The URL can be used to link to this page

APP02-12-04 . . CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756 PHONE (727)-562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 APPLICATION FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL Case BFBAA# PROJECT ADDRESS 141 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767 29 SUBDIVISION Bavside 15 04914 1000 Sub. LOT 44 PARCEL NUMBER BLOCKlTRACT 08 I 0440 Abutt::in:j Irop.oWNER J:l.mes A. Martin. Jr. ADORES 145 Devon Drive TELEPHONE 441- 8966 CITY Clearwater STATE FL ZIP 33767 REPRESENTATIVE Joshua Maqidson, Esq. TELEPHONE 441-8966 ADORES 625 Court Street, #200CITY Clearwater STATE FL ZIP 33756 REQUEST: APPEAL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL'S TO SECTION: 3-601; 3-913 DECISION ~ VARIANCE 0 OF Level One Approval (Flexlble Standard Development) Apneal of decision attached. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: REASON FOR REQUEST: See attached letter. / I ;, (D { Date ct Meeting Date Leqal Description: Public Notice Statement: cc: City Clerk CLEARWATER One City. One Future. Brian J Aungst, Mayor-Commissioner Ed Hooper, Vice Mayor-Commissioner Bob Clark, Commissioner Ed Hart, Commissioner J.B. Johnson, Commissioner ~, S:forms 7-99/Application for Board of Adjustment Appeal rn ~D~ ~ 60 2:1 ~ rn PLANNING & DEVELOPL~NT SVCS CITY OF CLEARW;o I FR 500 SOUTH F'LORIDA AVENUE . . MACFARLANE FERGUSON & Mc JO L~ ~ ~2W001~ ~'" I I L~ -' .. ' I . d ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW '- L--...~.. .......-.../.. .f--./..1, P' ^NNlt..."" "'/. " ,,:-C ';'\lr',! ~ 'ojI\j! 1--,' ".'....,....' : \..to.! 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET. SUITE 2300 iL{ ~iTREi;~"",..._f P.O. BOX 1531 (ZIP 336011 P.O. BOX 1669 (ZIP 33757) SUITE 240 LAKELAND. F'LORIDA 33801 (863) 680-9908 F'AX (863) 683-2849 TAMPA, F'LORIDA 33602 (813) 273-4200 F'AX (813) 273-4396 CLEARWATER. F'LORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 F'AX (727) 442-8470 December 5, 2001 IN REPLY REF'ER TO: Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 Appeals Officer City of Clearwater Planning Department P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 Re: Appeal of Developmental Order regarding case FLS 01-10-73 at 141 Devon Drive Dear Sir: This firm has been retained to represent James A. Martin, Jr. of 145 Devon Drive, Clearwater, Florida, regarding the appeal of a decision approving a dock extension application for 141 Devon Drive by Cynthia H. Tarapani, AICP, Planning Director of the City of Clearwater. The approval decision rendered on November 29,2001 was pursuant to her Level One (Flexible Standard Development) authority. As required in the application, Mr. Martin has certain reasons for the appeal and for the decision to be reviewed by the full Community Development Board based on the following grounds: 1. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Standard Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-60 1 (C)(G)(I)(ii)(iii). Number one, the decision is allegedly based on the comments by the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management in which it was stated "that the proposed structure is more environmentally sensitive than the existing structure and will therefore reduce environmental impacts to sea grasses." If this were the case, then each and every homeowner along Devon Drive would be entitled to have a dock structure of the same size and character. This would . . December 5, 2001 Page 2 make the criteria to obtain a dock permit as established in the Community Development Code pointless. The exceptions would swallow the rule. Under this view of authority, the City Department Planning Officer would have complete and arbitrary control to determine the building of docks without any guidelines set by the City Commission in establishing its Development Code. 2. The appellant has previously filed with this department a Petition signed by a significant number of residents of Devon Drive who are in opposition. This Petition negates the comment by the Planning Director that it is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. This is not what these neighborhood residents believe. 3. The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the code, including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913 in that establishing large docks with huge boat lifts does not create a compatible neighborhood for the Devon Drive area as more particularly noted in the Petition previously submitted. Wherefore, Appellant requests the hearing officer to review the decision of the Planning Department and to allow evidence to be presented at a public hearing to the Community Development Board for their consideration and evaluation. JM:knk Attachments H:\DatalAtylJAM\JIM\Dock.1tr . . PREPARED BY AND RETURN TO: James A. Martin, Jr., Esquire Macfarlane, Ausley Ferguson & McMullen 400 Cleveland Street Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, Florida 34617 QUIT CLAIM DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this ~ day of 11tN.IJ1I- 19.f{L, between JAMES A. MARTIN, JR. and SHERRAL A. MARTIN, his wife, of the County of Pinellas, and the State of Florida, Party of the First Part, whose mailing address is 145 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 34630, and JAMES A. MARTIN, JR., a married person, of the County of Pinellas, and the State of Florida, Party of the Second Part, whose mailing address is 145 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 34630. WITNESSETH, that the said ,Party of the First Part, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and NO/100 Dollars ($10.00), in hand paid by the said Party of the Second Part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released and quit claimed, and by these presents does remise, release and quit claim unto the said Party of the Second Part all the right, title, interest claim and demand which the said Party of the First Part has in and to the following described lot, piece or parcel of land, situate lying and being in the County of Pinellas, State of Florida, to wit: Lot 43, of "A REPLAT OF BAYSIDE SUBDIVISION," according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 23, Pages 18 and 19, public records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with that area lying between the Southerly projections of the East and West boundaries of the above-described plat, extended to intersect the boundary shown on said plat as "Bulkhead Line," and That certain parcel of land lying South of Lot 43, of A REPLAT OF BAYSIDE SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 23, Pages 18 and 19, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with that area lying between the Southerly projections of the East and West boundaries of the above-described plat, extended to intersect the boundary shown on said plat as "Bulkhead Line," described as follows: For a Point of Beginning, commence at the Southwest corner of said Lot 43, then South along the extended West line for said Lot to the Southernmost boundary of Water Lot "A," thence East parallel to the Southernmost line for said Lot 43. a distance of 63.30 feet, more or less to the intersection of the Easternmost line of Lot 43, extended Southerly to said point of intersection; thence North to the Southeast corner of said Lot 43; thence S 89054'35" W., 63.30 . . feet more or less along the South line of said Lot 43 to the Point of Beginning. Parcel/Tax I.D. #08-19-15-04914-000-0430. Grantee's Tax I.D. No. 228-58-2796. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all the singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever of the said Party of the First Part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said Party of the Second Part. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Party of the First Part has here- unto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and Delivered ~r~ p. n Na~ :. /~ ~~~ ~~ . Print N. e I ~ 11<.//'1 f/ .f.....I/".f/rP ~-r) ,v >;ALoLJ/J'1 /2 /;Jt1I1~U (SEAL) Sherral A. Mart~n STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day personally appeared before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, SHERRAL A. MARTIN, to me personally known or who has produced as identification-and who did take an oath, and known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and she acknowledged -2- . . before me her execution hereof to be her free act and deed for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and and State, this ~day at Clearwater. said County , 199&. My STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL BEVERLY S WITKOWSKI NorARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO. CC479456 MY COMMISSION EXP. ULY 11,1999 I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day personally appeared before me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, JAMES A. MARTIN, JR., to me personally known or who has produced ~/A as identification and who did take an oath, . and known to me to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged before me his execution hereof to be his free act and deed for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand pnd offi9'al seal at Clearwater, said County and State, this ~day of I tt'lt.. <-il/tAo , 19~. 77. " ,~f-dt Not Public . Prin Name k/l/iMV\I\ 1\). l<:irfl,(L,e.IL My Commission Expires: ,I'll\' PU07 OFFICIAL flOURY SEAL P"!E.\rlo KYIdM N KIDWELL t:, '\\~i'i .. COMMISSIOfl NUMBER ~. &c.~' J CC174047 -<" o<i:' MY COMMISSION EXP. OFf~ FEB. 141996 -3- , . . MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 500 SOUTH F'LORIDA AVENUE SUITE 240 LAKE LAND. F'LORIDA 33801 (863) 680-9908 F'AX (863) 683-2849 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET. SUITE 2300 P.O. BOX 1531 (ZIP 336011 TAMPA. F'LORIDA 33602 (813) 273-4200 F'AX (813) 273-4396 625 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 1669 (ZIP 33757) CLEARWATER. F'LORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 F'AX (727) 442-8470 November 28,2001 IN REPLY REF'ER TO: Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 City of Clearwater Community Development Coordinator City Hall Annex 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Re: Dock application for Chris Giotakis 141 Devon Drive Clearwater, Florida 33767 Dear Community Development Coordinator: As I had previously written to you, this firm has been retained by James A. Martin, Jr., of145 Devon Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33767, to oppose the General Development Application for a dock expansion of Chris Giotakis at 141 Devon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. In addition to our previous comments and concerns in support of your denial of the application, we have more thoroughly reviewed the application itself. The application is signed by an agent of the property owner, Advanced Marine Construction, Inc. In answer to Questions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, there have been affirmative statements that the applicant's dock expansion does not adversely affect the docks and lifts in the neighborhood, adjacent properties, and appears to be in harmony with the existing structures on the street. Nothing can be further from the truth. My client specifically has objected and protested this dock addition, expansion and boat lift for many, many months previous to this latest application. As a matter of fact, on a previous application to do the same thing, my client had caused the City staff to visit the site of an unauthorized dock expansion and have it halted and cited. The applicant and his agents knew of the adjacent property owners' objections. His failure to report this on the application, and to state affirmatively under oath that the proposed dock and lift length variance will continue to be in harmony with the existing dock structures on the street, are knowing misstatements. , j- . . November 28,2001 Page 2 We, therefore, again urge you to reject the application, now more than ever, given the fact that the application is full of misstatements. JM/ls cc: James A. Martin, Jr. "t . ~~l T~~~' MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 500 SOUTH F'LORIDA AVENUE SUITE 240 LAKELAND. F'LORIDA 33BOI (863) 680-9908 F'AX (863) 683-2849 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET. SUITE 2300 P.O. BOX 1531 (ZIP 33601) TAMPA. F'LORIDA 33602 (813) 273-4200 F'AX (813) 273-4396 625 COURT STREET P.O. BOX .669 (ZIP 33757) CLEARWATER. F'LORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 F'AX (727) 442-8470 November 27, 2001 IN REPLY REF'ER TO, Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 City of Clearwater Community Development Coordinator City Hall Annex 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 f 1 '\ t; Re: Dock application for Chris Giotakis 141 Devon Drive Clearwater, Florida 33767 lI.', . Dear Community Development Coordinator: This firm has been retained by James A. Martin, Jr., of 145 Devon Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33767, to oppose the General Development Application for a dock expansion of Chris Giotakis at 141 Devon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. My client has reviewed his application and the Code regarding docks and the comments by the Pinellas County Environmental office. As you know, Section 3-601, requires both City and Pinellas County Water & Navigation Control Authority approval, to construct, add to, or structurally alter a dock in the City of Clearwater. The City approval procedures require that the dock shall not exceed 35 percent of the width of the property measured at the waterfront line, or 50 feet, whichever is less. It also states that the length of the dock and boat lift shall not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway, or half of the width of the property, measured at the waterfront property line, whichever is less. The application by Mr. Giotakis obviously exceeds that. However, the Water and Navigation Report by the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management comments found that the application met the requirements for deviating from these standards. The Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management stated that there were no navigational concerns with the proposed project, as well as that the proposed structure is more environmentally sensitive than the existing structure. This finding appears to have complied with Subsection G of Section 3 -60 1 in which the Community Development Coordinator may grant deviations. RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2001 PLANI\li\\Jll ()L ut.vc.LUPMENl SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER . . November 27,2001 Page 2 Our objections are: 1. That the findings do not comply with the docks of similar homeowners in the surrounding area. 2. The deviations, if allowed, would subsume the Rule, and 3. The environment would, in fact, be negatively effected. If allowed, the extension of this dock would permit every single homeowner on the South Beach to extend their dock. It appears that the exception would swallow the rule. Every single dock which is shorter than the Giotakis proposed dock, which has already been built, could be extended using these criteria. Furthermore, the extended dock would obviously create an environmental impact due to the fact that it would increase the amount of square footage that the dock would encompass. My client would like the opportunity to have a hearing on this issue in order to present other evidence as to its impact on the community and for other dock owners in the area as well, so as to have the time necessary to further investigate the environmental impact on the area. Prior to your consideration of this application, please let us know so that we may make such an appearance. We appreciate your time and concern of our objection. JM/ls ) cc: James A. Martin, Jr. <t: . <( 'I I- w ,0 --1 --i ,I 0:: u W I- 4: /' ~ 09 ,sal\J I Ii /'I') l!!1 011 /'I') I"') -g---; - /'I') I/) l\J r-- I V I l\J '~l!! o !!! I/) o /'I') OJ lD _ .J!