Loading...
FLD2002-10036 (2) ------------------- Clearwater Bay Marina ; .~ ~ Community Development Board June 17, 2003 <5Jvm ( H-cA- @ Cl;) ~ ~[nlb3 ~~Gih~ ftPWv~OO~0 01, ()O N fY;(j!g~ ------------------- Existing Marina Operations ~ c::::J .' ....~ t. ~<;; .' ~ - , . '. '1 . .. 'ur , . . ' l' :; -.' - .~; , "- .,. i J / I ".-. 4~.3 = ,\ ~d' "'::. ~: ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~S~~. -d~=#~;;;~,~~~-~ ~ - ~..- - ~- s-~ ~.:L:z.~~_~ _::F~: ~~;:j~:c~.~~~~.:T':::~~ Marina Entry - Intercoastal Boatyard and High & Dry Sanding, welding, painting, hauling, and engine repair Boat storage, small engine repair, fork lift operations _________~---______I Suncruz Casino Operations r Passenger Building f- J .~~_.~_.,. ''.::.. --... - :r. J ":;1 I I I ./ Casino Boat has current lease and occupational license from City. At present passengers are bused to other boat venues; however daily excursions may begin again in near future with current or new tenant. ------------------- Views to Surrounding Properties r --, ...... . Little Theater - South Allen House - South - -I q~~'"I"",,",I'-"- Morgan House - North North Ward - East ------------~------ Existing Residential Interface Northern Retaining Wall Ii ~ i II \' I' I' Tree canopy northern side View from Morgan Parcel ------------------- Clearwater Bay Marina Est. Increase in I Ad Valorem Tax Revenue: $1,200,000 yearly Hundreds of Thousands of Impact Fees Payable to City New Jobs New Downtown Residents Revitalization of Central Business District ------------------- .-- I Clearwater Bay Site Layout ~ '........... "'D.~, The first step in revitalizing the ~- downtown area - a significant residential base. More open space, more landscaping, and better water quality for the bay. "Catalytic" - will serve as a northern gateway to redeveloped downtown. ------------------- Balloon Tests from \\~\j% ~, Surrounding Areas Bldg. 1 . . L.......J I -I Ft. Harrison - North Ward Palm Point - South Engman - Ft. Harrison Venetian Point - South ------------------- Balloon Test from Surrounding Areas I L Bldg. 2 , I \\0-~C}l , Ft. Harrison - North Ward Island Estate Channel Seminole St. - Garden Club ------------------- Impact Upon View Corridors ~,.;..l!il!I'I!~,~,,~.....-.,.;.,~'-:-.,....- ~~~'ii;:.i:.:"..: ~~~:...?j;~~.: ~ ~.~"''''''''''-''f''''''' ,"'" ~~ ~:~.,-;~_. ~.~.~*.... ~';':,:e';" . . .....-'....,.-.... !~~:~ ". ~ ~~ \ ~--:'" .~ ~ ~ , ~ "".." .. ,.,..,.... (-~ ~~. .. ... . "'-"'i, 1 ;, '\ 'oL. ,~~~ \ ,1-1~p":J, ,~;!..~ . 'fa" ""~"' <~ ~. F'fhe'Pe:eiIY ~~ ~. 0 '..:..'.~.~;""..~...~. .""""41...'. ..'_:'lIlO.~ )>.... :'~.':-'''i!' .;.~.:.$ ~/"""''''~ '~~....~~i...,.~.../;.~.. ....~ '1,~}' ,," '" ."..... ,,'. ,;". '< 1If/' ft~.,,, <';,1,'" --t.~. -.-"..... ... ,---- ,\ ''f~., ~!J, ~.1' ~~,t; ..: '~.,;~.~~;~~~~t~')i ~vFr,~,,,"~."'- ~ ~ ,. ~~_~'-'. ,_;:.;~' ~.;. .', '- .~/" ,.,.wAG.'::~' '':;:'. '., ''i'.." ~........ ':, ~~-' '''"'4.~U'' ,~~l~/-' .:;,..~">-~^~ ' ':>~~" ~. ' ~.'~'., :')!~'^ '~':?"J,)'~'~ :' ~;". "... ~ ",' ......'1 'I"~- ':.- '. ." 'i...'''W.... " ,,' ,( I,' ,-',,- j-. ....1 . ...' 'r,. ~ t---.. ,/ ,:11... .. . ~:'. )I .... :P:',.,~ ,l' ~\>, ..." ,.(. ,';?\,h~ /~~J~ "S~~ ./1,.. '" # D .,.ove-~ ...oo-r~~ D ~e-P)F'"A-f'1~ ~ ~A ~lJ" .~ .---- :....=: ~oe:>,..~?-re-r7 ve-v~ E~~""~ ~ UNOe>~iF'J<.J&-ie-'" Vle-v'~ 8 ""'''''PlII-JA. V1e-v'~ ?~A-PlvA-"'e-f"l e;>A-Y MA-~INA- View corridors for residential property to the north remain virtually unchanged, if not actually enhanced by project. ------------------- Future Land Use Map ------ I-- ------- ----------- .. '" RU ----------- '" ---------. ; WATER i ------ Part of Central Business District ------------------- City Zoning Maps Zoning - Downtown District - ~ /8 I Map 1 Cily' 01 Clea/v.ater ~ . L Periphery Plan Expansion Areas " .~:I. " l ir~'. I ,t 'j .' ~ Periphoty PIon ~::..-:.:- .............t....-__ ~,......-...-...... ,.h......'*--...... ~CaJ"'''''--.. -- Previously Part of Periphery Plan I' ",'1> .. j - - - - - - ----- - - - - Aerial and Parcel Map - - - - ------------------- Community Development Code It is the purpose of this Community Development Code to create value for the citizens of the City of Clearwater by: 1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative development; 2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties; and, 3. Strengthening the City's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _..._ - I Conclusions: . I Consistent - The project is consistent with the Downtown Development Plan, the Land Development Code, & Periphery Plan. Compatible -The project replaces existing commercial/industrial marina uses and casino boat operations with residential use that provides landscaping, view corridors, orientations and other design features to ease transition to the north. No negative impacts upon adjoining property values. Concurrent - City's transportation network fully capable of accommodating projected traffic. Other City services are sufficient to accommodate needs of the project. Catalytic - The project will serve to bring City residents back to the downtown core and provide a much needed "jump start" to downtown redevelopment efforts in accordance with City plans, without expenditures of public tax dollars. ------------------- Final Thought: . "Ironically, the key to success in the infill development and