
and provide a market for new retail and restaurant development.
To assist in the transformation of downtown Clearwater into a quality place in which to
live, work and play, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes a Public
Amenities Incentive Pool of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square-feet of floor area for non-
residential uses. The applicant is proposing the use of 14 attached dwellings and 20,918
square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The
amenities provided by this development in order to justify the request from the Public Amenities
Incentive Pool include the provision of 88 residential units in the Town Lake Residential District
and a streetscape consistent with the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan and
including landscaping, lighting, pavers and fountains along Cleveland Street, Martin Luther King,
Jr. Avenue and NE Cleveland Street.
It is noted that this request differs from that previously approved by the CDB in that the
former request included zero attached dwellings and 39,364 square-feet of non-residential floor
area, while the current request includes 14 attached dwellings and only 20,918 square-feet of
non-residential floor area. The differences in density and floor area between the two variations
of the development proposal nearly balance out, and result in a request from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool that is one dwelling unit, or 1,881 square-feet larger than previously
was approved.
Based upon the provision of those aforementioned amenities to be provided as part of
this development proposal, which are consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Plan, the request for 14 attached dwellings and 21,018 square-feet of non-residential floor area
from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool can be supported.
Community Development 2006-07-18 15
The development proposal consists of two distinct parts: the architectural redesign of the
existing 148-foot high tower, and the construction of the new 47-foot high office/retail/ parking
addition along Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The existing tower’s
architectural elevations are very stark and the tower does not relate well to the immediate
vicinity. The proposed revisions include the outward extension of the lower ten levels on the
south, east, and west elevations to give the tower step-backs within its elevations, the addition
of numerous windows and balconies (tempered glass and aluminum) across the whole of the
elevations, the provision of ornamental bandings (stringcourses) at 45 feet and 60 feet in height,
and the addition of a “high-hat” atop the tower to provide architectural balance to the building
elevations and conceal the elevator overruns and mechanical equipment. The “high-hat” will
consist of a barrel tile hip roof, while a decorative parapet cap with varying heights will be
provided for the balance of the tower.
With regard to high-rise buildings, the Design Guidelines state the following: Building
stories or step backs differentiated by architectural features including but not limited to coping,
balustrades, cornice lines, change in materials, etc; and A proportional relationship between the
height of a building and the number and dimensions of step backs used to mitigate the height of
the building.
As previously stated, the proposed modifications to the existing tower will create step-
backs within the elevations and will provide decorative stringcourses at 45 feet and 60 feet in
height to differentiate various levels of the tower. The height of the existing tower will be
mitigated by its setbacks from abutting rights-of-way and property lines, as well as the proposed
office/retail/parking addition, which will provide pedestrian scale development along the abutting
rights-of-way and create a buffer between the rights-of-way and the tower.
The new office/retail/parking addition will conceal the base of the tower, and the
office/retail component of the addition will conceal the parking garage from view. The
architecture of the new addition will be consistent with that proposed for the tower, including
barrel tile hip roofs at varying heights, windows with decorative exterior insulated finish system
(EIFS) trim, pre-cast simulated stone architectural columns, decorative storefronts with awnings
above the entrances, and faux balconies for the upper level offices. As previously stated, the
proposed addition will be approximately 47 feet in height at its highest measured point (corner of
NE Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue), while the balance of the addition will
be between 33 feet and 24 feet in height. The proposed heights are consistent with the
standards set forth in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and will provide
pedestrian scale development along the abutting rights-of-way, as well as creating a buffer
between these rights-of-way and the existing tower.
The color scheme for the development proposal consists of light tan (Navajo White-
SW6126) and gold (Blonde-SW6128) for the upper and lower portions of the building,
respectively, and pale beige (Aesthetic White-SW7035) for the trim and accents. The balcony
railings will be painted bone white.
The design of the development proposal is consistent with the intent and direction of the
Design Guidelines contained within the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The office
and retail portions of the new addition will conceal the associated parking garage from view
along the abutting rights-of-way. It is noted that within the Design Guidelines there exists a
provision that it is appropriate that buildings on corner lots emphasize their prominent location
Community Development 2006-07-18 16
through the use of additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments, and/or other
distinguishing features. With regard to the proposed office/retail/parking addition, the building
will not arrive at or exceed the maximum height stated in the Plan; however the tallest portions
of this building are located at the corners of the property. With regard to the site as a whole, the
existing/proposed 148-foot tower will provide the emphasis sought by the above referenced
provision.
It is noted that the surrounding area predominantly consists of one and two-story
buildings with a minimal inclusion of three-story buildings, specifically the property located at
1024 Cleveland Street being adjacent to the subject property across Martin Luther King, Jr.
Avenue. As such, the existing 148-foot (15-story) tower is neither in harmony with the scale,
bulk, coverage, density and character of the adjacent properties, nor is it consistent with the
community character of the immediate vicinity. However, the improvements associated with this
development proposal will result in a building that is more architecturally appealing to the
surrounding areas, and the provision of the office/retail/parking addition will result in
development that is of a pedestrian scale and consistent with the scale, bulk, coverage, and
character of the adjacent properties. Based upon the above, the development proposal will
result in a significant improvement upon the current state of the subject property and will be
more harmonious with the immediate vicinity.