>_I ..... /'I') m 0 I"') co 0 0 rll) V co ~ 0 ~~ co !::L rt\ll (\I <<r Llr 'I~ n t .,. ~ ..n: lOJ .,. ~ ~ <t- I/) 0 CD <' <t- CO' ~ o "9'~ CD ' <t- 91'j ..... 0 0 <t- ID ID 0 So, CO 0 V CD CD 89', (1) 0 0 CD .,. ID . 0 C 0 0 co II) ID a:: LaJ 0 gl- co II) ~~ 0 N CD II) X 0 oc!) co co - 1B I/, -- 0 . ~ .,. --. I"') w z :i a 4: w J: ~. ,..J :l en l\J (\I U) r-- U) ...... U). ..... CO I"') , (\1_ .'O'U)LaJo l\J .....>ID ~..;...-- - (1) U) a:: - .....0 (1) /'I') o ~I (I) I ---., o CD ~ CO ,0 CD ..... 0 - ..' ID _..Y g l\J .,.. r~l I~r I -LoJ lD o CD II) o CD -- -- -- -- . ----~ --- / . . --------- f . -~ 1 1 I I r-__ I -- --- -- . 1 -- -- I ----1 1 f----____ I ' - I I ~ 0 'u.. I Z ar r- C\J W I --1 --1 r- 4: w 0 ,u u w UJ 0:: ~ ~ I I i CITY OF CLEARWATER November 29,2001 Ryan - Page Two LONG RANGE PlANNING DEVELOPMENT REviEW HOUSING DMSION NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES PlANNING DEPARTMENT POST OffiCE Box 4748, ClEAllWATER, FI.ORJDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAl. SERVICES BUIlDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTI.E AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FIORJDA 33756 TElEPHONE (727) 562-4567 r.,x (727) 562-4576 Pursuant to Section 4-303, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Standard Development approval (November 29, 2002). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within one year of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time franles do not change with successive owners. Ms. Lisa Ryan Advanced Marine Construction 885 4th Street North Safety Harbor, FL 34695 COpy~=~29.2001 Please be aware that the issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. In addition, please be aware that an appeal of a Level One approval (Flexible Standard Development). may be initiated by a property owner abutting the property which is the subject of the approval within seven days of the date the development order is issued. A copy of the Development Order is being sent to the surrounding property owners. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case will expire on December 7, 2001. RE: Development Orderregarding case FLS 01-10-73 at 141 Devon Drive Dear Ms. Ryan: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-202 E of the Community Development Code. On November 8, 2001, the Development Review Committee (ORC) reviewed your application for Flexible Standard Development approval to increase the length of a dock from 35 feet (50 percent of the width of the property) to 54 feet (77 percent of the width of the property). The application includes replacing an existing 346 square foot dock with a 401 square foot dock and a 152 square foot boatlift. The proposed dock will be located 24 feet from the east property line and 30 feet from the west property line. The proposed boatlift will be located 14 feet from the west property line. The DRC unanimously recommended approval of the application. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mark Parry, Planner at 562-4558. ~ Cynthia H. Tarapani, AICP Planning Director I concur with the findings of the Development Review Committee and, through this letter, approve your application for Flexible Standard Development with the following bases: CC: Chris Giotakis, Property Owner Surrounding Property Owners Bases for approval: I. The proposal complies with the Flexible Standard Development crit~ria under the provisions of Section 3-601(C)(G)(I)(ii)(iii). 2. The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. 3, The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. . UIUANJ. AltNCST, M^YOH-COMMI:iSIONJ:R ED H:\KT, VICt: MAYOlt.CUM,\lISSI0NI~lt Wurnmy Gll'.Y, CmIMISSIO"r:H Hon HA.\lIl.TON. COMMISSIC)NEII * BIlJ..I0N:'iON, COMMISSIONI(R "EQUAl. Et.1I'1.0YMENT ANn ArVmM^l1Vl~ ACIlON EMPl.m1~K" S:\Plannina Departmcnt\C D B\Standard Flex\fcnding Cascs\3 - Up for the Next DRaoevon 141 Giotakis\Devon 141 DEVELOPMENT ORDER.doc Receipt No: 1200104494 . Date: 12/10/2001 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description APP 01-12-04 02 Flex Std-Residential Payments: Method Payer Check MACFARLANE FERGUSON & MCCULLEN . Revenue Account No. 010-341262 Amount Due $100.00 Bank No Acct Check No 17402 Amount Paid TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $100.00 $100.00 Payee: City of Clearwater Vendor 10: 000689 Memo: 900021-1 JAM Disb Date Dee 10/01 Cheek #: Cheek Date: 17402 Dee 10/01 17402 Client Matter 1 - 900021-1 JAM Amount 100.00 Disbursements Total: $100.00 "J , 0 3D ~.,~-c=:o--.__=-:::. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATEA . . STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION WE, the undersigned, oppose the granting of a building permit to Chris Giotakis for the extension and construction of a 54' dock and 19,000 lb. boat lift on the property at 141 Devon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. The proposed structures are not consistent with the "community character of the immediate vicinity" and do not minimize adverse effects, including visual, acoustic, and olfactory, to surrounding property owners. Name Address :b RN, ole. ~ t~J9.R.Jf1q DAlE IJ/&/?//fPiV- ~~s~~ ,dR ,~~ .W \ l\,~ A..r? oss .sf" e'L~ , '2. ~ :n ev'o..J l'{() ~ iI. I lV'.. ~ e..{L C-A ~...11: I 4 '-{ 'p t1" o,.j 'b,a '1:,-./'!:- ~ '/rl~ j(PbJIJfi:.77-/ /luf1lJlleGfS 131 bn:VoJ m. '=+~ ~~t~;l. :)AfY)c5 $oBOLcSJGI' I ~, rk130u<-at+L GRotaV ''11 ~vo~ OR.. .,f~/1f(J!~ b.. r{,,dC/} '6 I ~ I beVotU lJl1 (!hR..IS ,'-,v€... J"'. /(':tJc;f-/tJ I ~( DE()()Ai t>L, 4/r..i:,,,""( (f?' P~r /7$ audIL t;::f, 7A~"':h -"~&ll.. I/OS ~ 4. IJI.)t(, 'J(/~ t II ~A I ~5 l)~ Dr: . . CDB Meeting Date: January 22,2002 Case Number: APP 01-12-04 Agenda Item: B 1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT ST AFF SUMMARY OF EVENTS GENERAL INFORMATION: OWNER: Chris Giotakis APPLICANT! APPELLANT: James A. Martin, Jr. (145 Devon Drive) APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Joshua Magidson, Attorney LOCATION: 141 Devon Drive REQUEST: Appeal of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) decision by the Community Development Coordinator who approved certain deviations to the dock requirements for the property located at 141 Devon Drive, under the appeal provisions of Section 4-501 of the Community Development Code. BASIS OF STAFF'S DECISION: This 0.18-acre site is located on the south side of Devon Drive, approximately 65 feet east of Harnden Drive. The site fronts on a channel off of Clearwater Harbor and contains an existing 2,000 square foot, one-story dwelling with a 346 square foot dock. On October 22, 2001, Ms. Lisa Ryan, Advanced Marine Construction, filed an application for Flexible Standard Development approval on behalf of Mr. Chris Giotakis (property owner) for a dock. (Refer to Attachment A.) The application requested an increase in the permitted length of a dock from 35 feet to 54 feet, due to low water depth and the proximity of sea grasses and other aquatic plants and marine life. Section 3-601 (C)(1)(b) of the Code provides that the length of docks and boatlifts that serve a single-family dwelling shall not exceed 25 percent of the waterway or half of the width of the property measured at the waterfront property line, whichever is less. In this case, the lot is 70 feet wide at the south, waterfront property line and the waterway is approximately 500 feet wide. In this case, half of the lot width is used to determine permitted length of the dock and is 35 feet. The proposal includes replacing the existing dock with a 401 square foot dock and a 152 square foot boatlift. The proposed dock will be located 24 feet from the east property line and 30 feet Page 1 . . from the west property line. The proposed boatlift will be located 14 feet from the west property line. Section 3-601(C)(I)(g) of the Code provides for deviations from dock requirements for single- family (and two-family) dwellings. The Community Development Coordinator may grant deviations as part of a Level One, Minimum Standard review, provided signed and notarized statements of no objection are secured from both adjacent waterfront property owners. In the event such statements cannot be obtained, deviations are reviewed under Flexible Standard Development applications, based on one of the following criteria: 1) That the proposed dock will result in no navigational conflicts and the length of the proposed dock will not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway; ar 2) The proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to protect environmentally sensitive areas; or 3) The property configuration precludes the placement of a dock in compliance with the required dimensional standards; however, the proposed dock will be similar in dimensional characteristics as surrounding dock patterns. The applicant was not able to provide statement of no objection from both adjacent waterfront property owners and applied as part of a Level One, Flexible Standard Development review. As part of his submission, the applicant provided documentation from the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management stating that there are no navigational concerns associated with the proposed dock. It was also stated that the proposed structure is more environmentally sensitive than the existing structure, reducing negative environmental impacts to existing sea grasses. The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application on November 8, 2001. There were no objections raised by the DRC whose members include the Environmental Manager of the Public Warks Administration and Harbormaster. The application was approved by the Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director) on November 29, 2001 (refer to attached Development Order and staff report for case FLS 01- 10-73, Attachments B and C) with the following bases: Bases for approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Standard Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601(C)(I)(g)(i)(ii)(iii). 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. APPEAL: Section 4-504 of the Code, Community Development Board Appeals, states that appeals may be filed from a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) approval from an abutting property owner. This appeal was filed on December 6, 2001 by the abutting property owner to the south (James A. Martin, Jr. - 145 Devon Drive). Refer to Attachment D. Page 2 . . AUTHORITY OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO HEAR APPEALS: The Community Development Board has the authority to hear appeals from Level One approval decisions, including Flexible Standard Development applications, in accordance with Section 4- 501 (A)(2) of Community Development Code. In this case, the decision by the Community Development Coordinator was the November 29, 2001 Development Order to the applicant's representative, Lisa Ryan of Advanced Marine Construction, approving the application for Flexible Standard Development. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal/application from an abutting property owner, it shall be placed on consent agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Community Development Board. The appeal may be removed from the consent agenda by a vote of at least four members of the Board. If the appeal is removed from the consent agenda, the Community Development Board shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director), conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application (per Section 4- 206) and render a decision in accord with Section 4-206(D)(5). If the appeal is not removed from the consent agenda, the Community Development Coordinator's decision of the approval shall be final. Pursuant to Section 4-504 (C) of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the Community Development Board shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Community Development Code; 2) That the decision will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Prepared by Planning Department staff: Mark Parry, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Location Map Zoning Atlas Map Application S:lJ>lanning Departmenf\C D B\APPEALS\Devon 141 Giotakis - Approved\Devon 141 STAFF REPORT appeal. doc Page 3 :E Qj " ::; ::;; -<: ~ ~ o '" Q ~ Q o ~ 3l -' lL Ul Q) o " ,Q) ;;; ;?- '" Ul 1) Q) '0 ii. ." " tV '" Iii ~. NORTH 1"-1320' Location Map Mr. Chris Giota/ds 141 Devon Drive APP01-12-04 3 .~ g ~ ~ &~ ~~ en ~ :Y) 111/lU~~~,.., ,\I~ &EAS-"-_ lo~~"';. , "d/~ II'" ~ (')...... ';:; ~r: -= 6~ \~-' 'Jl:l ~ ~." -........ tsa .f 1111 .....,,~'"",," v <) CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING THIRD ST iE 251 300 60 WATER LOT A p C I T Y OWNED 14 15 ~ <::> " .... ;: ~ .... ;: 44 43 p 47 45 U 43 42 41 40 48 46 44 " <0", co '" '" "<0 co'" '" " ~~ ~~ ;:: ~ ~ '0 '0 '0 ~~ <0<0 0)" - -- - - -- -.... BRIGHT WATER DRIVE 7 0).......Cl')l() " 0> '0 ~ ~ 0J ll) ~~;:?2? 0) 0) ~ "0> .... .... ~ ....... l() l() 0.00.0 12 - .... .... - 8 11 15 9 10 7-32 13 14 <( 9 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT REQUEST 0 lii -" ~ "0 OWNER: ~ Mr. Chris Giotakis CASE: APP 01-12- 04 ...J !;!;- '" Q) I PROPERTY g SITE: 141 Devon Drive SIZE (ACRES): 0.16 .91 lii > (OJ '" PIN: 08/29/15/04914/000/0440 '0 Q) ~ ATLAS a. 276A "0 PAGE: c: '" ;:o! w 32/02 GOVT LOT 3 L FIRST ST WATER LOT A 2 4 3 THIRD ST '" ~ !2 o lA 2A BRIGHT WATER DRIVE 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 ~ Ii a. <( ~ :I o lii ;< EXISTING SURROUNDING USES ~ ~ OWNER: .. Q) o i SITE: .;ij ~ Mr. Chris Giotakis CASE: APP 01-12- 04 I PROPERTY SIZE (ACRES): 0.16 141 Devon Drive tl Q) '0 0.: -0 c: .. ~ Iii PIN: 08/29/15/04914/00010440 ATLAS PAGE: 276A . 2h"""-A- ~ .. I t-\ . . GOVT LOT 3 / / P ~ 2A 3A \ 56 42 41 40 ~:g "'... ~!~~ ~- ~<o 24 25 :~ <:> ~ ~ l'-. .. ~ ~ . 35 34 ~ f - * From: Planning Department- /iI. erf'V . Planner Requesting Maps FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT MAP REQUEST Please prepare the following maps: 1. Color Aerial Photograph with the property outlined and streets marked. 2. Location Map 3. Flexible Development Request Map 4. Existing Surrounding Uses Map Requested on: , . -Z.O'z.. For Completion by: I. 7 .CJ -z.. Survey Attached: ~ Legal Description Attached: I2!-' Comments: 1!/'A OWNER: /VIr. c.hr:1 SITE: Il./I t> '" b ,.:~ CASE: 4PP CJf .