community redevelopment environment is the presence of significant residential units. When people live somewhere they take ownership of their environs and ... only when people live in infill and redevelopment projects will the character of change be acceptable to neighbors and successful. In this context, density is good not bad, a perspective which must be overcome to remediate 50 years of sprawl. That does not mean that everyone has to live in a quasi-urban housing unit, but to say that everyone's quality of life would be enhanced if those who wished to live in the kind of housing we have in and immediately adjacent to downtown.... - single family, townhouse, mid-rise, high rise, store over residences- we would have vibrant downtowns and an improved quality of life for all. But residents will come only if we have great places as addresses and places of urban vitality which cater to all social and economic segments of the community -diversity is a critical ingredient of ecological integrity and of a vibrant, liveable city." Charles L. Siemon, November 8, 2002 . Legal Trends in Urban Infill and Redevelopment 2 TIMES. SUNDAY, JUNE 15, 2003 CT EDITORIAL OPINION Condo project would clash with rest of neighborhood We have one question for Clearwater Community Development Board members as they prepare to vote Tuesday on a proposed high-rise condominium project in the Old Clearwater Bay neighborhood north of downtown: If a developer bought the lot next door to your home and built a 12-story building on it, would you consider the building reasonable and compatible with your home and neighborhood? A local development group wants to build 134 condominiums in two harborfront towers up to 138 feet tall, plus four townhomes in a separate building, plus a 120-slip marina on a u-shaped property now occupied by Clearwater Bay Marina at 900 N Osceola Ave, The property is adjacent to the public Seminole boat ramps and across Osceola Avenue from N orth Ward Elementary School. The project isn't just tall, it is massive, with structures covering nearly all of the marina property, It is so tightly packed with buildings that the condo swimming pool will perch on.a parking deck and tennis courts will be built on a lot across the street. The condominiums will go for $400,000 to $1-million. Every unit will have a balcony overlooking Clearwater Harbor. The view will be spectacular. But not for Fred Allen or Vicki and Steve Morgan. Their normal-sized, single-family homes are immediately south and north of Clearwater Bay Marina. When they stand in their yards and look up, they will be dwarfed by the condominium towers. The Morgans, who have lived in their renovated 83-year-old home for 15 years, are fighting the proposal. The Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association doesn't oppose redevelopment in principle, doesn't even object to multistory buildings on the waterfront, but it argues that this project is much too tall and too massive for the neighborhood of primarily one- and two-story homes. They also fear that if the project is approved Tuesday by the Community Development Board, a precedent will be set and all of the waterfront north of Drew Street will be lined by condominiums at least as tall. City of Clearwater Two condominium towers, townhomes and a marina are proposed for the Clearwater Bay Marina site. Neighbors fear it will change the character of their neighborhood. The city government's perspective is different. During the 1990s the city identified the Old Clearwater Bay neighborhood, one of the oldest in the city, as a "character district" but also ripe for redevelopment. The neighborhood has many fine homes lovingly tended by their owners, but others, especially on the south end close to downtown, are rundown. The city government saw great potential in those properties, even calling the waterfront there Clearwater's next "Gold Coast." Officials envisioned the area redeveloped with condominiums to attract well-to-do residents who could support the shops, restaurants and theaters the city dreams of luring to the central business district. New codes and flexible development standards were approved by the city to attract developers and make.it easier for them to build projects in and around downtown, Higher densities and taller buildings were allowed. On its face, there is nothing wrong with that approach. Downtown Clearwater and areas immediately north and south do need to be redeveloped in coming years, and incentives will be required to convince developers to risk their capital on areas in decline. But while the new rules gave more flexibility to developers, they also provided protections for residents. Those protections were built around the assumption that professional city planners would review every projectfor compliance with the city's codes and principles and would protect residents from unreasonable and incompatible development. In that respect, the Clearwater city staff has failed the residents of Old Clearwater Bay. The staff inexplicably has recommended that the Community Development Board approve the Clearwater Bay Marina project, which is out of scale and out of character with the adjacent neighborhood. .1 ' ~ The staff report actually attempts to justify plunking down Mediterranean-style condominium towers in a low-rise historic