A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the
following applicable Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies were identified: Vision: Downtown
Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments. The development proposal
will result in the adaptive reuse of an existing 151,000 square-foot office building associated
with the construction of a pedestrian scale addition resulting is a total of 88 attached dwellings,
21,498 square feet of non-residential floor area, and a 188 space parking garage with an
accessory 26-space off-street parking lot. The proposed redevelopment will generate new
“traffic” that will help to stimulate the surrounding neighborhoods and further this Vision
statement. Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential,
office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to
attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. The
development proposal will provide neighborhood and community-scale commercial uses, urban
residential dwelling units, a streetscape consistent with the City’s Master Streetscape and
Wayfinding Plan, and buildings located along and oriented towards the abutting streets. As
such, the development proposal will further this Vision statement. Vision: Quality urban design
is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. The development proposal will
rehabilitate and transform the existing building in a means consistent with the Plan. The
redevelopment of the “tower” includes, but is not limited to, the provision of a roof top “high-hat”
and parapet walls, the build out of the lower 10 floors on the east, south and west sides of the
building, and the addition of ornamental banding along the building perimeter at 45 feet and 60
feet in height. In addition, a two/three-level commercial/parking addition will be constructed
around the “tower” providing pedestrian level amenities, and giving the existing “tower” the
appearance of being stepped back from the surrounding properties. The level of architectural
detail being provided in this renovation will transform the existing bland tower into a
Mediterranean Revival development that is consistent with the quality urban design envisioned
in the above Vision statement. Vision: An adequate parking supply must be available
coterminous with new uses. As previously discussed under the Off-Street Parking analysis, the
development proposal requires a total of 187 parking spaces and will provide 188 parking
spaces within the on-site parking garage, and 26 parking spaces within the parking lot across
Community Development 2006-07-18 17
NE Cleveland Street. Therefore a total of 214 total parking spaces will be provided for the
development proposal, which exceeds the requirements of code and is consistent with this
Vision statement.
Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and
recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to
Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. The development proposal
consists of 21,498 square-feet of non-residential floor area and 88 attached dwellings within the
Town Lake Residential District. Therefore, the development proposal is consistent with this
Goal. Objective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives and
policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the design guidelines
and the Downtown zoning district. The development proposal will provide for 88 attached
dwellings and 21,498 square-feet of non-residential floor area as part of an attractive mixed-use
development. As such, the development proposal is consistent with this Objective. Objective
1E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown to provide a
stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for Downtown residents. The
development proposal will convert the existing 151,000 square-foot office building into 71
attached dwellings and ancillary facilities (i.e. lobby, storage, etc.). A building addition will also
be constructed around the existing “tower” consisting of 21,498 square-feet of non-residential
floor area and 17 attached dwellings (for a total of 88). The new residences and redesigned
commercial floor area will provide a more stable employment center for Downtown residents;
therefore the development proposal will be consistent with this Objective. Objective 1I: The City
shall use all existing incentives to encourage Downtown housing and shall evaluate other
incentives to encourage residential uses to locate Downtown. The Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan provides for a Public Amenities Incentive Pool from which development
proposals may acquire additional non-residential floor area in excess of what the applicable
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) would otherwise allow. This development proposal includes a request
to utilize 14 attached dwellings and 20,918 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the
Public Amenities Incentive Pool that will be used to provide ground floor retail as well as office
floor area along Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The provision of the non-
residential floor area will serve to increase the viability and vibrancy of the project. Based upon
the above, the development proposal is consistent with this Objective. Objective 2I:
Redevelopment and public improvements shall create and contribute to pedestrian linkages
throughout the Downtown. The development proposal includes the provision of streetscaping
along Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue that is consistent with the City’s
Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus compliance with this Objective has been
achieved.
Policy 1: The Design Guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for
renovation, redevelopment and new construction in the Downtown with which all projects must
be consistent. The development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines as it
incorporates a cementitious finish over concrete block construction with decorative E.I.F.S. trim
and accents. The pitched roofs will be clay barrel tile, while the flat roof sections of the building
will be accented with decorative parapets. The building design incorporates both vertical and
horizontal architectural elements providing relief throughout the elevations and the provision of
numerous windows of various sizes and styles. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is consistent with this Policy. Policy 2: The character of each district shall be
reinforced through the site plan and design review process. Projects shall be consistent with
and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in which it is located. As
Community Development 2006-07-18 18
discussed later in this staff report, the development proposal is found to be in compliance with
the policies governing development within the Town Lake Residential District. Therefore, the
development proposal is consistent with this Policy. Policy 3: The design of all projects in
Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the pedestrian environment through site and
building design. The proposed office/retail/parking addition will establish a pedestrian scale
building on the subject property abutting the Cleveland Street, NE Cleveland Street, and Martin
Luther King, Jr. Avenue rights-of-way. In addition to the provision of non-residential floor area,
the development proposal will also provide 88 new dwelling units within the Downtown, and
streetscape improvements including landscaping, lighting, pavers, fountains and a PSTA
(Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority) bus shelter (the shelter will need to be designed to be
consistent with the Design Guidelines). Based upon the above, the development proposal is
consistent with this Policy. Policy 6: The City shall establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool
that provides density and intensity increases for projects located in all character districts, except
as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development potential based on a
provision of selected amenities. To overcome the numerous constraints affecting
redevelopment, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool, consisting of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square feet of floor
area for non-residential uses, available to all property within the Plan area. This provides an
opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the
public to achieve its redevelopment goals for Downtown Clearwater. This development
proposal will utilize 14 attached dwellings and 20,918 square-feet of non-residential floor area
from the Pool. The amenities provided by this development to justify the request include the
provision of 88 residential units in the Downtown Plan area and a streetscape consistent with
the City’s Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the above, compliance with
this Policy has been achieved. Policy 19: Residential development shall provide appropriate on-
site recreation facilities based on the scale of the project. The development proposal will
provide several amenities for the residents, including: a swimming pool with spa, fitness spa,
resident storage facilities, clubhouse, and a concierge. Based upon the above, the
development proposal has provided sufficient amenities for the scale of the project and is
consistent with the above Policy.