(,,_{/I.{ PROPERTY SIZE (ACRES:) (7.1' PIN: O~/Zq 1$( ()l{qt<{ (1v ATLAS PAGE: Z 7'A CERTIFIED TO: WORLD SAV~_GS BANK FIRST ~ICAN TTILE INSURANCE CO. ~ CHRISTOPHER B. GIOTAKIS W,O. 3768 i SEC. B __Dg,'L~_DR\V~_*, 1 ":/S f2../w lE --r~ ,l'NP. 29 S. RNG. 15 E j-:'CM e.Jt ~ 2:~ '0 "I - ~ ~~ iI - _~-\4\~.:~.f- I=C.M ~J\~ .9 -- --- (L J 0 j !:I- \4\ is. \".~\Oi<:'Y ,J I H:,P>.M\S.. 11 GO ...1", tL..hlDL.. dJ r' -.r ~ I/l .~ LOTL\S -, ,] J ,r /) \ , =rfJ ~';).~ t.) ,I !'J ,:!.\.<l, -~ 0:/ '~Oi-Jc. , 'c.::::::- , . . LOT 44 I 1(J 0 b if) " ~ ,- '{II ~ -;J . - 0 <:i Jl d 5.~ LD\ 43 ~o ~ <1' ~~ f)., -Q () -,- -- -- ~"l.. .~ ~Be: e,;i '-I"~ - - -"""'-- C\.~ .-' t -1- ,J .C) . a Q . ~ "" -- , . &JL..l-'J-\&Al::. .,., -i'F:Av-.~A.'-L- . ~,,\l...\E l="Ot)h,)\:'\'" ' ~-'~-~r 1""B ':w! ':II"'~"illl' ':1 II- Ii!' ,'I. 1'1 1,\ I '.l!' \I\J A, E.. R- I 'i J~) ~) ,) 'I"~'I .J , I fll' , ;,1!; - - - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ij: !.llli.~~~i / D<..)('Jc:, U ~ IE_ "BOUNDARY SURVEY" -L:>.1~t,__" ------------ 11...0 FOU~lD~X" LL:Y, "A ,,(1 ~ f.l.R,wfOUNO IRON ROO; f.C_LR.~ rOUND CAPPEP IRON RI>>. s.C,I.R.- SET CAPPED IRON ROO: r.l.p,.. fOUND IRON PIPE; LEGEND: f.C.I.P...fOUNO C:APPED IRON PIPE; F.N.D.-F'<ll.JNO NAIL ot: 0151<: 5.101.1).... SET HAlL" DISK; F'.C.~.- rOUND CONCRETE MOfoIUMrNT; P.R.M.- PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT: p.C_P_"'PERNANENT CON'lROt. POINT; P.I...POINT Of INTERSECTION; f'l./W" RICHT OF' WAY; EL.EV.- ELEVATION; C.B.S,," CONcRElE BLOCK SlRUcnJRE; CONC.- COH~ETE; ASPH." IISI"HALT; PAVT." PAYEMEN'!': ~';'] COV.- cOVEAl".l); 0.. orm; SEC._ SECllON; TW'.- TOWNSHIP: RGE.- RANQ(; P=PLA T: M.- MEASl.JRm; rSMT." EASEMENT; . -::~l CO~D AREA R_. RADIUS' A.- ARC' C.-CHORD; C.B.- CHORD aEARING; STY.- SroRY: C.LF.- CHAIN UNK FENCE' ".F.- WOOD fENCE ~_. A SURVEY OF LOT 44 REPLAT OF BAYS IDE SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK. ..2J ' PAGE 17_, 1.8. 1 9 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF' F'INELLAS COUNTY. FLORIDA. I. ...WAIl C. KEAllN<:. 'lIfE !llJRIIE'laA IN IlfSf'()j$B~ ~ARa;. crnTlf"Y 1'H,(f~Y REPIlESEllTED HEllEON. AS IlEEllNG '!HE IllNlllUU l[CIINItAL STAHIlAROS ~ FORTH BY 1HE fU)RlO'" BllARD tJit lAND SUlIYE'Y'ORs' F'\,JR$JANT TlI ~tn()j H2.027 r:,; 1HE F~QRID" 5TArutts ...s PftElICItBED IN <:I1AP1I;R IIIGl)-! ()I;Pl, Of PROfE~Al- R~OOUllON. (NaT VALlD uNLI:SS Sf:Al.Ell W11H AN El/lIOssm aJRVf:1tlft"S SE~ ELEVATION STI\TElIENT; nils IS TO CERTlFY THAT WE HAVE 09'fAlNED ElEVAnONS SliOWN HEREON, 01' rHE A80\l: DESCRIBED LAND. THEsE ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE NATIONAl. VERllCAL OAlUM. 1929. BENCHMARK . SUPPUED BY lliE ENGINEERING Cl!i:PT.. COUNTY, FLo~ltJA, F'l,00D ZONE OISl1NCTlONS ~ eASEP UPON ll-iE tt~~;q EMERCEIIICY wANAGEM"NT AlDler's MAPS ISSuE!> ro US. DUE TO INCOl\l~S"1nolCIES mUND IN THESE NAPS. "\liE ~ONES AAr AN APPROXIMATE ESTtMAllON TO 1J.iE !lE:ST or OUR oI.!IIUTY, 1"=30' ~AP DATE: ,D 0-/0 ALLIED SURVEYING 2118 E DREW S1REET CLE"RWA TER, f'lORIDA. 33765 727~U8-':/63 PANEl No. O,pp 7 b DATE: 06/05/00 DRA""" BY: AC CHECKEO ElY: IM~, SCALE: III' . "111 IU" III.' '.~I ....... ....- .-.. ... ~O LAND T~UST DEED . ~'1' ... THE GRAN'ftJR, CHRIS B. GIOTAKIS, a single person, of Pinellas County, State of Florld~ for and in consideration often ($10.00) dollars, and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid, on this 19TH day of~, 2000, hereby convey, grant, bargain, sell, alien, remise, release, and confinn under the provisions of Section 689.071, Florida Statutes, unto CHRIS B. GIOTAKIS, Trustee(s) under the provision of a Trust Agreement dated the, 19TH day of JUNE, 2000, known as the GIO PROPERTIES TRUST Number 1 dated, June 19, 2000, Grantee(s), whose post office address is; 326 Belcher ROAd North, Clearwate(,. Florida 33765, the following described real property in the County of Pine lIas, State of Florida, to wit: n.ES J------ 'GeT ~~'r\ R;:;C("')':~o )R~.O ..--' os _--' \~lr __" FE[S ~.--_. Mn~ _...- PIC ___- nE.t) ._' -- _._~.\ ,(10 10l'-., J.." c:~ ~',~~, ''''1'''''-' Subject to mortgages, easements, reservations and restrictions of record, and taxes for 2000 ~.., and subsequent years. Lot 44, REPLAT OF BA YSIDE SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 23, Pages 17 through 19, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Water Lot CIA" as described in Warranty Deed recorded in O.R. Book 1958, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida Parcel Identification Number: 08~29-15-04914- 000-0440 Also known as: 141 Devon Drive. Clearwater Bea~h. Florida 33767 TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditament and appurtenances thereto, belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises in fee simple forever, with the appurtenances thereto, upon the trusts and for the uses and purposes herein and in said trust agreement set forth. GRANTOR(S) hereby covenants with Grantee(s) that Grantor(s) is lawfully seized of the property in fee simple, that Grantee(s) has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey the property, that Grantor(s) warrants the title to the property and will defend it against the lawful claims of all persons and the property is free of all encumbrances not stated in this deed. . FUL~ POWER AND AUTHORITY is hereby granted to said Trustees, with respect to the S81d prerru~es or any part of it, and at any time or times, to subdivide said premises or any part thereof, to de~l~ate ~arks, streets, highways or alleys and to vacate any subdivision or part thereof, and to resubdlVlde said property as often as desired, to contract to sell, to grant options to purchase, to sell on ~ny terms, to co~vey either with or without consideration, to donate~ to mortgage, pledge or oth~rwlse e~cu~ber said p,roperty, or a~y part thereof, to lease said property or any part thereot: from tIme to tlme, In possessIon or reversIon by leases to commence in praesenti or in futuro, and upon any terms and for any periods or periods oftime~ and to renew or extend leases upon any terms and for any period This Document was Prepared br; Bruce M. Harlan, Bsquire ana r&t:urn to;l 32(j Bcl<::her RCl.!&d North ClealWater, Florida 33765 (727) 441-9991 Page t of 3 ,'. LL e . o >- I- Revised 12/21/01 u AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 Time: 2:00 pm Place: 112 South Osceola Street, 3rd Floor, Clearwater, Florida, 33756 (City Hall Commission Chambers) The City of Clearwater strongly supports and fully complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Please advise us at least 72 hours prior to the meeting if you require special accommodations. Assisted listening devices are available. Kindly refrain from using beepers, cellular telephones and other distracting devices during the meeting. Florida Statue 286.0105 states: Any person appealing a decision of this Board must have a record of the proceedings to support such appeal. If you have questions or concerns about a case, please contact the staff presenter from the Planning Department listed at the end of each agenda item at 727-562-4567. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Chair Figurski Vice-Chair Petersen Gildersleeve Hooper Moran Mazur Plisko Alternate member Hibbard City Staff A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: December 14, 2002 CDB agenda - January 22,2002 - Page 1 B. CONSIDERATIOaF LEVEL 1 APPEALS (Item 1): e 1. Case: APP 01-12-04 - 141 Devon Drive Owner: Chris Giotakis. Applicant/Appellant: James A. Martin, Jr. (145 Devon Drive). Location: 0.16 acres located on the south side of Devon Drive, approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive Atlas Page: 276A. Proposed Use: A 54-foot dock with boat lift. Request: Appeal of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) decision by the Community Development Coordinator who approved certain deviations to the dock requirements for the property located at 141 Devon Drive, under the appeal provisions of Section 4-501 of the Community Development Code. Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner. C. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1): 1. Case: LUZ 01-09-08 - 19034 US 19 North Owner/Applicant: Long Bow Corp. Representative: Todd Pressman. Location: 4.3 acres on the west side of US 19 North, approximately 1,060 feet north of Nursery Road and 320 feet east of Summerlin Drive and 440 feet south of the Ham Boulevard intersection. Atlas Page: 317B. Request: (a) Land use Plan amendment from CG, Commercial General Classification to RM, Residential Medium Classification; and (b) Rezoning from C, Commercial District to MDR, Medium Density Residential District. Proposed Use: Multi-family residential Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner. D. LEVEL 2 APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-2): 1. Case: FL 01-11-35 - 1135 Marshall Street Owner/Applicant: Mr. Norris Gould and Mr. J. Frank Hancock. Location: 0.16 acres located on the southwest comer of Marshall Street and North Madison Avenue. Atlas Page: 269A Zoning: MDR, Medium Density Residential District. Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (north) setback along Marshall Street from 25 feet to 16 feet to building, reduce the front (east) setback along North Madison Avenue from 25 feet to 22.5 feet to building and reduce the minimum lot size from 10,000 square feet to 7,022.5 square feet, as part of a Residential rnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-304.G. Proposed Use: A 1,788 square foot addition (as part of a separate dwelling) attached to an existing 760 square foot dwelling (two units total). Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner. CDB agenda - January 22, 2002 - Page 2 e e 2. Case: FL 01-11-34 - 1641 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Owner: Linco Auto Parts. Applicant: Mr. Mike Coleman (PLA Construction) for Buddy Bi-Rite. Representative: Ms. Chris Papandreas, AICP (King Engineering Associates, Inc). Location: 0.46-acres located on the southeast comer of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Keystone Avenue. Atlas Page: 297B. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (west) setback along Keystone Avenue from 25 feet to 20 feet to building, reduce the front (north) setback along Gulf to Bay Boulevard from 25 feet to 20 feet to building and reduce the required number of parking spaces from 21 spaces to 13 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704. Proposed Use: A 4,200 square foot retail sales and service establishment. Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner. E. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: TDR Annual Report and Density Pool Report F. ADJOURNMENT S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D Blagendas DRC & CDBlCDB\2002UANUARYlCDB January 22, 2002,doc CDB agenda - January 22, 2002 - Page 3 . . MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 500 SOUTH F'LORIDA AVENUE SUITE 240 LAKELAND. F'LORIDA 33801 (863) 680-9908 F'AX (863) 683-2849 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET. SUITE 2300 P.O. BOX 1531 (ZIP 33601) TAMPA. F'LORIDA 33602 (813) 273-4200 F'AX (813) 273-4396 625 COURT STREET P.O. BOX 1669 (ZIP 33757) CLEARWATER. F'LORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 F'AX (727) 442-8470 November 30, 2001 IN REPLY REF'ER TO, City of Clearwater Community Development Coordinator City Hall Annex 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 m Re: Dock application for Chris Giotakis 141 Devon Drive Clearwater, Florida 33767 Dear Community Development Coordinator: As previously noted, this firm represents James A. Martin, Jr., of 145 Devon Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33767. Enclosed please find a petition in opposition to the application of Chris Giotakis to the extension and construction of a 54-foot dock and 19,000 lb. boat lift on the property at 141 Devon Drive, Clearwater, Florida. The petition, and all the supporters thereof, find that the proposed structures are not consistent with the "community character" of the immediate vicinity and does not minimize adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory to surrounding property owners. This petition, as you can see, has been signed by the residents and owners of property as more particularly noted in the attached highlighted drawing. My client can affirmatively state also that the property owners who have not signed the petition and have not been contacted yet, we believe would support this petition. There have been no statements in opposition by any of the persons residing on Devon Drive to my client. We again urge you to reject this application as not being consistent with the community. JMlls cc: James A. Martin, Jr. RECEIVED DEe 1 0 2001 PLANNING & DEVElOPMENT SERVlCES CITY OF CLEARWATER CITY OF CLEARWATER November 29, 2001 Ryan - Page Two PlANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748, ClEARWATER, FI.ORlDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAl. SERVICES BUIlDING, 100 SOlIfH MYR1U AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 Pursuant to Section 4-303, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Standard Development approval (November 29, 2002). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within one year of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. LONG RANGE PlANNING DEVELOPMENT RF.VIEW HOllSING DMSION NEIGHBORliOOD SERVlCES November 29, 2001 Please be aware that the issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. A;. Lisa Ryan ~vanced Marine Construction 885 4th Street North Safety Harbor, FL 34695 ~~,-' B"~' ua, .,~ ~ e;:w ~ In addition, please be aware that an appeal of a Level One approval (Flexible Standard Development) may be initiated by a property owner abutting the property which is the subject of the approval within seven days of the date the development order is issued. A copy ofthe Development Order is being sent to the surrounding property owners. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case will expire on December 7,2001. RE: Development Order regarding case FLS 01-10-73 at 141 Devon Drive Dear Ms. Ryan: If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mark Parry, Planner at 562-4558. This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-202 E of the Community Development Code. On November 8, 2001, the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed your application for Flexible Standard Development approval to increase the length of a dock from 35 feet (50 percent of the width of the property) to 54 feet (77 percent of the width of the property). The application includes replacing an existing 346 square foot dock with a 401 square foot dock and a 152 square foot boatIift. The proposed dock will be located 24 feet from the east property line and 30 feet from the west property line. The proposed boatIift will be located 14 feet from the west property line. The DRC unanimously recommended approval of the application. ~ Cynthia H. Tarapani, AICP Planning Director I concur with the findings of the Development Review Committee and, through this letter, approve your application for Flexible Standard Development with the following bases: ees for approval: 1. The proposal complies with the Flexible Standard Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601(C)(G)(I)(ii)(iii). 