neighborhood, right next door to single-family homes. The report would inspire guffaws if its cheerleading for this project weren't so troubling, Furthermore, the staff supports the project knowing that it will set a precedent. City Manager Bill Home, who has no background in planning and development, has been a steadfast supporter, even when the neighborhood objected and some city commissioners (who will not vote on this project) said they didn't like it. Why did the city of Clearwater create a professional planning staff if it was going to sign off on projects that are clearly violative of planning principles and destructive of neighborhoods? Why does Home, who has worked hard to establish a relationship with neighborhoods and hear their concerns, turn a deaf ear to this one? Home says the project will increase the tax base and help further downtown redevelopment by bringing in people with the discretionary income to support shops and restaurants. Our translation: Development near downtown is good at any cost. Clearwater needs public support for redevelopment. It will not get it this way. Even in neighborhoods it wants redeveloped, its rules should provide transition zones, stepped heights, sufficient buffering and sincere study of compatibility. Tuesday's decision should not be a hard one for the Community Development Board, The Old Clearwater Bay area is a neighborhood; it is not a resort area, tourist destination or downtown business district. The Clearwater Bay Marina proposal is not in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent properties and it is not sufficiently buffered from its neighbors. Approving it would represent a capitulation to developers and an abandonment of planning principles and the city's duty to residents. 2 TIMES. TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 CT LETTERS OPINION Condo plans were reviewed and scaled down Re: Condo project would clash with rest of neighborhood, editorial, June 15. I appreciate your comments regarding the proposed Clearwater Bay Marina project, but disagree with your assumptions and conclusion. First of all, the city Planning Department's recommendation on any development application, but especially those in key redevelopment areas, requires that specific criteria in the Land Development Regulations are reviewed and applied on a case-by-case basis. In addition, there is a special redevelopment plan for the marina area that must be evaluated. Occasionally, the conclusions and recommendations that are reached by the professional staff differ significantly from those shared by interests affected by the proposal. This is one of those occurrences. The area north of downtown along the N Fort Harrison corridor between Clearwater Bay and the Pinellas Trail has been- a blighted area for more than a decade. The City Commission recognized this in 1993 when it changed the comprehensive plan to make this area Central Business District. As we all know, this is the most intensive land use in the city. At that time and now, the northern edge of this area is single family. The change to Central Business District was made for the specific reason of creating incentives for redevelopment of this area. In every city and in many other areas in Clearwater, there are boundaries between intensive commercial zoning and single-family zoning. For example, the back side of the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and State Road 60 corridor is largely single-family residential. In the case of this specific project, you have stated that basic planning principles have been ignored and that the approval of the project would set a precedent for similar development south of the proposed project. That is not accurate, In fact, the City Commission has reaffirmed the 1993 decision and added additional incentives to encourage redevelopment. Included in these incentives were both height and density incentives. In response to those incentives, at least three other projects in the vicinity have been reviewed and supported by the Planning Department staff and have been approved by the Community Development Board. Two of these projects included heights of 150 feet. One was approved at 81 feet. Many times land use transitions are in the eye of the beholder. The original project was submitted at a height of about 165 feet. Upon review of the application, city staff recommended no more than 150 feet to the developer. Although the neighborhood has not defined a height that would be supported, the developer further reduced the project height to 127 feet for the north tower and 138 feet for the south tower, At all times during this process, the city administration strongly encouraged the developer and the neighborhood to reach consensus. It should be noted that the proposed project height was publicly discussed at a previous meeting of the Co~~~~ Development B?~rd ~ver a year ago. Your voice counts We invite readers to write letters for publica- tion. Address them to Letters to the Editor, the Times, 710 Court St., Clemwater ,FL 33756. Or you may fax them to (727) 445-4119, ore-mail to npletters@sptimes.com. E-mail letters must be text only and cannot include attachments. Letters should be brief and must include the writer's name, city of residence, mailing address and phone number. Addresses and phone num- bers will not be published. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be printed. At that time, the developers indicated they would be resubmitting the project at a height of about 150 feet and the immediate neighbors indicated an agreement had been reached to support that height. Many city managers have public administration degrees. Few are trained professional planners. Fortunately in Clearwater, the city currently employs six staff members with master's degrees in planning. We also employ an assistant city manager for economic development, who was a national leader in the planning profession with more than 25 professional awards to his credit. Defining appropriate transitions between downtown and adjacent neighborhoods is extremely subjective. Even planning professionals disagree. However, it is clear that this area has been substandard for over a decade and its current use as a commercial marina could not be more incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Finally, the opportunity for new residential development is the highest priority for downtown redevelopment. The addition of new residents is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood, will serve to improve a struggling area north of downtown and will stabilize and improve properties and businesses in the area, The next component of the approval process includes the opportunity for neighbors, businesses and the applicant to present their positions to the Community Development Board for their consideration today. The board will then have the opportunity to make a fair and balanced decision based on the positions of all those that are interested. That is the formula for a fair process. Bill Horne, Clearwater city manager High-rise condos not compatible Re: Condo project would clash with rest ofneighbor- hood, editorial, June 15. Clearwater needs to review the newly adopted Planning to Stay element of the county's comprehen- sive plan. Under the heading Urban Communities, Nos, 4 and 5 state: 4. Pinellas County recognizes that successful neighborhoods are central to the quality oflife in Pi- nellas County. Therefore, redevelopment and urban infill should not compromise the integrity and viability of existing residential neighborhoods. 5. When considering ways to encourage neighbor- hood enhancement and rejuvenation, it is important that such efforts are compatible with community char- acter, local traditions and heritage, infrastructure ca- pacities, the natural environment and the overall vi- sion for the community. Clearly, these high-rise condos are not compatible with the community character and even look com- pletely out of place in the picture shown with this edi- torial. Ellen Pfau, conservation chair Clearwater Audubon Society Board should heed residents Re: Condo project would clash with rest of neighbor- hood, editorial, June 15. As a resident of the Old Clearwater Bay neighbor- hood, I wish to thank you for this informative editorial on the prospect of a massive condominium project at the ClearWater Bay Marina site. If the Clearwater Community Development Board decides in favor of the developer, it will, in my opinion, not only set a pre- cedent for our neighborhood but for any neighbor- hood; especially those located on the waterfront and in close proximity to downtown, I am in favor of new structures that will enhance our area, but this proposal is not compatible with the ambience of our historic district. I sincerely hope that the board will listen to the petitions of the residents, adhere to planning principles and not give in to the de- mands of yet another developer. Patricia Bates Smith, Clearwater Launch site for boats needed Re: Residents voice oPinions on park plans, story, June 12, I was deeply disturbed when I read your article about the proposed boat ramp at Pop Stansell Park. It quoted someone as saying: "It would bring in a whole new element that doesn't need to be there." I am a retiree who has been living in Pinellas County more than 25 years, I have a boat that I launch at Pop Stansell almost once a week. I love fishing the waters of St. Joseph Sound. I can honestly say that all the boaters that I have ever seen launching their boats there seemed like nice people and many of them take their families out for a day of fun. I don't feel that a concrete ramp would draw a "new element." Florida is a boating and fishing para- dise. We don't have enough launching sites in our neck of the woods. Anclote Park launching ramp is al- ways full to capacity. People wait with their boats sin- gle file out in the street sometimes for hours just to launch their boats. We need more launching ramps in North Pinellas. I'm sure the county engineers can come up with a better design for Pop Stansell Park that will make everyone happy. We honestly need to improve the launch site there, Our boaters are hurting for a place to put their boats in. Joe Cortellini, Palm Harbor Church contributes to downtown I am a business owner and property owner in downtown Clearwater. I have been a homeowner and resident of Clearwater Beach for more than 17 years. I am a member of the Main Street Promotions Commit- tee. Since I began my business and bought property in downtown, I have had many dealings with members of the Church of Scientology. I have found them to be ' very interested in improving