Town Lake Residential District Policies: The following policies shall govern development
within the District, as well as City actions: 1) New construction and renovations of existing
single-family platted areas in the northeast section of the District shall maintain the character of
the neighborhood with regard to lot sizes, setbacks and building height. The subject property is
not located within an existing single-family platted area; therefore this policy is not applicable to
the development proposal; 2) Preferred housing styles north of Laura Street are single-family
detached duplexes and townhouses. Other styles of attached dwellings may be considered
upon assembly of at least one city block. The subject property is not located within the area
north of Laura Street; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal; 3) One
dwelling unit may be permitted as accessory to a single-family or two-family dwelling provided
sufficient parking exists on site. This unit will not be considered when calculating density for the
site. The development proposal does not involve either a single-family or two-family dwelling;
therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal; 4) Community scale
commercial uses that serve the general needs of multiple neighborhoods are only permitted on
Myrtle Avenue, Cleveland, Court and Chestnut Streets. The development proposal includes the
provision of large-scale commercial tenant spaces (ground level retail / second level office)
along Cleveland Street that will serve the general needs to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Therefore, compliance with this policy has been achieved; 5) Neighborhood scale commercial
Community Development 2006-07-18 19
and office uses that serve the daily or convenience needs of the immediate neighborhood may
be permitted on Drew Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The development proposal
includes the provision of small-scale commercial tenant spaces (ground level retail / second
level office) along Martin Luther King, Jr. Street. It is a condition of approval that the non-
residential uses along Martin Luther King, Jr. Street are limited to neighborhood scale uses so
that continued compliance with this policy can be achieved; 6) Neighborhood commercial uses
may be permitted south of Cleveland Street and east of Prospect Avenue provided such uses
are integral to a residential project. The subject property is not located south of Cleveland
Street and east of Prospect Avenue; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development
proposal; 7) Existing neighborhood office and commercial uses north of Laura Street are
encouraged to remain and be renovated. The subject property is not located north of Laura
Street; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal. Based upon the
above and subject to conditions of approval, the development proposal is found to be in
compliance with the policies governing development within the Town Lake Residential District.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 1,
2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB,
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1) That the
subject properties total 2.48 acres and are located at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street
and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and the northeast corner of NE Cleveland Street and Martin
Luther King, Jr. Avenue; 2) That the northernmost property is located within the Commercial (C)
District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3) That the
southernmost property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business
District (CBD) Future Land Use Plan category; 4) That the development proposal is subject to
the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines
contained therein as both parcels are located within the Town Lake Residential character
district; 5) That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will
enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 6) That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement
issues associated with the subject property. AND Conclusions of Law:1) That the proposed use
of 14 attached dwellings and 20,918 square-feet of non-residential floor area from the Public
Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown
Design Guidelines; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Town Lake
Residential character district; 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
and Criteria as per Sections 2-704 and 2-903 of the Community Development Code and the
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 5) That the development proposal is consistent
with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-704.I and 2-903.C of the Community Development
Code; and 6) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level
Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code.
Staff recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval for a mixed-use
development consisting of 88 attached dwellings and 21,498 square-feet of non-residential floor
area within the Downtown (D) District with an increase to the building height of an additional 15
feet (as measured from roof deck to mean roof line), and a 26-space Off-Street Parking Lot
within the Commercial (C) District as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
under the provisions of Sections 2-704.C and 2-903.C of the Community Development Code;
and a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for height (148 feet to roof deck where a
maximum of 75 feet would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-
Community Development 2006-07-18 20
109 of the Community Development Code with the following Conditions of Approval: 1) That
prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Fire Department conditions must be addressed;
2) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Traffic Engineering conditions must be
addressed; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence of filing a Unity of
Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application (15-29-15-03060-001-
0010 and 15-29-15-03060-002-0090) must be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Department; 4) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a notation must be provided
on the site plan stating that all existing and proposed on-site utility facilities will be placed
underground; 5) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a payment of $127,462.69
must be made to the Environmental Division for purposes of the Downtown Stormwater Service
District; 6) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a certified Arborist must ensure
that the proposed swale will not impact the critical root zones of the trees as set forth on the tree
preservation plan; 7) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a certified Arborist must
ensure that the canopy of the existing Oak tree located at the easternmost end of the property
will not be adversely impacted by the proposed building; 8) That prior to the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy, all streetscaping along Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Avenue must be installed to the satisfaction of staff; 9) That prior to the issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy, the PSTA (Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority) bus shelter proposed
with the streetscape improvements will need to be designed to be consistent with the Design
Guidelines; 10) That prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all Transportation
Impact Fees must be paid; 11) That prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all
on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, must be placed underground; 12)
That the non-residential uses proposed to be located on-site are consistent with those permitted
uses listed within the Community Development Code and the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan; 13) That the non-residential uses along Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue
are limited to neighborhood scale uses; 14) That the final design and color of the building must
be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be
approved by staff; 15) That if the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to
satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity
requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense and
that if underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be
completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department
requirements; 16) That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with
or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened from view
and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 17) That any/all
future signage must 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 permits which includes:
a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font
style and size and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are
coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 18) That the first
building permit be applied for within one year of the CDB approval (by July 18, 2007); and 19)
That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first
building permit.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2006-07-18 21
5. Case: FLD2006-02003 – 701 Pennsylvania Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services Inc.
Representative: E.J. Robinson (608 North Garden Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755;
phone: 727-442-4155; fax: 727-446-4911; email: none).