2. The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. 3. The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. CC: Chris Giotakis, Property Owner Surrounding Property Owners S:\Plannin& nepartmenl\C 0 B\Standard Flex\Pending Cases\3 . Up for the Next DRC\Dcvon 14 J Giotakis\Devon 141 DEVELOPM ENT ORDER.doc BMI^,~ J. AIJ"'l..Sl', MAYOM-O)MMISS1()NEH Eu H:\KT. VICE MAWM,CO"'\USSIONI:M WIIITr-.:I~Y GRt\y, CmIMISSIOf\HI. Hon HA.\III.TOr-.:, CO.\IMIS'iIONFM (j UIl.I..I0/l.:S0N, CmIMlssIONI~K "EQUAl. EMI'I.oYMENT ANn AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMrLOYER" Plan View ~ \4Pt-R~~"ttiJ~~) ~~3,T~ ,,,,. +' IlP~ + )5$1 P~NAPPROVED I~ ~ 11;1 # t5 ~'-''''7J . ~ ~ TYPE l)oc.cY ---r- I Q :p~~ T41 Old DATE pt.i 0(.(0 ~ 1:S I l ~ CD8DATE 16' 12. r.f~ SIGIAATURE rv-'-- I t 'ift. DAtt_ /(. Z,&.(7( t I <<I e r ~1~,OOOI~. I gel: I w~. I lo'fl I 30' :: 1<:... . PRIVATE DOCK . MEW - .- ~ . - - MLW BOTrOM - SLot 1- Profile View ENG. SC.A T .F.: l,,=aO' I ~o o ! 0.0 ,,1/ -N- /0/' Q. . ~ l):x:.\::., Lj.(;t- CIa ~ (. Application # . .pdq l~ \ - 00 . (OFFICIAL us~~OV\ b,ukt\5 \ 4 \ De uOV"\ \)te., T~~t~~~~ FEET 34tOcf NEW SQUARE FEET -~6 WATERWAY WIDTH _ WATERFRONT WIDTH 70 m-s 3~ --t-- 331 \lo' I SHORELINE oc:..~ .3\' ---1 The undersigned does not object to the proposed dock and requested variances as drawn in the space provided above. Left Owner Right Owner Signature Signature Date Date roval O48/WDIar1iENVMGMNT/PrMd3 4lI26/94 . . CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR 11/8/01 DRC MEETING BACKGROUND INFORMATION: COPY APPLICANT: Mr. Chris Giotakis PROPERTY LOCATION: 141 Devon Dri ve REQUEST: Flexible Standard Development approval to increase the length of a permitted dock from 35 feet (50 percent of the width of the property) to 54 feet (77 percent of the width of the property) under the provisions of Section 3-601. APPLICA TION NUMBER: FLS 01-10-73 ZONING: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District EXISTING USE: Single-family residential ADJACENT LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Single-family residential Single-family residential Single-family residential Single-family residential Page 1 . . STAFF ANALYSIS The 0.18-acre site is site located on the south side of Devon Drive approximately 65 feet east of Harnden Drive. The site contains an existing 2,000 square foot, one-story single-family dwelling with a 346 square foot dock. The neighborhood consists entirely of well-maintained, single-family dwellings. The proposal includes replacing the existing dock with a 401square foot dock and a 152 square foot boatlift. The proposed dock will be located 24 feet from the east property line and 30 feet from the west property line. The proposed boatlift will be located 14 feet from the west property line. All other Code requirements regarding docks will be met. All required building permits would need to be obtained prior to construction. The site is located in a stable, residential neighborhood that is undergoing redevelopment. The request to increase the permitted length of the dock is in keeping with the established character of the area and will provide a more environmentally sensitive situation over existing conditions. B. FLEXIBILITY STANDARDS FOR DOCKS IN ASSOCIATION WITH SINGLE- F AMIL Y DWELLINGS IN THE LMDR, LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (Section 3-601): STANDARD REQUIRED/ EXISTING PROPOSED IN PERMITTED COMPLIANCE? LENGTH 50 percent of the 28.8 feet (41 54 feet (77 No maximum width of the percent) percent) property WIDTH Thirty-five (35) 12 feet 16 feet Yes Maximum percent of the width of the property (24.5 feet) or fifty (50) feet, whichever is less Page 2 . . STANDARD REQUIREDI EXISTING PROPOSED IN PERMITTED COMPLIANCE? SIDE Docks: the Dock: Dock: Yes SETBACK center one-third East: 28 feet East: 24 feet of the lot (23 West: 28 feet West: 30 feet feet) or twenty Boatlift: (20) feet from West: 14 feet any property line, whichever is less Boatlifts/service catwalks: minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line C. FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR DOCKS IN THE LMDR, LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (Section 2-203): 1. The proposed dock will result in no navigational conflicts and the length of the proposed dock will not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the width of the waterway; or The Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management has issued a report which states that there are no navigational concerns with the proposed development. 2. The proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to protect environmentally sensitive areas; or The Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management has issued a report which states that the proposal is more environmentally sensitive than the existing dock and constitute an improvement over existing conditions. 3. The property configuration precludes the placement of a dock in compliance with the required dimensional standards; however, the proposed dock will be similar in dimensional characteristics as surrounding dock patterns. Not applicable as the only one of the above three criteria must be met. The first two criteria have been satisfied. Page 3 . . D. GENERAL APPLICABILITY (Section 3-913): Conditions which are imposed by the Community Development Coordinator and the Community Development Board pursuant to a Level One or a Level Two Approval shall ensure that: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposal includes a dock as accessory to an existing single-family residence. It will have no impact on density or impervious surface ratio limitations. The immediate area consists of single-family homes. The development will be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent properties. Adjacent properties are residential. The applicant will replace an existing dock with a more, environmentally sensitive one. The development will be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent properties. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The site is zoned LMDR District and the proposed use will be in compliance with that zoning. The proposed development should not discourage appropriate development and use of adjacent land buildings. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The use will not change with this proposal. The development will not negatively affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The use does not change with this proposal and will have no increased effect on traffic. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed development is consistent with and will improve the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. There will be no adverse effects generated by the proposed development. Page 4 . . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the on the application, the proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Standard Development approval, with the maximum development potential and with all applicable standards of the Community Development Code. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of the application for Flexible Standard Development approval to increase the length of a permitted dock from 35 feet (50 percent of the width of the property) to 54 feet (77 percent of the width of the property) under the provisions of Section 3- 601 at 141 Devon Drive. Basis for Approval: L The proposal complies with Flexible Development and Residential Infill Project criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601; 2. The plan complies with General Applicability Criteria under the provisions of Section 3-913; and 3. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area. Condition: L That the final design of the dock and boatlift be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted or as modified by the DRC; S:\Planning Department\C D BlStandard FleiIPending Cases\3 - Up for the Next DRC\Devon 141 Giotakis\Devon 141 Report.doc Page 5 I .. . . Member Petersen moved to approve 3 of the 4 Consent Agenda Items: LUZ01-09-08, FL01-11-35, and FL01-11-34 as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Owner: Chris 10 as IS ' , ,. E r!'" FL"91t j i~. Applicant/Appellant: James A. Martin, Jr. (145 Devon Driv' '" r ,'... Location: 0.16 acres on the south side of Devon Drive, app oXil~et east of Hamden Drive Atlas Page: 276A. Proposed Use: A 54-foot dock with boatlift Request: Appeal of a Level 1 (Flexible Standard Development) decision by the Community Development Coordinator who approved certain deviations to the dock requirements for the property at 145 Devon Drive, under the appeal provisions of Section 4-501 of the Community Development Code. Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce, acting as the designee of the Community Development Coordinator, presented an overview of the case. This 0.18-acre site on the south side of Devon Drive, approximately 65 feet east of Hamden Drive, fronts on a channel off of Clearwater Harbor and contains a 2,000 square foot, one-story dwelling with a 346 square foot dock. On October 22,2001, Ms. Lisa Ryan, Advanced Marine Construction, filed an application for Flexible Standard Development approval on behalf of Mr. Chris Giotakis (property owner) for a dock. The application requested an increase in the permitted length of a dock from 35 to 54 feet, due to low water depth and the proximity of sea grasses and other aquatic plants and marine life. Section 3-601 (C)(1 )(b) of the Code provides that the length of docks and boatlifts that serve a single-family dwelling shall not exceed 25 percent of the waterway or half of the width of the property measured at the waterfront property line, whichever is less. In this case, the lot is 70 feet wide at the south, waterfront property line and the waterway is approximately 500 feet wide. In this case, half of the lot width is used to determine permitted length of the dock and is 35 feet. The proposal includes replacing the existing dock with a 401 square foot dock and a 152 square foot boatlift. The proposed dock will be 24 feet from the east property line and 30 feet from the west property line. The proposed boatlift will be 14 feet from the west property line. Section 3-601 (C)(1 )(g) of the Code provides for deviations from dock requirements for single-family (and two-family) dwellings. The Community Development Coordinator may grant deviations as part of a Level One, Minimum Standard review, provided signed and notarized statements of no objection are secured from both adjacent waterfront property owners. In the event such statements cannot be obtained, deviations are reviewed under Flexible Standard Development applications, based on one of the following criteria: 1) The proposed dock will result in no navigational conflicts and the length of the proposed dock will not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway; or 2) the proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to protect environmentally sensitive areas; or 3) the property configuration precludes the placement of a dock in compliance with the required dimensional standards; however, the proposed dock will be similar in dimensional characteristics as surrounding dock patterns. mcd0102 4 01/22/02 ~ . . The applicant was not able to provide statement of no objection from both adjacent waterfront property owners and applied as part of a Level One, Flexible Standard Development review. As part of his submission, the applicant provided documentation from the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management stating that there are no navigational concerns associated with the proposed dock. It also was stated that the proposed structure is more environmentally sensitive than the existing structure, reducing negative environmental impacts to existing sea grasses. The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application on November 8, 2001. There were no objections raised by the DRC whose members include the Environmental Manager of the Public Works Administration and Harbormaster. The application was approved by the Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director) on November 29,2001, (refer to Development Order and staff report for Case FLS 01- 10-73,) with the following bases: Bases for approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Standard Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601 (C)(1 )(g)(i)(ii)(iii); 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. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said this is the first case under the current Land Development Code that involves an appeal of a Level One (staff level approval) flexible standard approval from an abutting property owner. Section 4-504 of the Code, Community Development Board Appeals, states that appeals may be filed from a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) approval from an abutting property owner. The abutting property owner filed this appeal on December 6, 2001 to the south (James A. Martin, Jr. - 145 Devon Drive). The Community Development Board has the authority to hear appeals from Level One approval decisions, including Flexible Standard Development applications, in accordance with Section 4-501 (A)(2) of Community Development Code. In this case, the decision by the Community Development Coordinator was the November 29, 2001 Development Order to the applicant's representative, Lisa Ryan of Advanced Marine Construction, approving the application for Flexible Standard Development. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal/application from an abutting property owner, it shall be placed on consent agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Community Development Board. The appeal may be removed from the consent agenda by a vote of at least four members of the Board. If the appeal is removed from the consent agenda, the Community Development Board shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director), conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application (per Section 4-206) and render a decision in accord with Section 4-206(D)(5). If the appeal is not removed from the consent agenda, the Community Development Coordinator's decision of the approval shall be final. Pursuant to Section 4-504 (C) of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the Community Development Board shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the mcdO 102 5 01/22/02 ~ . . provisions of the Community Development Code; 2) the decision will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Joshua Magidson, representative for James A. Martin, Jr., abutting property owner, said the subject dock was to be built a year before the current application under the former Code. The County approved that application but the City never issued a permit. This application has been reviewed under the current Code. He felt that some statements that were made under oath in the application are untrue. He said the application does not meet the 3 criteria in the Code for docks. He said the Code specifics criteria for docks and states that City staff "may" approve a deviation. He felt as there are objections by neighbors and a signed petition against the length of this dock in this area, the CDS should consider removing this case from the Consent Agenda in order to hear all the evidence. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the petition Mr. Magidson referred to simply objects to the dock. The appellant who lives next door received notice of the DRC meeting and did not participate in the process. Staff weighs petitions and all other input from the public as well as technical expertise when making decisions. She said if Mr. Magidson wishes to present any new evidence today, it would be difficult to review it during the meeting. She suggested they present their materials in written form to staff for review. Mr. Magidson said his client received notice of the DRC meeting in the mail after it took place. The letter was dated November 5, 2001. The envelope was stamped November 7, 2001, and his client received it on November 8, 2001. The next day, staff was made aware of the appellant's objections to the dock. It was remarked that Mr. Magidson's client appears to object to the way the City Ordinance reads, which is a City Commission matter. Mr. Magidson said his objection is regarding the method by which the right to present evidence is permitted under a level One appeal. He felt that although the Code states that staff "may" grant deviations, the CDS should review all the evidence at a quasi-judicial hearing. He expressed concern that only one person has the power to make a level One approval. Ms. Tarapani said she also is the Community Development Coordinator. She consults with all members of the DRC including the City's Marine & Aviation Director and Environmental Manager. She said although the ORC is not a public hearing, it is a fact-finding meeting, and members of the public are welcome to attend. Staff meets with the applicant to ensure the application is complete and that the applicant understands the applicable City standards. She said one does have to attend a DRC meeting to become involved in the application process. The meeting recessed from 2:28 to 2:36 p.m. Ms. Tarapani said the DRC does not hear verbal public testimony at its meetings, however, written input is accepted. Upon review of the application and any public input, the DRC makes a recommendation to the Community Development Coordinator (Ms. Tarapani), who makes a final determination regarding the application after review of all the facts and any additional public input received. She said the DRC meeting was held November 8, 2001 and Ms. Tarapani's development order approving the application was issued on November 29,2001. Ms. Tarapani said although the applicant could not attend the DRC meeting, he had the opportunity to participate in the process. In response to a question, she said the notice of DRC meeting mailed to Mr. Martin did not include a deadline to respond. Concern was expressed mcd0102 6 01/22/02 . . . that the time period between the notice of DRC meeting and the date area residents received notice was rather short. It was suggested that future meeting notices include the procedures for an appeal and specify deadlines for responses to specific staff members. Ms. Tarapani reiterated that no verbal public testimony would have been taken at the November 8, 2001, DRC meeting as it was only a fact-finding meeting. She suggested Mr. Magidson had opportunity to provide objections to the application during the 3-week timeframe before the final decision was made. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said subsequent to the DRC meeting, Mr. Magidson objected to the application but did not present any environmental reports disputing the information staff received. Mr. Magidson said he had provided staff with 3 letters specifically addressing the criteria in the Code along with objections and that his client believes the application contains inaccurate statements. In response to a question, he said he did not have the exact date that he filed an appeal. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said staff received letters dated November 27 and November 28, 2001, from the appellant's representative. She said Mr. Magidson objects to the general applicability criteria. The application meets all 3 of the criteria, although it is only necessary to meet one of them. Staff disagrees with Mr. Magidson's opinion. In response to a question, Mr. Magidson said he does not know how his client was damaged by not being able to attend the DRC meeting, as he does not know what was discussed. He said he did not know the DRC meetings were recorded and available to his client for review. It was remarked that Mr. Magidson's objection regarding the number of docks that are less than 35 feet is inaccurate. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Land Development Code was designed to be flexible at the Level One (staff approval) level, and to the extent the appellant has an objection to the ordinance, it would be more appropriately discussed in another forum. Mr. Magidson said he is not claiming that staff misconstrued or misunderstood the deviation standards. He feels the deviation as addressed in Criteria #1 of the staff report could apply to everyone in Clearwater. He felt he has evidence to prove that the environment would be detrimentally affected and the dock would not be in compliance with the dimensional characters of surrounding docks. Tim Johnson, representative for the applicant, said the appellant has no grounds for an appeal. There are 3 separate reasons this deviation may be granted. The applicant has met all 3 criteria, whereas only 1 is required to be met. The appellant wishes it were otherwise, but that is a matter for discussion with the City Commission. Mr. Johnson said an appellant must meet all 3 reasons stated in the Code for an appeal to be granted and Mr. Magidson has not done so. Mr. Magidson said he believes in order to overturn staff's decision, all 3 criteria Mr. Johnson referred to must be met. He said when that criteria is read in conjunction with the authority of the CDS and staff's authority to use the discretionary rule, his client is entitled to an open and fair hearing. The discretionary rule states that a developmental officer "may" deviate from the rules; not that he/she has the right to deviate from them. mcd0102 7 01/22/02 . . . In response to a remark regarding permitting the technical information being heard by staff, Mr. Johnson objected. His client already has been issued a permit. James A. Martin, Jr., appellant, said a meeting was set with staff but was cancelled and his appeal was placed on today's CDS agenda. He and Mr. Magidson tried to follow up with staff to determine when additional evidence could be presented. He said he received notice of the application just before Thanksgiving and was unable to meet with the County. He presented signatures on petitions from residents in the area to staff. He said that one of the property owners owns 5 lots and did not receive a notice of hearing. He has an expert environmental witness that can testify that the dock would be a detriment to the environment. In response to a question, Mr. Martin said he believed the meeting with staff had been set on December 18, 2001, then was cancelled. He felt he has not been given the opportunity for a hearing. Ms. Dougall-Sides said if Mr. Magidson feels his client has not received procedural due process, he could file an allegation regarding same in the Circuit Court. It was remarked that Mr. Magidson has indicated he agrees that no misinterpretation of the Code was made by staff. Mr. Johnson said Mr. Magidson's grounds for appeal did not include a claim regarding a lack of due process, a lack of notice, or any environmental issues. He had sufficient to become involved in the process. Mr. Johnson said Mr. Magidson has admitted that the applicant meets 1 of the 3 requirements of the Code and that the appellant has failed to meet the 3 the requirements required for an appeal. Mr. Johnson said the environmental issues were raised after the Community Development Coordinator's decision was made. Ms. Tarapani said a meeting was set with Mr. Magidson in December 2001. She said she personally cancelled the meeting upon the advice of the Assistant City Attorney as a final decision had already been made regarding the application, and she felt it important not to hold another meeting outside the DRC meeting. She said no technical information was presented to staff to dispute the expert opinions that staff had received. It appears that new information is being brought up now that was not presented to staff during the decision-making process. Mr. Magidson said he disagrees with the processes staff has presented. He felt that when he began discussions with staff, they had already made a decision regarding the application. He felt staff did not afford the appellant due process. Mr. Martin said the purpose of the Code is to have orderly development in Clearwater. The Code sets forth the basis to do so. Docks are to be no greater than 50% of front footage of seawall on the water, and docks should be placed in the center third of property seawall. The docks on Devon Drive are 50% of the front footage of the seawalls. The other 2 docks that are longer are on one and a half lots. The concept is to have uniformity and a basis in the community to count on standards that are upheld. He requested the opportunity for due process in order to present the information he has compiled. He felt he has responded in a timely fashion to staff over a short period of time with short notice and over a major holiday weekend. Discussion ensued by the CDS and consensus was that the appellant has not presented any evidence that the Code was misconstrued or that the Community Development Coordinator's decision should be overturned. It was remarked that the CDS's role is to make mcd0102 8 01/22/02 !---- . . . determinations based on the Code. It is the City Commission's responsibility to change the Code whenever they deem it necessary. Member Hooper moved to adopt Item 4, Case APP01-12-04, of the Consent Agenda and that the decision of the Community Development Coordinator be approved. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Magidson requested submission of additional documentation into evidence. Mr. Johnson objected, as there was no official hearing of the case today, but only an appeal hearing. Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested Mr. Magidson submitted the evidence in written form to staff for filing. The meeting recessed from 3:26 to 3:28 p.m. C. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS TDR Annual Report Richard Kephart, Senior Planner, presented the TDR (Transfer Development Rights) Annual Report. Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-1403(H), a record of transfer of development rights must be maintained and reported annually to the City Commission and the Pinellas Planning Council. The City has approved two transfers since the adopting the new Code in 1999. On December 14, 1999, the Community Development Board approved TDR 99-10-01 for the transfer of nine (9) development rights from the sending site at 423 Mandalay Avenue to the receiving site located at 468 Mandalay Avenue. On March 17, 2000, the required Special Warranty Deed was filed with Pinellas County and is part of the Pinellas County Property Records. The sending site was the City parking lot on Mandalay Avenue and the receiving site was the JMC Multifamily residential project. This project is under construction. On December 14,1999, the Community Development Board approved TDR 99-10-02 for the transfer of thirteen (13) development rights from the sending site at 349 South Gulfview Boulevard to the receiving site located at 325 South Gulfview Boulevard. On February 12, 2000, the required Special Warranty Deed was filed with Pinellas County and is part of the Pinellas County Property Records. The sending site was the McDonalds and the receiving site was the Americana Resort. The transferred units have not been used to date. Both sending sites have no excess development potential remaining. In addition, TDR 99-10-01 requires that the sending site (423 Mandalay Avenue) remain a parking lot or recreation / open space use as agreed upon in the agreement between the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County Countywide Planning Authority. Density Pool Report Mr. Kephart presented the density pool report. In July 2001, in order to stimulate catalytic resort development, the City Commission approved Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. This special area plan established a limited pool of 600 additional hotel rooms to be used within 3 specific areas of Clearwater Beach mcd0102 9 01/22/02 ). , DATE, TIME FAX NO./NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPOR TIME 01/15/2002 10:44 NAME PLAN FAX 7275624576 TEL 7275624557 01/15 10:40 97368703 00:03:35 07 OK STANDARD ECM &V\ D\I\Slo~ .. JWl~ -to ~~) ~~+- vt\l~~ .. ,. e e LL o >- f- - o FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: ().6JJ~c~ 1'0(~~~ ) ~.lU'Jt\6I\ FAX: ('ld'1) 1:10- ~'lO~ Phone:l16 '\) '1 \ d - sC1 001 FRoM:'?~{}JV1cD Ph~net]6!'fi~-4~ DATE:O~ RE:~1Let~C6ffi- MESSAGE:'S-\A U ~(\~jJ t\J1S o.OQM.M.. ~~ ~ NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) ~ ... e - CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, beginning at 2:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following requests: NOTE: All persons wishin2 to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meetin2. Those cases that are not contested bv the applicant, staff, nei2hborin2 propertv owners, etc. will be placed on a consent a2enda and approved bv a sin21e vote at the be2innin2 of the meetin2. 1 ____...~ is requesting an appeal of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) decision by the Community Development Coordinator who approved certain deviations to the dock requirements for the property located at 141 Devon Drive, under the appeal provisions of Section 4-501 of the Community Development Code (Proposed Use: A 54-foot dock with boat lift) at "....01 T'- T'- ", Bayside Sub., Lot 44 & riparian rightsLl v~ u v. 2. Norris S. Gould & .T. Frank Hancock are requesting a flexible development approval to reduce the front (north) setback along Marshall Street from 25 feet to 16 feet to building, reduce the front (east) setback along North Madison Avenue from 25 feet to 22.5 feet to building and reduce the minimum lot size from 10,000 square feet to 7,022.5 square feet, as part of a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-304.G [Proposed Use: A 1,788 square foot addition (as part of a separate dwelling) attached to an existing 760 square foot dwelling (two units total)] at 1135 Marshall Street., Fairmont Sub., Blk G, Lot 1. FL 01-11-35 3. Linco Auto Parts, Inc. is requesting a flexible development to reduce the front (west) setback along Keystone Avenue from 25 feet to 20 feet to building, reduce the front (north) setback along Gulf to Bay Boulevard from 25 feet to 20 feet to building and reduce the required number of parking spaces from 21 spaces to 13 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704 (Proposed Use: A 4,200 square foot retail sales and service establishment) at 1641 Gulf to Bav Blvd., Gulf to Bay Shopping Center, Lot 1. FL 01- 11-34 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearings or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearings. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. All individuals speaking on public hearing items will be sworn in. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756, or call (727) 562-4567. Lisa Fierce Planning Department Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC City Clerk City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. YOU ARE BEING SENT THIS NOTICE IF YOU ARE THE APPLICANT OR OWN PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FT. OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. " It e A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS A V AILABLE IN THE CITY CLERK DEPT. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REOUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODA TION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL THE CITY CLERK DEPT WITH THEIR REOUEST AT (727) 562-4090. Ad: 01105/02 . . ORDINANCE NO. 6795-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING ARTICLE 3, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 3-601, DOCKS BY REVISING THE DOCK PROVISIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY; BY AMENDING 3-909 BY REVISING THE NEWSRACK PROVISIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY; BY AMENDING ARTICLE 8 DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, SECTION 8-102 BY ADDING DEFINITIONS OF NEWSRACK AND MODULAR NEWSRACK; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS the City of Clearwater has conducted an in-depth review of the dock and news rack provisions and determined that the existing requirements need to be amended; and WHEREAS, the Clearwater Community Development Board, pursuant to its responsibilities as the Local Planning Agency, has reviewed these amendments, conducted a public hearing to consider all public testimony and has determined that this amendment is consistent with the City of Clearwater's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Clearwater City Commission has fully considered the recommendation of the Community Development Board and testimony submitted at its public hearing; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. Article 3, Development Standards, Section 3-601, Dock/Marina Standards is hereby revised as follows: Section 3-601. Docks. 1\. Permit required. All docks 'Nhich are proposed to be oonstructed, added to, or structurally altered shall obtain a building permit and a permit from Pinellas County. B. Proceduros. An application for a building permit for the construction, addition or structural alteration of a dock shall be referred to the City's Harbormaster to determine the impact of the dook on na':igation. If the Harbormaster determines that the construction, addition or structural alteration will not adversely affect navigation, the application shall be referred to the community development coordinator to be oonsidered as a level one approval in aocordance 'Nith the provisions of I\rticle 4 Di':ision ~ Ordinance No. 6795 -01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . C. Repair. 1. Ropair or roplacomont of any rosidontial dock, catwalk, or portion of a dock or cat\valk that involvos 50 porcont or moro of tho dook, catwalk or boat lift shall roquirod that tho dock, catwalk, or boat lift oonform to tho longth, width and position roquiromonts of this division. 2. If any dock, soawall, bulkhead, privato bridgo, or marina is pormittod to fall into disropair so as to bocomo a dangorous structuro croating an unroasonablo risk of bodily injury to any porson who may walk thoroon, such structuro shall bo oithor romovod or ropairod so as to conform with tho roquiromonts of this division. D. Docks, boat lift and servico catwalk setbacks. Docks must bo locatod in tho contor one third of tho lot or 20 foot from any oxtondod proporty lino, 'Nhichovor is loss, unloss tho dock is proposod to bo sharod by adjoining proporties '/t'heroupon tho dock may bo constructod on tho property lino providod that all tho other standards of this divisions aro mot. Boat lifts and servioo catwalks (threo feot maximum width) shall be a minimum of ton foot from any oxtonded proporty lino. E. Length~ Tho longth of docks and boatlifts shall not oxcood 25 poroont of tho 'Nidth of the 'Natol\\'ay or half of tho 'Nidth of tho proporty on which tho dock is to bo locatod, whichever is less. F. V'/idth. The 'J.'idth of a dook shall not exoeed 35 percent of the width of the property, measured at the waterfront or 50 feet, 'Nhichever is less. G. Tie pole setbacks. .^. minimum of one foot setback from any extended property line must be maintained. No tie pole shall be allO'.\led to project into the navigable portion of a waterway more than 25 peroent of such waterway. H. Cover boat fitts. 1. Covorod boat lifts aro permitted provided a permanent and solid roof deok is constructed 'Nith materials such as asphalt shingles, metal, tile or wood. Canvas and oanvas like materials aro prohibited. 2. Vertical side'Nalls for boat lifts are prohibited. I. Single pUo davits and personal vlatorcraft lifts. Exempt from the setback criteria so long as such davits and lifts are contained entirely 'Nithin the extended property lines. 2 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . J. Number of sUps. No dock shall provide more than two slips for the mooring of pleasure craft, except as houseboats may otherwise be permitted consistent with Chapter 33 of the City's Code, which slips shall be for the exclusive use of the residents of the contiguous upland property. K. Persona! watorcraft J.ifts are not considered to be boats slips. L. Existing docks and lifts. 1 . Ne'.\' boat lifts installed in previously permitted 'Net slips are exempt from setback standards so long as such lifts are entirely contained within the extended property lines. 2. Repairs. a. Repairs to a dock, including mooring piles, require a permit. b. Repairs to a permitted boat lift shall not require a permit unless pilings are replaced. Repaired or reconstructed boats lifts shall not have enclosed sides. c. Repairs to or replacement of deck boards only do not require a permit. This exemption does not apply to any support structures such as stringers, caps or floaters. All deck boards must meet the minimum construction criteria of Section 166.332(7), Pinellas County regulations. 3. The harbormaster may approve deviations to these standards oontingent upon one or more of the foIlO'....ing: a. I\pproval of the proposed deviation by the affected adjacent property o'J.'ner(s)'.vho must sign and notarize the proposed construction plan as having no objection. b. An independent evaluation by the harbormaster's office that no navigational or riparian rights conflicts will occur due to the proposed construction. c. Property configuration and circumstances that preclude placement of reasonable dock structures within the above requirements. M. Publicly owned facilities. Roofed structures shall be permitted on publicly owned boardwalks, observation platforms, elevated nature trails and other such structures not intended for use as a dock facility. Vertical walls shall not be allov.'ed. 3 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . A. City Approval and Pinel/as County Water and Naviaation Control Authority Permit Reauired. No dock may be constructed, added to, or structurally altered without first obtainino approval by the Citv and a permit from the Pinellas Countv Water and Naviqation Control Authority. B. City Approval Procedures. Review and approval bv the Communitv Development Coordinator and/or the Communitv Development Board shall be required prior to the issuance of a permit from the Pinellas Countv Water Naviqation Control Authoritv. Such approval shall be considered a level one (minimum standard or flexible standard approval) or a level two (flexible development) approval in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 Divisions 3 and 4. C. New Docks. 1. Docks. boatlifts and service catwalks that serve sinale-family or two-family dwellinas. a. Setbacks. A dock shall be located in the center one-third of the lot or twentv (20) feet from anv propertv line as extended into the water. whichever is less, unless the dock is proposed to be shared by adioining properties whereupon the dock mav be constructed on the common propertv line provided that all other standards of this division are met. Boatlifts and service catwalks shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line extended into the water. Tie poles shall be setback a minimum of one (1) foot from anv extended property line. Sinole pile davits and personal watercraft lifts are exempt from these setback requirements provided thev are contained entirelv within the extended propertv lines. b. Lenath. The lenoth of docks and boatlifts shall not exceed twentv-five (25) percent of the width of the waterwav or half of the width of the property measured at the waterfront property line, whichever is less. Tie poles may extend beyond the dock provided such poles do not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the width of the waterway and do not constitute a navioational hazard. c. Width. The width of docks. excludinq boatlifts, shall not exceed thirtv- five (35) percent of the width of the propertv measured at the waterfront propertv line or fiftv (50) feet, whichever is less. d. Covered boatlifts. Covered boatlifts are permitted provided a permanent and solid roof deck is constructed with material such as asphalt shinoles. metal. tile or wood. Canvas and canvas like roof materials are prohibited. Vertical sidewalls are prohibited on anv boatlift or dock. 4 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . e. Number of slips. No dock shall provide more than two (2) slips for the moorinq of boats, except as houseboats mav otherwise be permitted consistent with Chapter 33 of the City's Code of Ordinances. Slips shall be for the exclusive use of the residents of the contiquous upland propertv. Personal watercraft lifts are not considered to be boat slips. f. Width of Catwalks. Service catwalks shall not exceed three (3) feet in width. g. Deviations. The Communitv Development Coordinator mav grant deviations from the requirements of this section as a Level One (minimum standard) approval provided that signed and notarized statements of no obiection are submitted from adiacent waterfront propertv owners, as well as signed and notarized statements on the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority permit application. In the event that such statements cannot be obtained, applications for deviations mav be approved by the Community Development Coordinator throuqh a Level One (flexible standard) approval process based on one of the following: i. The proposed dock will result in no navigational conflicts and the length of the proposed dock will not exceed twentv-five (25) percent of the width of the waterway; or ii. The proposed dock location needs to be adiusted to protect environmentally sensitive areas: or iii. The propertv configuration precludes the placement of a dock in compliance with the required dimensional standards: however, the proposed dock will be similar in dimensional characteristics as surroundinq dock patterns. 2. Multi-Use Docks. A multi-use dock, which is anv dock owned in common or used bv the residents of a multi-family development. condominium, cooperative apartment. mobile home park or attached zero lot line development shall be permitted as a Level One (minimum standard) use provided such dock is less than 500 square feet in deck area and complies with the dimensional standards set forth in Section 3-601 (C)(3)(h) 3. Commercial Docks. A commercial dock is anv dock, pier, or wharf. including boatlifts, that is used in connection with a hotel. motel or restaurant where the slips are not rented, leased or sold; or such facilities used in connection with a social or fraternal club or organization and used onlv bv its membership; or such facilities constructed and maintained bv the Citv of Clearwater. Pinellas Countv or bv anv state or federal agencv. Commercial docks shall only be 5 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . permitted as a Level Two (flexible development) use, which requires approval by the Communitv Development Board (CDB). Any multi-use dock with a deck area exceedinQ 500 square feet shall be treated as a commercial dock. All commercial docks shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria. a. Use and Compatibility. I. The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the propertv. II. The proposed dock shall be in harmonv with the scale and character of adjacent properties and the neiqhborhood in general. iii. The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the qeneral vicinitv. b. Impacts on ExistinQ Water Recreation Activities. The use of the proposed dock shall not adverselv impact the health, safety or well beinQ of persons currentlv usinq the adjacent waterwavs for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, it shall not hinder or discourage the existinq uses of the adjacent waterwav bv uses includinQ but not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats. c. Impacts on NaviQation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a detrimental effect on the use of adiacent waters for naviQation, transportation, recreational or other public conveniences. d. Impacts on Marine Environment. i. Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid iniurv to marine qrassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surroundinq areas. ii. Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, qrass flats suitable as nurserv feedinq qrounds for marine life, or established marine soil suitable for producinQ plant qrowth of a type useful as nurserv or feedinq qrounds for marine life: manatee sanctuaries: natural reefs and anv such artificial reef which has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be approachinq a typical natural assemblaqe structure in both densitv and diversity: ovster beds: clam beds: known sea turtle nestinq site: commercial or sport fisheries or shell fisheries areas: and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat. 6 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . e. Impacts on Water Qualitv. I. All turninq basin. access channels. boat moorino areas and anv other area associated with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existino water depths to ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a vessel (e.o. skeos. rudder, prop) and the bottom of the waterbodv at mean or ordinarv low water (-0.95 NGVD datum). II. The dock shall not effectively cause erosion. extraordinarv storm drainaqe. shoalino of channels. or adverselv affect the water qualitv presently existinq in the area or limit proqress that is beinq made toward improvement of water qualitv in the area in which the dock is proposed to be located. f. Impacts on Natural Resources. I. The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of wildlife. marine life. and other natural resources. including beaches and shores. so as to be contrarv to the public interest. ii. The dock shall not have an adverse impact on veqetated areas; veoetative. terrestrial. or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providinq one or more of the requirements to sustain their existence. such as range. nestinq or feedinq qrounds; habitats which displav biolooical or physical attributes which would serve to make them rare within the confines of the Citv: desionated preservation areas such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan. national wildlife refuoes. Florida outstandino waters or other desiqnated preservation areas. and bird sanctuaries, g. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/Uplands. The dock shall not have a material adverse affect upon the uplands surroundinq. h. Dimensional Standards. i. Setbacks. All commercial and multi-use docks shall be located so that no portion of such dock is closer to anv property line as extended into the water than ten (10) percent of the applicant's property width measured at the waterfront property line. Multi-use private and commercial docks abutting adiacent waterfront sinqle-family or two- familv property must be setback a minimum of one-third (1/3) of the applicant's waterfront property width from the adiacent waterfront sinole- familv or two-familv propertv. 7 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . ii. Lenath. The lenqth of commercial and multi-use docks shall not extend from the mean hiqh water line or seawall of the applicant's property more than seventy-five (75) percent of the width of the applicant's propertv measured at the waterfront propertv line. Tie poles mav extend bevond the dock provided such poles do not extend twentv-five (25) percent of the width of the waterwav and do not constitute a navioational hazard. iii. Width. The width of commercial and multi-use dockinq facilities shall not exceed seventv-five (75) percent of the width of the applicant's propertv measured at the waterfront propertv line. iv. Covered boat/ms. Covered boatlifts are permitted provided a permanent and solid roof deck is constructed with material such as asphalt shinoles. metal. tile or wood. Canvas and canvas like roof materials are prohibited. Vertical sidewalls are prohibited on any boatlift or dock. v. Deviations. Deviations from the requirements of this section may be considered and approved by the Communitv Development Board in order to complv with the review criteria established in Sections 3- 601 (C)(3)(a) - (q). i. Public/v owned facilities. Roof structures shall be permitted on publiclv owned boardwalks. observation platforms. elevated nature trails and other such structures not intended for use as a dock facilitv. however. vertical walls shall be prohibited. D. Existing docks and lifts and reoairs. 1. Existina docks and lifts. New boat lifts installed in previously permitted wet slips are exempt from setback standards so lono as such lifts are entirely contained within the propertv lines as extended into the water. 2. Reoairs. a. Anv repair made to an existinq approved dock that does not extend. enlarqe or substantially chanqe the location of any portion of the dock does not require review and approval by the Communitv Development Coordinator however. a permit may be required bv the Pinellas Countv Water and Navioation Control Authoritv. If. however. such repair enlaroes. extends. or substantiallv changes the location of anv portion of the dock. such repair shall require the review and approval bv the Community Development Coordinator prior to the issuance of a permit bv the Pinellas Countv Water and Navioation Control Authoritv. The review of a substantial repair shall be considered a new dock pursuant to the standards described in this section. 8 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . b. If any dock, seawall, bulkhead, private bridge, or marina falls into a state of disrepair and becomes a danqerous structure creatinQ an unreasonable risk of bodily iniury to any person who mav walk thereon, such structure shall be either removed or repaired so as to conform to the requirement of this division. Section 2. Article 3, Development Standards, Section 3-909 Newracks, is hereby amended by revising news racks as follows: ^ , ,. Gonera.' Prollistons. 1\11 news racks shall comply 'Nith the following general provisions. 1 . No news rack shall obstruct the flow of pedestrian or vehioular traffic. 2. No news rack shall be located in a manner that impairs a motor vehicle operator's vim,"' of motor vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians upon entering or exiting a right of 'Nay. 3. No news rack shall be located in a visibility triangle 4. No news rack shall reduce the v:idth of a sidewalk or travel route below ^r"\^ . t . ,u, , reqUlremen s. 5. No news rack shall be used for advertising purposes other than advertising for the publication being distributed or sold. 6. No ne'Nsrack shall be chained, bolted, or attached in any other manner to a utility pole, traffic sign or other fixture. 7. Ne'.Vsraoks shall be maintained in a neat and clean condition and in good repair at all times. 8. The telephone number of a working telephone service shall be affixed to each ne'Nsrack in a readily visible place so that reports of malfunctioning newsrack oan be made and violations of these provisions oan be reported. 9. The location of any newsrack shall not block the view of any historic building or scenic vista or major City entryway. B. Additional requiromonts for neYlsracks locatod on public rights of way. 1. No portion of any ne'Nsrack shall be installed or maintained upon or over any part of a road'::ay or bicycle path. 2. Ne'Nsracks may be located upon a sidewalk in excess of five (5) feet in width, at the edge of the sidO'.valk and on either side of the sidevlalk but 9 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . not directly opposing another news rack, and fronting towards the centor of the sidewalk. Hmvever, a news rack shall not be installed or maintained 'Nithin five (5) feet of a curb or the edge of roadway pavement. 3. If the sidC'.valk adjoins a landscaped area of the public right of way of a sufficient size to fully and la'.vfully accommodate a n C'.\lS rack, and if the sidewalk is five feet or less in 'J:idth, the Community Development Coordinator may approve the location of a ne'J/srack provided such newsrack be place upon a '/lire reinforced concrete pad, four inches thick or greater, of sufficient size to support the based of the ne'::sraok, or other reasonable alternative measures approved by the City Engineer. The front of any news rack located in landscaped areas of the public right of way shall face towards the sidC'.valk. 4. Ne'Nsracks may be anchored to any concrete pad located in the public right of 'Nay. 5. Newsracks shall not exoeed fifty five (55) inches in height. 6. Single newsracks may be located every 100 feet. 7. Combination of multi stand free and pay ne'::sracks may be located side by side provided the total length of such racks does not exceed six (6) feet. !\ distance of 300 feet shall separate such combination of racks. B. Additional Provisions for C, T, and D Districts. In the Commercial, Tourist and Downtm~m Districts, the allmvable length of combination newsracks may be extended through the flexible standard development review process provided the ne'::sracks meet the follo'l.'ing criteria; 1. The ne':.'sracks are integrated into a pedestrian area; 2. The location of the newsracks provides convenient pedestrian access; 3. The ne'Nsracks are visually soreened; 4. The ne'Nsracks do not obstruct the flow of pedestrian or vehioular traffio; and 5. The nC'.vsracks are compatible with surrounding activities. 10 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . A. General Reauirements for Newsracks and Modular Newsracks 1. Newsracks and modular newsracks mav be located either on private property or within the public riqht-of-wav. 2. Newsracks and modular newsracks shall be maintained in an upriqht, neat and clean condition and in qood repair at all times. 3. No newsrack or modular news rack shall obstruct the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. No news rack or modular news rack shall be installed or maintained upon or over anv part of a roadwav or bicvcle path or be located in a manner that impairs a motor vehicle operator's view of motor vehicles. bicvcles. or pedestrians upon enterinq or exitinq a riqht-of-wav. 5. No newsrack or modular newsrack shall reduce the width of a sidewalk to less than fou r (4) feet. 6. No newsrack or modular newsrack shall be used for advertisinq purposes other than advertisinq for the publication beinq distributed or sold. Letterinq shall not exceed one and one half (1 %) inches in heiqht and shall be located onlv on the front and back of the news rack or the front and back of each compartment in a modular news rack. 7. No news rack or modular newsrack shall be chained. bolted or attached in anv other manner to a utilitv pole. traffic siqn or other similar fixture. excludinq pads desiqned to support newsracks. located in the public riqht-of-wav. 8. The telephone number of a workinq telephone service of a representative of the publication shall be affixed to each newsrack or modular news rack in a readilv visible place so that reports of malfunctioninq newsracks/modular newsracks can be made and violations of these provisions can be reported. B. Location of Newsracks and Modular Newsracks. 1. No newsrack or modular news rack shall be located in a visibilitv trianqle or within five (5) feet of a curb of the edqe of roadway pavement. 2. The location of anv newsrack or modular news rack shall not block the view of any historic buildinq or scenic vista or maior Citv entrvwav. 3. The front of anv newsrack located in landscaped areas of the public right-of-wav or on a public sidewalk shall face toward the sidewalk and/or awav from the street. 11 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . C. Heiqht. Desiqn, and Separation Requirements for Newsrack and Modular Newsracks. 1. Newsracks shall not exceed fiftv (50) inches in height and modular newsracks shall not exceed fiftv-five (55) inches in heiqht. 2. A 100 foot radius separation shall be maintained between all tvpes of newsracks, except that two metal news racks mav be located side bv side. Those newsracks located on public propertv shall be of the same color. however on private propertv this restriction shall not applv. A sinqle newsrack that is located within a drive-throuqh lane shall not be required to meet the 100 feet radius separation provided that the newsrack is accessible onlv by patrons of the drive-through lane while remaininq in the vehicle. 3. If three or more publications are qrouped toqether in a sinqle location. such publications shall be located in a metal modular newsrack. 4. Modular newsracks mav be used in combination provided that such racks located at the same location are of the same material. Those news racks located on public propertv shall be of the same color, however on private propertv this restriction shall not apply. 5. No sinqle modular newsrack or qroupinq of modular newsracks shall exceed eiqht (8) feet in lenqth. 6. Newsracks and modular newsracks are limited to a depth of a sinqle unit. The back of a news rack shall not be located aqainst the back of another newsrack. 7. Newsracks and modular newsracks shall be of uniform material and where located on public propertv shall be finished with muted. earthtone and uniform color. D. Construction Reauirements. All types of newsracks must be appropriately anchored or secured from potential hazards. in accordance with current enqineerinq standards, and may be anchored to any concrete pad located in the public riqht-of- way provided all other provisions are met. E. Additional Reauirements for Newsrack and Modular Newsracks in the Tourist and Downtown Districts and Scenic Corridors. All types of newsracks located in the Tourist and Downtown Districts ,and Scenic Corridors shall be subiect to the applicable adopted desiqn quidelines qoverninq Clearwater Beach, Downtown and Scenic Corridors. The Communitv Development Coordinator mav extend the allowable lenqth and heiqht of modular newsracks in the Tourist and Downtown Districts only . provided the newsracks are compatible in terms of location. heiqht and lenqth with the surroundinq environment. 12 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading . . Section 3. Article 8, Definition and Rules of Construction, Section 8-102 is hereby amended by adding the following definitions: Newsrack means a self-service or coin-operated box, container. storaoe unit or other dispenser installed. used or maintained for the displav. sale or distribution of one newspaper, periodical. advertisino circular or other publication. Newsrack, modular means a newsrack desiqned as an inteorated unit with two or more compartments to displav, sell or distribute two or more newspapers, periodicals, advertisinq circulars and other publications. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Brian J. Aungst Mayor-Commissioner Approved as to form: Attest: Cynthia E. Goudeau Assistant City Attorney City Clerk 13 Ordinance No. 6795-01 Revised for 2nd Reading ~ . SOShVCl maq'/cJ'DYiJ Gs~, (p;;)S Court S?f. .:t:J= 20D C.JeOvV'LQx:~---erJ t='L 337CO~ :Jo.rn6 A. rY\clr..J-'ln $. / 1'-/-5 Devon Dr I C \ ec\y-liCt{erj -F L ?::, 370 7 3 C: () c (~ Pf ('I It...,! c/o EIFERT, DONALD F 526 BELLE ISLE AVE BELLEAIR BEACH FL :?:.~ ?5 ~/ ~~~; (::::1 :::~; c~ .1 ~? KREPLEY. JOSEPH F TRE 50 INDIAN FIELDS TRL L,()I/,)E::R BlJF?Fi~ELL PPI 1.506H 9700 WELLER, HERBERT L WELLER, HARRIETTE M 11 () r) E: \/ CJ i....j D h~ CLE(ir:::V,,1PII'ER F'L.. ~s ::::::; '/ () '7 ::;::: ~:::i. ::~) ;~3 1,1 (~:~ j""'j 0 [J I, () [I t'1 E: D {>I 1.1(:. DE\/CI(.! DF? C:LE()RI,,',,1{~TE:R F'L__ :~5 :5 ../ (;. 7' ~? c-~. :5 ~:~; VENDITTO, CARLO M VENDITTO, ENRICA M .1:2/1. DEVCJN DR C:L.E(.)h:VJ(.)TCF<: F::L ::.~; :.) ~l c' 7' :? .:q. ?; ~~:~; NIERCNGARTEN, BCRNADINE J .152 D[\lOt.,,! eJF? C: L. [: (.) R 1"',,1I~~~ T C R F'L :~5 ~:) '7 (~, 7" :2 ~~l ::5 i3 CARLSON, EDWARD D CARLSON, PHYLLIS l..::j() DE:\lC)t..! r)R C:: L. L: () R 1"',,1 ()T E F:~ F L ~=; ~5 )'" (~:. .~? :2 .4 2::; ;3 WCLLBORN, HAZEL C 15() DIE\/Ot....! Dh: CLEI::::IRI/,!(:)TER FL ?; ::5 ),. 6. ":l ~? ~~l :~; ~~3 MARQUARDT, CAROL S H45 INDIAN ROCKS RD CL,r:{:)h~I/')(~TE:H FL ::5 ::;; 7' .:.:;. () .1 () ~:~; II ,] C) H ~"'! L.(~LIHPI L ~5 ?:; '7 (:~ "/ :2&:1, :;5 i3 CASSELL, FRANCE:S 1 TRE 1.8() DE\/Oj'..j DF? c:: L" E (~l h~ 1,t,,1 ()T' r: I:;: r: L. ::5 ::5 ./ () "7 :2 (~, :!5 r~; e APP Ot-I'd--Olf- ebB I-dd-O~ &8 [20) tk..) 1 F) DEI".,!EL.L., CAF-IL DENELL, MARGARET M 9(:1. DE\i()t.,,! DR C:L.C()RI/"I?iTER FL.. ::::; :~5 .? I~~' ,),. ~? .4 ::) {~:. KEYES. JAY F TRE KE:YE:S, JANCT D TRE 1.0() DEVO(j DF<~ CL.Eiir-<I,,'.!