Location: 0.095 acre located at the northeast corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and
Eldridge Street.
Atlas Page: 278A.
Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a detached dwelling in the Medium Density
Residential district with a reduction in the minimum lot area from 5,000 square-feet to 4,143
square-feet and a front (south) setback reduction from 25 feet to 13 feet, as a Residential Infill
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-304.G.
Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758); Drew and Plaza Park (David Grice, 908 Drew Street,
Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-0737; email: davidgrice1@aol.com); and North
Greenwood Assoc., Inc. (Jonathon Wade, 1201 Douglas Road, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone:
727-560-4382; email: wadenwade@aol.com).
Presenter: John Schodtler, Planner II.
The 50.53-foot by 82-foot, 0.095-acre parcel is located at the northeast corner of
Pennsylvania Avenue and Eldridge Street. Surrounding uses are primarily detached dwellings
and non-residential uses. The lot has at least two trees along the eastern side of the property.
The proposal includes the construction of a one-story, 1,406 square-foot, single-family
residence with three bedrooms, two baths, and a one-car garage. The building will be oriented
to the western property line facing Pennsylvania Avenue. The proposed building is situated
toward the north property line to allow parking on the south portions of the site through the use
of a circular driveway. The proposed building complies with all Code requirements except the
front (south) setback along Eldridge Street.
The proposal includes a reduction to the minimum lot area from 5,000 square-feet to
4,143 square-feet. The substandard lot was an established residential lot of record prior to
March 8, 1999. The lot currently is undeveloped and was split from the remainder of the lot
prior to 1982. Additionally, in accordance with the Nonconforming Lots code, (Section 6-106)
the lot was not in common ownership with either adjacent property.
The proposal includes a reduction to the front (south) setback reduction from 25 feet to
13 feet. While the front setbacks of the adjacent properties meet the required 25-foot setback,
the front setbacks in the vicinity are 15 to 20 feet along the north side of Eldridge Street. With
the variety of uses and building types in the immediate vicinity, there is no established front
setback characteristic along Eldridge Street. Staff believes that the proposed dwelling with a
reduced setback will enhance the appearance and value to the subject property as well as the
immediate area. The driveway improvement will create a uniform surface mitigating the
possibility for injury. The one-car garage will provide an improved means of securing personal
property. The residential use of the property will make the immediate area safer for residents.
The design of the proposed single-family residence will have little impact to traffic congestion
and is not creating any adverse effects to adjacent properties.
Community Development 2006-07-18 22
The development of this site will improve the appearance of this site and the surrounding
area. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residential Infill Project criteria (Section 2-304.G) have
been met. There are no outstanding enforcement issues associated with this site.
Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Law: 1) The 0.095 acre is located at the northeast
corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Eldridge Street; 2) This site is zoned MDR and a single
family residence is a permitted use; 3) Adjacent uses consist of a wide mix of single family
residential, offices, and industrial uses; 4) Due to the variety of uses and building types in the
immediate vicinity there is no established front setback characteristic along Eldridge Street; 5)
The proposed single family residence will make the property and the immediate area safer for
persons residing in the neighborhood; 6) The proposed single family residence will be in
harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, and density of adjacent properties; 7) The proposed is
compatible with the adjacent properties; and 8) The proposed will enhance other redevelopment
efforts in the Community.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on March 3, 2006. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to construct
a new single family residence in the Medium Density Residential district and the request
includes a reduction in the minimum lot area from 5,000 square-feet to 4,143 square-feet and a
front (south) setback reduction from 25 feet to 13 feet, as a residential infill project, per section
2-304.G. for the site located at 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, with the following bases and
conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria
as a Residential Infill Project per Section 2-304.G; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other
standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The
development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment
efforts. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That no parked vehicle will block or obstruct the
sidewalk in accordance with City Ordinance 30.041(1)(b); 2) That the site plan be revised to
show the finished floor elevation and lot grading on NAVD 88 datum prior to the issuance of a
building permit; and 3) That the final design of the building and site plan be consistent with
those approved or modified by the Community Development Board.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2006-07-18 23
6. Case: FLD2006-04021 – 2551 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Chris Tsavoussis- Gulf to Bay Holdings, LLC.
Representative: Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates (3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East,
Suite 300, Tampa, FL 33607; phone: 813-282-3855; fax: 813-286-2308).
Location: 0.665 acre located on the south side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately
400 feet west of US Highway 19 North.
Atlas Page: 299B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval in the Commercial (C) District to permit a reduction to
the front (north) setback along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 25 feet to 5.8 feet (to pavement) as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a
reduction to the landscape buffer on the north property line from 15 feet to 5.8 feet as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Existing Drive-Through Restaurant.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner II.
The 0.66-acre site is located on the south side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately
400 feet west of US 19. Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard is a commercial corridor that runs east to west
from Tampa to Clearwater with predominately retail and restaurant uses. The existing Dunkin
Donuts/Baskin Robbins is an out parcel located in the northwest corner of the greater Sam’s
Wholesale Club lot. The property has three access points located on the south and eastern
portions of the property.
The existing Dunkin Donuts/Baskin Robbins restaurant was approved on May 18, 2004,
as a Level Two Flexible Development. The CDB approved reductions to the front (north)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet to pavement, the front (west) setback from 25 feet to five feet to
pavement, the side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet to pavement, the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to three feet to pavement and a reduction to the parking requirement of 15
spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area to 9.7 spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross
floor area.
This proposal includes a reduction to the front (north) setback along Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard from 25 feet to 5.8 feet to pavement and a reduction to the landscape buffer on the
north property line from 15 feet to 5.8 feet. The request is desired due the Florida Department
of Transportation acquiring by eminent domain 1,519 square-feet along the northern boundary
of the parcel. While this nonconformity as a result of eminent domain does not require the
applicant to go through flexible development, the applicant chooses to make the property after
the taking legal and conforming to all current code requirements.
Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code requires a 15-foot wide
landscape buffer consisting of one tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage along the
northern perimeter of the parcel. As a result of the taking, the landscape buffer along the
northern perimeter will be reduced to 5.8 feet at the eastern side and 8.4 feet at the western
side. As a result, the proposed buffer will consist of three shade tree equivalents and 100%
shrub coverage where four shade trees are required. To mitigate the loss of buffer width the
applicant has applied for the Comprehensive Landscape Program.
Community Development 2006-07-18 24
The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be consistent with
all applicable criteria. Specifically, the proposed landscaping includes the addition of 14 Crape
Myrtles, 10 Oleanders, 17 Sandankwa Viburnums, 38 Jasmine, six Crotons, and the relocation
of two Live Oaks.
There is an active code violation (BIZ2006-01149) regarding the erection of attached
and freestanding signs with no permits. It has been attached as a condition of approval that a
Comprehensive Sign Application be approved prior to the issuance of a Development Order.
Findings of Fact: 1) That the subject property of approximately 0.66 acres is located on
the south side of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, approximately 400 feet west of US Highway 19; 2) That
the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General
(CG) Future Land Use Plan Category; 3) Applicant seeks relief from required landscape buffer
under Code provisions of Section 3-1202.G.; 4) That the proposed reductions in the landscape
buffers and setbacks will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of the proposed use; and 5) That the proposal will not affect traffic
congestion.
Conclusions of Law: 1) Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Flexible
Development, Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion, per Section 2-704.C; 2)
Staff concludes that the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Landscape Program
criterion, per Section 3-1202.G.; 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;
and 4) Based on the above findings and proposed conditions, Staff recommends approval of
this application.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on June 1, 2006. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development to permit reductions to
the front (north) setback along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 25 feet to 5.8 feet to pavement, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per section 2-704.C. and a reduction to the
landscape buffer on the north property line from 15 feet to 5.8 feet as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G., for the site at 2551 Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard, with Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of the Development Order,
a Comprehensive Sign application be submitted for all signage and 2) That all proposed
landscaping be installed prior to final inspection by the Planning staff.
See Page 29 for motion of approval.
Community Development 2006-07-18 25
7. Case: ANX2006-03009 – 1728 Lucas Drive Level Three Application
Owner: Alphonso & Sandra Frazier (1728 Lucas Drive, Clearwater, FL 33759;
Telephone 727-726-3893).
Location: A 0.193-acre parcel of land located on the west side of Lucas Drive
approximately 500 feet north of SR 590 and 510 feet south of Terrace Drive.
Atlas Page: 264A.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.193 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).
Existing Use: Single-family detached dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.193-acre property consisting of one parcel located on the
west side of Lucas Drive between SR590 and Terrace Drive approximately 550 feet north of
SR590. 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 a zoning category of
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
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 its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) Annexation
of 0.193-acre to the City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan
classification; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district pursuant to the
City’s Community Development Code.
See Page 29 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-07-18 26
8. Case: ANX2006-04012 – 1532 Stevenson’s Drive Level Three Application
Owner: Audrey Stolzer (1532 Stevenson’s Drive, Clearwater, FL 33755; Telephone 727-
461-4280).
Location: A 0.157-acre parcel of land located on the west side of Stevenson’s Drive
approximately 150 north of Carol Drive and 25 feet south of Stockton Drive.
Atlas Page: 269B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.157-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) and Preservation (P)
Category (County) to Residential Low (RL) and Preservation (P) Category (City of Clearwater);
and
(c) Rezoning from R-3, Single-Family Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) and Preservation (P) District (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Single-family detached dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves a 0.157-acre property consisting of one parcel, located on the
west side of Stevenson’s Drive, approximately 160 feet north of Carol Drive. The property is
contiguous with existing City boundaries to the south and east; 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
services from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned Future Land Use Plan
designations of Residential Low (RL) and Preservation (P) and zoning categories of Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Preservation (P). 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 its analysis, staff recommends approval: 1) Annexation of 0.157-acre to the
City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Low (RL) and Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan
classifications; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Preservation (P) zoning
classifications pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
See Page 29 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2006-07-18 27
9. Case: ANX2006-04014 – 2750 Third Avenue North Level Three Application
Owner: Peter Krauser & Mark Maconi Homes (Telephone 727-688-4670).
Location: Seven parcels totaling 9.89-acres of land located 1,600 feet east of US 19,
ndth
north of 2 Avenue North, south of 5 Avenue along Lake Chautauqua.