()T[F-~ FL ;) :::.~; '7 t~ 7' :? ~:f ::::; ~~~ WANTO, STEPHANIE WANIO, TATIANA A 11 :2 [) E \/ C) j"',! I) F,~ C:L,,[ ()h'(I\I() T [F::~ FL. ?.; :~;; '''7 c~ '7 :2 il ;::; 1-3 GONATOS, OLYMPIA TRE: GONATOS, MICHAEL D THE 1460 GULF BLVD ~ 1004 C:LE()h~ll'!(:ITER F~L :::) ~5 '/ (:. 7' :2 ~3 ~<:j. ~3 I-I (~1"1 j""j 0 i...j D "T 0 j""j G H(~('jhOt".!D" C?iRC)LVt....! 3.:50 DI:: \i(Jj",,! DR C:LE::?~:IH(I\IATEh~ FL. :s ?:; ./ (;, '7 :2.43; ;:3 KING, CHRISTOPHER C TRE 1 ::~; ,,'~, DE \/ 0 (j iJ h: C L. E () R 1,,\1 ?'>IT' E r~!. f- L. ::::; :3; ./" () 7' ~? <1. :5 ~~; C~()Gj"..,! I" DIANE 1,1,1 1.44 [) [ \i () t...! [) r~~ CL..E:(IRI/.!(\TE:R FL.. :5 :~3; ~ll~:;. }" :2 (~l :~s r!; TRE:ZE:VANT, DOLOHE:S C 2420 W MISSISSIPPI AVE T (:~ i'..'j P PI F' /.., :5 ~:~; () ::2 f.) I:> ,1.1 () GIANFILIPPO, JOHN F GIANFILIPPO, LAUHA L 172 DE\i()j",,! Dh: C;L.r:nRI,"~(~T[R FL. :~::; ?:; "7 (;. "7 JOHNSON, RUSSEL B .J 0 f'l t'..j:3 () ~".!" S (~ R (;~ F 1::)0 HO>< 17 r....! E 1,1.,1 (~P f<' 0 f'l (::~ 5 () 51 t3 r) () 1.'7 [VE:RE:TT, HE:NHY A EVE:HETT, FRANCES B 188 [)E\l()j',.j DR C: L. E () h~ 1"1,1 ('I T E F( F L. :::::; ::~5 '/ () ../ :2 ~~:j. ::5 :~:~ e e MARIANI. CHRISTOPHER C GROEN. OEBORAH L ;: ,".l.. i::; I... :[: \/ I::: () (::1 :'<. !... ("! .J., :':) :.I.. t:) I::: \/ () j"',,! () r.:;: L, (~h~ Cl C) F~: L C:lw[()F<I,I.,1('IT[F,~ FL :.:\ :.:.~:;), '/' f) /'[ () .1.'.1.. ::5 ~:) '} (;, ),. 2: ,:~l ~5 '9 i""'! I: C ["1 () r'...! N, [) () L, [~ :<. i: : i: I: ii ('I ,j [..,j" ,J (>: r..! I::T' R 17/ C) E: V' 0 j"',J, 0 h~ STCCVES, MICHACL n STCEVCS. AMAOA G II ::5 [) [ V C) j"-J, [) h~ C: L.I::: () R 1,,",1 (:IT I:: h~ F' L, C:: L.. r:: (:', F':i~ !l''! (>1 . r r:: r:;: r:' L, :?~; ::5 )f (:~ ")r ~? .::l :5 '~) :5 ::5 ..:/ (~:l ")r :2 ~<:j. ::5 (~~I TALLARIOA. STENIO 'r" (>11... I... (>! r':i~ :1: (:) (:'1 ~.; (:; I::: j.....! ::: ~:.::; I::: 16':. C) C: \i () j',.j 0 r:! C: L I: (:'1 :.;: Ii"! ('I r [~ I,: I L., SOBOLCSKI. JAMES W t::J () !:3 () >< ~:~; ~;~: () F! 0 S C: ivi () i....,!T. rl.M (:1 () () .1. f::~; :5 :::s "/" (:~ '}' :2 t.:~ ::5 '~) SOBOLESKI. JAMES W r:~ () [: () >< ;::::j:? () i<. F~ E C:: () ivi C: () h: F) 967 GRACELANO ST W7 [) F: ~::; F) L, (>1 I (J, C: :3 I L. r::: () S E i'1 C) i-.!T' I L (:.. c:)(:) .J./::; I~:;' () () 1. (~~ (;1 .S ~~;, .1 MARTIN. JAMES A JR l.i'" U I: \i () i'! L) ::{ CL,E()h~I/,J(~TCr:.:: FL. GIOTAKIS. CHRIS B TRE :::5:::?:6 HEL"CHEP PD r'..! /' CLE:PIP'/I,I('ITCI:;: FL._ :.:'::; :.:::;; . /' (., . /' 2: ':':1 :.:~; ":,) :::; ::3 ~l61 .S :? (:, :~S.5 TRACEY. ISABELLA S .1. ::~:; .~:~;l L) L.: \,/ () ;.....! L) F;~~ VASILAROS. SOPHIA .1..11 BA"{SI[)[ Dh' C:L.[:()F~I/',1() T[H F'L C::L.[I~HI,I')(>lr[H FL :,:~:; :,:::;; ';';' 1;:.:.1 ')" :? .<j :,::~:; ,.) :~3 :::; 7" (~, '/ ~? E) () ~;~~ ROSS. WILLIAM A III r:;~ () :::~:; :::::;; ~~ [) () Fi: J :~::;; J...j t"j(~rTO::<" t"j()Ph. ~:;; [vi tiT T () ::;{" F' () T S "'( FI () IJ()>~ Hl.,{i5 (i F: E [ i"-.! 1,,",1 () () [) h ~3 1:?E, O[\,IOi"',,! [)P 1..:; I." L: ('I :'( '/.,1 ('IT' L F;~ F L ?) 2S '7 6, "}' ::? ~~:j. 3 .~~) :::.) ~3 ,:;) :~5 E; ;~:~: .1. /j. ::5 C;LJS-r!:h~. G[:H(~Lr) :z 1:::':2 Lor....! G b I] 1,1') L. N C: L, I:: (l H 1,,") (:~ T [r;! F L. ::55l(,4 641.4 F' (:) F) I:) ():3 .T 0 j'vj PAPPAS. ANASTASIA l.l~::. DE\lUi",! DF~ CL.[nF~I,I\IA TI:::h~ r::L, :s ~~:. 7' (~ .'/ :l ,:~. :~:~~ I:) P('li'...jOS" STE\i[ S P(~lj",!C)S. F 11,,_ I T:3(i 1()'9 ol::vor....! OF: C: L, C (': F<~ 1/1,1 () '{ E F<~ F L, F)E~~rF~Il,< ~ [){~I\lICI :3 F' [ T H I f<. ,. l.ti (~P 'y'T 2::2:5 I-I(lj"'iOCH [)H C L, [: n F,~ 1,,0,,1 (~IT E r~~ FL.. ;3 :~s 7" (~;, ),. ~::: L~ ~5 '::1 ~~; :~5 7' (:~ "/" :2 ~4 I:) "? , OF' KOEGLER. WALTER A f<. () E:: C L E h::, J [: (>II...j (>1 (,20 (iHDE["'l Lt--! PITTSHI,)f:.!Cil"l p(~ lE,:2,::.j::::; 1.152 Fl." ZI,)r;~nl"o,,1s:-<. I" I3CICC)(~l",! Z 1,) P n 1,,0.,1 ::'.) f<. I" (~ [""! j',,! (~ 159 BRIGHTWATER OR CLE:{~h:li,,1{~TEH F'L BRAUKMAN ENTERPRISES IHC 10H65 BOBCAT TER L ITrL.C:T()j'~ CO HOl?4 9';:.:5.1 :5 ::'.:''7 6I 240 ::/ GRIFFIN. BARRY N JR 2775 PINE TREE RO L.. (l j",J, S I t...j Cl ~1 I <,:l 13 9:L 1 f< I.) L (:>1 C [,.j ,. :5; T (l H 1_ E 'y' h. U L, ('1 C H ,. (~I r....! r..,.! () 150 BRIGHTWATER OR C:LEAHI,.',I(~T[:H FL. ~5 3 )'" (~;, 1 :? ,:::l. () .1 13 F;: I C:11'[ T 1",1 tiT I:: h: I ~.rv' I:: ~)r ('I H L I ~;; f-I t"'j [ . ~: ;:;; :~; :,:I;~,.T ::<' I~:I ;~ :~: ;~:IT ~: j"',J. ;~; \: ." _) () Ci E P t"i (~r',,! .,{ KOEGLER, WALTER A h. () E Ci L" E h:.. ,] [: () I",,! (~ 135 HRIGHTWATER DR C:L_E(~RI,""I()TEP FL. J I h: :<. Ci \/ :::: h. 'y', 1<' (\ R L JIPDOVSKY, CHRISTIANE 170 HRIGHTWATER DR C: L. E: (~ P 1111 (~IT [ F;: F::- L ::';:::;;7 (,} '2/j()1 :::.:; :?~; "If 6. "}' :2 lj. () :2 MARSlALEK. ROMAN CIUS. MIEClYSLAW 166 HRIGHTWATER DR C:L.E(~PhIATE.F<~ I::-L. CIUS. MIEClYSLAW W C: I tJ ~3" 1"1 (~ h: I ('I 162 HRIGHTWATER DR C; L. C: ('I h~ 1,.,1 () T E R F: L. ::~; ~S ~? (:~ )f ~? ~:l () .1 ?;; :~:; "7 (~ .'/ ~~~ II C) J.. ROHERTSON. ALICE ROHEPTSON. RICK 0 158 HRIGHTWATER DR C:: L. E fA h~ 1"',,1 ()T [ h: FL., 1<, U I., A C; 1'1, ~:::T (~['-.j L E: 'y' h, tJ L (~I C: f"l ,. (~ t',.J, N (:~ 320 ISLAND WAY ~ 607 C:LE(1R(",,1(1TEF<~ FL. :s ?~; )' (;. .,;/ :2: .4 () .1. ~:. ::5 ~l61 7' :21. ;!3 ~L TAMHACK. EDWARD P JR TAMBACK, CAROLE E 144 BRIGHTWATER DR C:L.E()PI,i,,1(~TER FeL. .:;;::;;}6,7 240.1 OGRODNY, BOLESLAW o C:i F,~ 0 D I"",! 'y' ,. Z () f'~' I I~~I 140 HRIGHTWATER DR CLE:(1F~I/,,1(~ITEI~ I:L, :~; :5 '}' .~::~ '? :2 ~~:j. () 1. BAUSTE:RT. DE:LBERT V BAUSTEPT. MARY LOU 134 HRIGHTWAT[R DR CL,[{.)R\i,,1() TEP I~L, lCiRRILLA, EUGENE: lORPILLA. PAFAEL L 130 BRIGHTWATER DR C::LE()F~I/,,1PITE:R FL., ::;;::;;76l :24()1 ::;) :2S 7 (:~ "X :2.4 () 1. BRADLE:Y, ROHERT L 1:28 HRIGHTWATE:P DR C:: L, [ (~ R II') (:~IT E h~ F I., :;S ;~; )" 6. }" ~? (4. () .1 h: I (.J, I:: :<, E F:: I [..,!, C 1:24 HPIGHTWATER DR C:L,E:()F<\i,,1(lTEF: FL" :?:; :~:) ~l (;, '7 ,] E F:: ['..J. I n (~j",j" Cl (:~ F<. '{ ,J E: F: ["'! I Cl ('II"!" ["j ('I F:: \' A 601:2 MARINEF::S WATCH DF:: '1' (:~ Ivj P (-i F L" I,,") (~I T C I-I 0 h~ ~5 ~5 (~~ 1. .~::l 2~; ::~:. <::~ 1. .::' HRlE:lNY, KRYSTYNA 6 IS :2 .~::l E: (i \/ ~~;; .r Sf PCTE: E~r:::nC:f'l FL. r"1 (>1 Z 1....1 F~ ,. .] () j',j r'j (~llI.J F<~ ,> J A j'.,! I i"',! PI 216 1.1 I~~ ["'j D r::: i',! [) F< CL,C(~IF::I,I"I(~T[P FL. ::5 ~5 ../ CII~:] :2.1 :2 .~~:I ::; :5 ~l {, '}' :2 /i. /~ (~~, SUNRISE ON THE H[ACH INC 2: 2'') c~()r;'Ot'.!()DO DF<: C::L,E()F<~I/,)(~ T EP I~'L ~5 :~~; )f 6. }' :2 ,~:'i. ::S .1. CHRISTMAN" KENNETH R SR CHRISTMAN" LINDA J 22S C::()F:':OH(\[)O DR CL.E(:1r~I,iJPIT.EF< FL. :5::'::;'7 (, ~7 ~? lj.?; 1. .J [ DE C:: () F< PI j",j C: 2'919 I/JEST U(1Y OF<: L,()F~ClO F'L ~::;E(\CO\iC F)TI',J,:311P ~31,~::, H () t"'j D [ t'..J, D F<~ C~L.[()h:I,^,1PITER FL. 2:; :5 ./ ')' () :2 C] ~? J~ ::3 ~3 ~l 6. ~? ~2 i'~. /l ~3 PALMTOPPEF< CONDO AssN INC C/O WAllO, EUGENIUSl F 110 BRIGHTWATE:R DF< ~ 4 C: L, E n F< I,.") (~If E: r~ F Lo, WAllO. EUGENIUSl F 1,1,,1 n ,/ I () ,. I Fi: E [..., PI C/O CLE:ARWATCR HCH MOTEL 110 PPIGHTwATFR QR ~4 ;::: i_: l:: (i r;,: I,,") (::1:; E F;~ ' , FL." 337 (p 7 - a Y- 0 I ::s ~s ),. C' ../ 2: .:::l () .1. <)~) l () / .~~~ ~~'l.l.) ..L r::: 1""1 C)f E L H4 t"'i () TEL, 14:4 ,,) .,5 .... l~),/ ..l ~:~. t) .1 ..-~~, .,) / I::) / ..:~~ ~~l f) J.. F:, elP H 4 "Y ..:;:~ ....;,..( ...-;t. .....:' /i .....~ .., . f2~:LY- 0 , RECEIVED DEe 2 7 2001 ,JLAI'lI\lII\jl;j & OEVElOPMEN SERVICES T "u \ ."T "F CLEARWATER (t t: '{\J~ O~ ~Q. CAc;.e tpl, 0 -I 0 "'-) 3 &t- t \.{, \)ct.O{))'\ \) V'-. . e ~'Y\ thl~ ji. t.I\I'OPCl1L I 41 CP ... H~y)Y1\hl L>l'f.edD' U') ~{: C\QQ.l"wer- 101~ '"":--. " 'OQ.Q.'\' YVts '~V~pY4nL, -n\,LS, S&.~.e" \~ -b MUlU ~J. ~ r<fJC\~ ~ ~ 'ou~ \ ~~ b~ 4.. Jock::. ~ 14 \ D.z\lCK tv-. I ~"''-le.. If~\,)e_<;.{~ ~ YvL(}- VI~~~ b~ -.!::W/oUe~ ~"IHY\ a... ,\>~h~,~ ~h,-c~ WCt~ LWLu.ld-tl, 6r~O~l~Md- .~ L(h/\ s"w\Jc.1 tl51\. D~ VVl r G i () fck I~ I ~ Yo c-,~ \ .T 6'" \c-.z.. ~ 'ttt ""- f- '\t\ ~ ~ b.e.- de, Y'(L J> it' e. v tfr ~ ~ (~ I h ~ W~ !LV' r \UO--~ \,v\. ~ rWt e t:-:> ~c& --cR- \1 f\h ~e.V\ <;?IA~' ~ "U\.'tk ~ Y\.~\/VlL {- ~ ((Y'<i.fuvlt.- ft~~i-~, I ~"cu~ 't-i1~;t VYlV'-6-10+--clk~s./,> Ve,IJ<l<#: 'I'A~e-~ t:~ ~,,,j. CcIJ."'-~ ,~vtv'''~Ia1-~ ~CLi: k l8L Q.eV'W\\~~ ~ ~~\~ '~~<;. dC>C.-k Q<; "9 ~ e.. <::,~. T "'- l (g a \i::.- ":'v'-\ CL\ ~ J() c k s:. ; IlL ~ Y'\,L\.StA.bov~c\ \:\ L<J a..~~ve~ 'f1tlLt- CL 'vU-\AM.~ ~,,~ "- \. '" e~) -<2.-'JC. (ec..b '^-~ S. V'Ql"Q.S* 1 ,,'^- +4d' ~~Q... 'v\e'MeeLU )\~V'S Q " Q,-,,- V\ ~ <L -\-w 0 ""DdC- ~s... ' "tVle- V\ <..= ~ 8llo M. t):) (A-t" I ~ "\.- ___ 9~ ~ (<;~"L 140 \)~"~y\.. \)V'~ ,.. . . BASIS OF STAFF'S DECISION: This 0.18-acre site is located on the south side of Devon Drive, approximately 65 feet east of Hamden Drive. The site fronts on a channel off of Clearwater Harbor and contains an existing 2,000 square foot, one-story dwelling with a 346 square foot dock. On October 22, 2001, Ms. Lisa Ryan, Advanced Marine Construction, filed an application for Flexible Standard Development approval on behalf of Mr. Chris Giotakis (property owner) for a dock. (Refer to Attachment A.) The application requested an increase in the permitted length of a dock from 35 feet to 54 feet, due to low water depth and the proximity of sea grasses and other aquatic plants and marine life. Section 3-601 (C)(1)(b) of the Code provides that the length of docks and boatlifts that serve a single-family dwelling shall not exceed 25 percent of the waterway or half of the width of the property measured at the waterfront property line, whichever is less. In this case, the lot is 70 feet wide at the south, waterfront property line and the waterway is approximately 500 feet wide. In this case, half of the lot width is used to determine permitted length of the dock and is 35 feet. The proposal includes replacing the existing dock with a 401 square foot dock and a 152 square foot boatlift. The proposed dock will be located 24 feet from the east property line and 30 feet from the west property line. The proposed boatlift will be located 14 feet from the west property line. Section 3-601(C)(I)(g) of the Code provides for deviations from dock requirements for single- family (and two-family) dwellings. The Community Development Coordinator may grant deviations as part of a Level One, Minimum Standard review, provided signed and notarized statements of no objection are secured from both adjacent waterfront property owners. In the event such statements cannot be obtained, deviations are reviewed under Flexible Standard Development applications, based on one of the following criteria: 1) That the proposed dock will result in no navigational conflicts and the length of the proposed dock will not exceed 25 percent of the width of the waterway; or 2) The proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to protect environmentally sensitive areas; or 3) The property configuration precludes the placement of a dock in compliance with the required dimensional standards; however, the proposed dock will be similar in dimensional characteristics as surrounding dock patterns. The applicant was not able to provide statement of no objection from both adjacent waterfront property owners and applied as part of a Level One, Flexible Standard Development review. As part of his submission, the applicant provided documentation from the Pine lIas County Department of Environmental Management stating that there are no navigational concerns associated with the proposed dock. It was also stated that the proposed structure is more environmentally sensitive than the existing structure, reducing negative environmental impacts to existing sea grasses. The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application on November 8, 2001. There were no objections raised by the DRC whose members include the Environmental Manager of the Public Works Administration and Harbormaster. Page 1 . . The application was approved by the Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director) on November 29, 2001 (refer to attached Development Order and staff report for case FLS 01- 10-73, Attachments B and C) with the following bases: Bases for approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Standard Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601(C)(1)(g)(i)(ii)(iii). 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913. 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. APPEAL: Section 4-504 of the Code, Community Development Board Appeals, states that appeals may be filed from a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) approval from an abutting property owner. This appeal was filed on December 6, 2001 by the abutting property owner to the south (James A. Martin, Jr. - 145 Devon Drive). Refer to Attachment D. AUTHORITY OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO HEAR APPEALS: The Community Development Board has the authority to hear appeals from Level One approval decisions, including Flexible Standard Development applications, in accordance with Section 4- 501 (A)(2) of Community Development Code. In this case, the decision by the Community Development Coordinator was the November 29, 2001 Development Order to the applicant's representative, Lisa Ryan of Advanced Marine Construction, approving the application for Flexible Standard Development. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal/application from an abutting property owner, it shall be placed on consent agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Community Development Board. The appeal may be removed from the consent agenda by a vote of at least four members of the Board. If the appeal is removed from the consent agenda, the Community Development Board shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator (Planning Director), conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application (per Section 4- 206) and render a decision in accord with Section 4-206(D)(5). If the appeal is not removed from the consent agenda, the Community Development Coordinator's decision of the approval shall be final. Pursuant to Section 4-504 (C) of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the Community Development Board shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Community Development Code; 2) That the decision will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Page 2 '-04914' L _ --.l 135 DEVON DR t~RON ~ON D~ON -1f 9'~O~ D~N 172 176 DEVO~J OEVON DR OR .' DRIVE ~~7 ~y 173 177 D'iYRON D~YROt'- D1J~ON OfbVr:PN Lot: NO ~ 5ift ....L . l' -----... I "", / '" 188. " OE\I(Jt'l 1/ ~2 \ dR-. / ~~_~ ( II , I 181 ~JI ~ / "::=-~.n 'VI'ON ~R' -R 1';/ I - _/~ . BfD' 180 DEVON DR qe' 1 "'0 L- I ); ~~) Z ()~: r-.., ~-1,f;5 :z I,i~_" ~J,' 0;':<; C> _ ~~ ~, ',;'~~,!!I 1""'"< d W l' mm 00 i~~I~ i~~ Lu-tl ~ (~'~:,~.:=-:=~~ g, ~::':=::~-'---:=-:.J ":"~.,-,.'.~.....-..........., View looking east 141 Devon Drive ~UUi .~ . View looking west . View looking east View looking south -. .1 { 141 Devon Drive FLS 01-10-73 - View looking west . View looking east ~ Aerial Map Mr. ehns Giotalds 141 Devon Dn"ve APP 01-12-04 ....~~~ (~)) PUBIJC WORKS ADMINISTRATION ~ .f l ENGINEERING -''''~'' Iii