Atlas Page: 233A.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 9.89 acres of property to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Future Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P)
Categories (County) to Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) Categories (City of
Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from R-R, Rural Residential District (County) to Low Density Residential
(LDR) and Preservation (P) Districts (City of Clearwater).
Existing Use: Vacant.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O.
Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Cky Ready, Planner II.
This annexation involves 9.89 acres of property consisting of seven parcels, located
ndth
1,600 feet east of US 19, north of 2 Avenue North and south of 5 Avenue North along Lake
Chautauqua. The property is contiguous with existing City boundaries to the north; therefore,
the proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordinance 00-63 with regard to
voluntary annexation. The applicant is requesting this annexation in order to receive sanitary
sewer and solid waste services from the City. It is proposed that the property be assigned a
Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) and a
zoning category of Low Density Residential (LDR) and Preservation (P). 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 its analysis, staff recommends approval: 1) Annexation of 9.89 acres to the
City of Clearwater; 2) Residential Suburban (RS) and Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan
classifications; and 3) Low Density Residential (LDR) and Preservation (P) zoning
classifications pursuant to the City’s Community Development Code.
Community Development 2006-07-18 28
Member Johnson moved to approve Item F1, Case: FLD2006-04018 for 138, 175, 214,
215 and 226 Sand Key Estates Drive and 1608, 1617, 1631 and 1635 Sand Key Estates Court
based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with Conditions of
Approval as listed; Item F2, Case: FLD2006-04020 for 801 Howard Street based on the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with a Condition of Approval as listed;
Item F3, Case: FLD2004-02009 for 1455 Court Street based on the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with Bases for Approval and Conditions of Approval as
listed; Item F4, Case: FLD2006-04023 for 1100 Cleveland Street and 103 Martin Luther King,
Jr. Avenue based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with
Conditions of Approval as listed; Item F5, Case: Case: FLD2006-02003 for 701 Pennsylvania
Avenue based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with Bases of
Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed; Item F6, Case: FLD2006-04021 for 2551 Gulf-to-
Bay Boulevard based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report, with
Conditions of Approval as listed; and recommend approval of Item F7, Case: ANX2006-03009
for 1728 Lucas Drive based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report;
Item F8, Case: ANX2006-04012 for 1532 Stevenson’s Drive based on the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and the staff report; and Item F9, Case: ANX2006-04014 for 2750 Third
Avenue North based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and the staff report. The
motion carried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
10. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Three Application
Case: TA2006-06004 – Community Development Code Amendment
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code imposing a moratorium on certain
reviews, approvals, orders and permits for the Marina Residential District of the Beach by
Design Special Area Plan concerning Clearwater Beach.
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Beach Association (Jay Keyes, 100 Devon Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-443-2168; email: papamurphy@aol.com); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758).
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Assistant Planning Director.
Member Behar declared a conflict of interest.
Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton reviewed the request. In 2001, the City
adopted Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines.
This special area plan sets forth a series of strategies for the revitalization of Clearwater beach
and establishes eight distinct character districts that regulate allowable land uses, locations of
uses and generally the scale of development.
The Marina Residential District established in Beach by Design is bounded by
Clearwater Harbor on the east, Poinsettia Avenue on the west, Pier 60 Drive on the south, and
the northern property line of the Belle Harbor development on the north. The district is
comprised of approximately 14 acres of land and described in Beach by Design as primarily
residential in nature with a few motel and restaurant uses. Due to the shallow nature of many of
the parcels in this district, Marina Residential District provisions focus on achieving the
consolidation of property through several redevelopment scenarios. The most desired scenario
envisions the entire district to be consolidated under single ownership and includes the
development of a marina-based hotel with the assistance of the resort density pool. In the event
Community Development 2006-07-18 29
this consolidation did not occur, the District provides for development scenarios of five acres or
two and one-half acres that include significant height allowances. Any development scenario
utilizing the consolidation incentives would be required to dedicate an easement for a public
“Bayside Boardwalk.” In the event these consolidations do not occur, Beach by Design provides
for single lot development but imposes significant height restrictions on that development.
Since passage of Beach by Design, beach properties have experienced unprecedented
increases in value. Also during this time, significant redevelopment activities have occurred on
Clearwater beach. Approximately 70 site plan applications for new construction on Clearwater
beach have been submitted to the Planning Department for processing since Beach by Design
was adopted in 2001. Of that total, only two have been approved in the Marina Residential
District.
One approved project was the Belle Harbor Condominiums located at the northern
boundary of the Marina Residential District. This project has rendered the single property
consolidation scenario impossible. The escalating cost of land on Clearwater beach has made
the remaining consolidation scenarios very difficult to achieve. Given current market conditions,
the preferred development options of significant lot consolidation appear difficult to achieve and
the resulting public benefits of access to the waterfront will not be attained. To assist in the
redevelopment of the Marina Residential District in a manner that promotes the public interest, it
is necessary to better balance development incentives with provisions of public benefits and
amenities. To that end a six-month moratorium from August 3, 2006 to January 30, 2007 is to
be considered for the Marina Residential District. The proposed moratorium will preclude the
processing of comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, development approvals,
development orders, building permits and other related permits in the Marina Residential District
except for those relating to a parcel exceeding 2.5 acres in area.
During the moratorium, the Planning Department will prepare and process revisions to the
Marina Residential District that will refine the vision for the district by creating a development
framework that balances development incentives at lower thresholds with the provision of public
benefits and amenities. Goals of the revisions will be to: 1) Develop greater flexibility with regard
to the location of uses within the district; 2) Permit overnight accommodations throughout the
district; 3) Ensure public access to and the preservation of the waterfront; and 4) Provide
incentives and opportunities for redevelopment that is more closely aligned with public
expectations.
The proposed amendment to the Community Development Code is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community Development Code. Staff
recommends approval of Ordinance 7660-06 that imposes a moratorium for a period of six
months.
Concern was expressed that properties could sustain damage from inclement weather
during the moratorium and require permits to repair them. Staff hoped that district revisions
would be in place by the time the moratorium expires on January 30, 2007.
Three people person spoke in opposition to the moratorium as the sea wall for one
pending project at 475 East Shore has been completed, the property has been readied for
development, and it would be a hardship to delay construction until next year. In response to a
question, Planning Manager Neil Thompson said the CDB had approved the project.
Community Development 2006-07-18 30
Three people spoke in support of the moratorium.
Discussion ensued with concerns expressed that projects in the pipeline should be
allowed to continue. In response to questions, Ms. Clayton said the moratorium excludes
properties that are two acres or larger as those properties would incorporate public benefits as
envisioned by Beach by Design. As proposed, the ordinance would prevent the issuance of
permits after commencement of the moratorium. Support was expressed for permitting repairs
that result from acts of God during the moratorium. In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said
no current site plan applications for the district have been submitted.
Support was expressed for the moratorium as it would help protect the area and hinder
development that would create a canyon effect along the road.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Item F10, Case: TA2006-06004,
Community Development Code Amendment imposing a moratorium on certain reviews,
approvals, orders and permits for the Marina Residential District of the Beach by Design Special
Area Plan concerning Clearwater beach based on the staff report and presentation with
recommendations to exclude projects with approved development orders and permits involving
motion
building maintenance. The was duly seconded. Members Fritsch, Milam, Johnson,
Coates, Tallman, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted “Aye”; Member Behar abstained.
carried
Motion unanimously.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:06 p.m.
Community Development 2006-07-18 31
.
.
~.
Three people spoke in support of the moratorium.
Discussion ensued with concerns expressed that projects in the pipeline should be
allowed to continue. In response to questions, Ms. Clayton said the moratorium excludes
properties that are two acres or larger as those properties would incorporate public benefits as
envisioned by Beach by Design. As proposed, the ordinance would prevent the issuance of
permits after commencement of the moratorium. Support was expressed for permitting repairs
that result from acts of God during the moratorium. In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said
no current site plan applications for the district have been submitted.
Support was expressed for the moratorium as it would help protect the area and hinder
development that would create a canyon effect along the road.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Item F10, Case: TA2006-06004,
Community Development Code Amendment imposing a moratorium on certain reviews,
approvals, orders and permits for the Marina Residential District of the Beach by Design Special
Area Plan concerning Clearwater beach based on the staff report and presentation with
recommendations to exclude projects with approved development orders and permits involving
building maintenance. The motion was duly seconded. Members Fritsch, Milam, Johnson,
Coates, Tallman, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Behar abstained.
Motion carried unanimously.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:06 p.m'\A~ lit:~ .~
Community Development Board
Community Development 2006-07-18
31
FORM Hts IVIl:IVIUHAI\jUUIVI ur- v u ...,,'-=' vVI'trLlv I run
COUNTY MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PU.BlIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME
~ehar, Jordan
MAlUNG ADDRESS
2657 Augusta Drive South
CITY
Clearwater
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
July 18, 2006
COUNTY
Pinellas
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIl, COMMISSION, AUTHORIlY, OR COMMITTEE
ClearwaterCommunit Develo ment Board
THE BOARD,COUNCll, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH' SERVE IS A UNIT OF: .
i CITY (J COUNTY (J OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POUTICAl SUBDIVISION:
City of Clearwater
MY POSITION IS:
(J RECTIVE
at APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, counc
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a votir
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly dependln
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the Instructions on this form befar
completing the reverse side and filing the form. .
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local publiC office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure whlcl
Inures to hi~ or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local ~fficer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained (including th.
arent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she Is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; 0
the special. private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 0
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, .one-vote basis are not pr()hlbited from voting in tha
capacity.
For pUi'posesof this law, a "relative" Includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law
mother-In-law, son-iri-Iaw, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engag.edin or carrying on a busines~
enterprise with the. officer as a partner, joint venturer,coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporatior
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations des~~b~d abeve, you must disclose the conflict: ..
PR!OR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly'stating to the assflTlbly the nature of your interest in. the measure on which you
are;abstalning from voting; and .
WI1:H1N19"DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by compl~ting and filing this. form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes orihe meeting, who should Incorporate the form In the minutes.
..
..:
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
. APPOINTED OFFICERS:
i
Although ~ou:~must abstain from voting In the .sltl,lations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally ,or in writing and. whether made
by you or,t your direction. ' , , .
. ; .'
F YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE-DECISION PRIO!=\'TDTHE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
_......~.~, '.~:'iL'" - ". . .
KEN:.
. You must..fX)f)1plete and file.th~form (before r:naklng any attempUo influence the d.ecision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of 'th~{meeting; who wiliincorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) .
PAGE 1
CE FORM 8B -EFF. 1/2000
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
J.
- A copy of the form .must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency,
-The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
.
- You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
- You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting afterthe form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,
Jordan Behar
, hereby disclose that on
July 18
2006 .
'-'
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
Inured to. the special gain or loss of my relative,
--X- Inured to the special g~in or loss of-W-U tJ DI~~
\ (ofoJ\es.. I ~LAt-J
~ f
Fe\.x..8<2-
. by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary ofaprincipal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest In the measure is as follows:
,which
TA2006-06004 - Proposed Ordinance No. 7660-06
The proposed Ordinance is an amerldment to the Community Development Code imposing a
moratorium on certain reviews, approvals, orders and permits for the Marina
Residential Distric area of Clearwater beach. I currently have a contract with
lllJ to provide architectural services.:for a project located
in the area mODatorium.
.
((
~
! .
~OG
Date Filed
...j
)~t~ 1
. i
,
;,
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DJSpLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR ANO MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENt, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRI~.mP; OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. . . ! .
CE FORM 88 . EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2
~. .'
. ;.-},.:r.~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Item 1
1. Case: F!J}2005-09093 - 279 Windward Passage
LYes no
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications Items 1-6
1. Case: UT ~02003 - 701 Pennsylvania Avenue
7~:uUO no
2. Case: FLp?OO6-04023 -1100 Cleveland Street and 103 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue
-tL"Yes no
3. caS~A2006-04021 - 2551 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Yes no
4. Case: FLD2006-04020 - 8OJ..Howard Street
Yes ~ no
5. Case: FLD2006-04018 ~138' 17 214,215 and 226 Sand Key Estates Drive and 1608,1617,
1631 and 1635 Sand Key ates Court
Yes no
6. Case: FLDW04-02009 - 1455 Court Street
/' Yes no
Level Three Applications Items 1-3
1. Case: ANX2006-03009 -1728 Lucas Drive
Yes l./'DO
2. Case: ANX2006-040~32 Stevenson's Drive
Yes no
3. Case: ANX2006-04014 - 2750 Third Avenue North
~o
Yes
Signature:
. Date:
--
=t- / / Blob
, -
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
"
s
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Item 1
1. CaS~2005-09093 - 279 Windward Passage
Yes no
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications Items 1-6
1. Case: FLD2006-02003 -701 Pennsylvania Avenue
V' Yes no
2. caSe02006-04023 -1100 Cleveland Street and 103 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue
Yes no
3. casel'D2006-04021- 2551 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Yes no
4. cas~D2006-04020 - 801 Howard Street
Yes no
5. Case: FLD2006-04018 -138,175,214,215 and 226 Sand Key Estates Drive and 1608, 1617,
16~Jnd 1635 Sand Key Estates Court
Yes no
6. Case: ~D2004-02009 - 1455 Court Street
J~~es no
.
Level Three Applications Items 1-3
1. Case: ~X2006-03009 - 1728 Lucas Drive
~~Yes no
2. CarX2001Hl4012 - 1532 Stevenson's Drive
Yes no
3. Case: ~2006-04014 - 2750 Third Avenue North
~Yes no
Signature:
~. Date: I-IL{-~J
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
.
~
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Item 1
1. cas.I1'LD2005-09093 - 279 Windward Passage
"Yes no
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications Items 1-6
1. Case;tFLD2006-02003 - 701 Pennsylvania Avenue '1f6 r(l L \ '- I '> ~T$ tV j).re-J ^f
V Yes no
2. ca~D2006-04023 -1100 Cleveland Street and 103 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue
Yes no
3. CaSj>FLD2006-04021- 2551 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
Yes no
{ +- tJ rJ -e.Ji ~ Cc~.-'
4. Case: YLD2006-04020 - 801 Howard Street 0 \ '--'U.
-/ Yes no
~L eel
&//~J fVl~.~
5. Case: FLD2006-04018 -138,175,214,215 and 226 Sand Key Estates Drive and 1608, 1617,
16f/"d 1635 Sand Key Estates Court
Yes no
6. Case: FLD2004-02009 - 1455 Court Street
~/ Yes no
.
Level Three Applications Items 1-3
1. Case: ANX2006-03009 -.;1728 Lucas Drive
Yes i/ no
2. Case: ANX2006-0401V1532 Stevenson's Drive
Yes no
3. Case: ANX2006-04014 - 2750 Third Avenue North
LJI no
Yes
Signatur{);
Date:
/
I
1f:i(fJ b
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
,.
~
,
~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 20, 2006
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
Continued Item 1
1. case.fLD2005-09093 - 279 Windward Passage
7.l'Jyes no
Level Two Application
Level Two Applications Items 1-6
1. caS~D2006-02003 -701 Pennsylvania Avenue
Yes no
2. Case: FLD2006-04023 -1100 Cleveland Street and 103 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue
V Yes no
3. Case: FLD2006-04021 - 2551 Gulf To Bay Boulevard
v' Yes no
4. Case: FLD2006-04020 - 801 Howard Street
\// Yes no
5. Case: FLD2006-04018 - 138, 175, 214, 215 and 226 Sand Key Estates Drive and 1608, 1617,
1631 and 1635 Sand Key EStates Court
Yes V no
6. CaseYLD2004-02009 - 1455 Court Street
Yes no
..
1
Level Three Applications Items 1-3
,
1. Case: ANX2006-03009 71728 Lucas Drive
Yes , no
2. Case: ANX2006-0401~2 Stevenson's Drive
Yes no
3. Case: ANX2006-04014 - pSO Third Avenue North
Yes / no
Signature:
Date:
1'/ / !Jj{Jy
I '
Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2