our downtown and I have:~ watched them contribute to events and activities in downtown to bring about a revitalization of the down- town. I am not a member of the Church of Scientology. The property that members own is clean and up- scale. The quality of the renovations that they do is commendable. I would like to see other downtown, '.. property owners take the care and initiative to up- grade their building and facades. I see the church do- ing that, and I don't see how this is detrimental to . ,_ downtown. In fact, I think it's helpful. I shop at Stein Mart and Starbucks as well as other. retailers downtown, and if the church can help attract additional large retailers to the downtown area, it would benefit everyone, As far as I'm concerned, members are welcome in our downtown, and I hope that they continue to contribute in the way that they'.' have, Unda Edwards, Clearwater Constituents lose good lawmaker _ . I am mad as hell at Attorney General Charlie Crist .' and what he has done to me! His decision to appoint John Carassas to head up the Tampa office of the Flor-. , ida Attorney General has deprived me of the one ' , bright spot among my representatives in the state Legislature that I have experienced over the past 23 years - my total'time as a resident of Florida. Occasionally, Rep. Carassas stumbled, as in his sponsorship in this past session of a $20 per year in- " . crease in "found money" for writers of auto insurance. Still, all in all, he has stood for ethical behavior, voted .: for beneficial public policy and promoted good gov- ernment in Tallahassee. So I do understand why Crist " chose him, but I don't have to like it. . As for the expected announcement by Don Sulli- , ., van to become the "anointed replacement" by the Re- . ':' publican Party to Carassas' seat, I hope he will strong- ly rethink this action. Sullivan served in the Senate for. 10 years, but he participated in the erosion of gene revenue support for education. His last-term ep' concerning the need for education reform asi track record does not assure me one bit champion meaningful education reform requires a forward-thinking repres loaded with baggage from the pa Dr.W City of Clearwater Community Development Code 0,t~Nd ~ fAkt l~~~ ANA YL YSIS OF CONSISTENCY WITH CODES AND ADOPTED PLANS -@, CO~ FLD2002-1 0036 (CLEARWATER SAY MARINA) lall1l D ?? f[J:rtfi '2.. , fJ(J ~J.. General standards for level one and level two approval conditions A. 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 the character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposed development is not in harmony with the scale, bulk, or density of adjacent properties. The property directly to the north is improved with a one story single-family residence and low-rise multifamily as contrasted to the proposed high-rise structure. The general character of the area is one of low-rise development. The proposed development is completely incompatible with the character of the adjacent properties. The proposed development is within the Central Business District (CBD) land use category and the Downtown (D) zoning district, both of which allow the highest density development in the City. The property directly to the north has a future land use designation of Residential Urban (RU) and is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), which permits, at the maximum, some of the lowest densities in the City. For example, the RU land use and LMDR zoning permits approximately 7.5 units per acre, and the development proposal consists of 31 units per acre. The development proposal has approximately four times the allowable density of the property directly to the north, and no transition is proposed between these densities. The site plan approval process should be used to provide some sort of transition between densities and building heights as opposed to allowing high density and high-rise residential directly adjacent to low density and low-rise residential. According to information provided by the City of Clearwater, the proposed project will be taller (as measured from existing grade) than many of the buildings in the existing downtown area. As evidenced by this data, a project of this height would be more in keeping with a location more interior to the Central Business District. Page 1 of 8 The City's staff report states that the area is characterized by a mix of land uses, including single-family dwellings, small-scale attached dwellings and high-rise attached dwellings. The high-rise attached dwellings in the area are located to the south, more interior to the Central Business District and not adjacent to single family residential zoning districts. 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 proposed structure lies within approximately 30 feet of the property line of the residence to the north. This structure will impact the use of this property as a single family residence as this high-rise structure will dominate the southerly view from the backyard of this residence. The proposed north tower also has windows that open to the northern property line, giving occupants of the condominium units an unobstructed view of this single family property to the north. The size of this proposed structure becomes a critical concern for the potential future sale of this adjacent single family property. The City's staff report does not address the impact of the project on the value of the single family residence to the north. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. N/A 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. It is not clear as to whether the proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The City's traffic analysis states that the project will generate 806 daily trips. No assessment is included relative to the impact on Osceola Street, on which the project is proposed to have two driveways, and the only assessment is for Fort Harrison Avenue. Osceola Street has only an approximate 20 foot wide pavement section. It is unrealistic to assume that no resultant traffic will utilize Osceola Street. Page 2 of 8 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed development is not consistent with the community character as it abuts a single family residence, and is located directly on the boundary of the Central Business District. This area to the north, on the west side of Osceola Avenue, to Palm Bluff Street, is predominately single family development with some scattered duplexes. The use itself does not make the development inconsistent with the community character, but its intensity and height does. The proposed development is placing some of the most intense and tallest development permissible in the City adjacent to some of the least intense, low-rise development. Such a development would be more in keeping with the community character if it were located further within the interior of the Central Business District as opposed to the periphery. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours or operation impacts on adjacent properties. The design of the proposed development is a substantial visual imposition upon the single family residence to the north. With the development of this project, this property owner will be subject to view of a high-rise development within approximately 30 feet of the property line. Windows are proposed on the north side of the condominiums, and these windows will afford an unobstructed view of the single family residential property to the north. Section 2-903. Flexible development (Flexibility Standards) B. Comprehensive infill redevelopment projects 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; The development of this parcel is completely possible without such a drastic deviation from the standards of the ordinance (30 feet to 138 feet in height.) Closer adherence to the standards of the ordinance would likely result in the development of fewer units. Page 3 of 8 The City's staff report states that the increased height may be mitigated due to the slope of the land as the elevation of the land ranges from 29 feet above sea level at Fort Harrison Avenue to 6 feet above sea level at the seawall. This statement is misleading because the elevation difference is contained mostly on the property between Osceola Avenue and Fort Harrison Avenue, which slopes from 29 to 16 feet. The elevation difference on the portion of the site west of Osceola Street (where the structures are proposed) ranges from 15 to 6 feet, and most of that elevation change is generally contained on the southeast corner of this portion of the site. As a result, the height of the structure may be sliQhtlv mitigated from Fort Harrison Avenue, but not from Osceola Avenue. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Development Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; The proposed development has the potential to impact the value of the single family residence to the north, given the incompatibility in terms of size, density, bulk, intensity and height. Such development may have an impact on the future sale of this residence, as this residence is not located within the Central Business District, and development comparable to that of the subject property would not be possible. The City's staff report states that the development of the site "should" not reduce the value of adjacent properties, but no data is provided to support that statement. 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; N/A 4. The uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses; The use as a high-rise development is not compatible with the adjacent single-family residence to the north, based on the dissimilar scales of the two land uses. The project is also not compatible with the character of the surrounding area, which is an area of low-rise structures. Page 4 of 8 The use of the property for high-rise development is what creates the incompatibility. Condominiums and townhomes are appropriate, but not at the height and scale proposed. The City's staff report states that balconies of the project have been oriented northward to minimize views to adjacent properties to the north, however, windows are proposed along this north property boundary. The report makes no reference to the compatibility relative to bulk, intensity, or height as it relates to surrounding properties. The report also references that a previous development approval on the site, at a height of 100 feet was found to be compatible, however this proposal is approximately one-third taller. 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater; While an analysis of alternate sites for development of a condominium complex with accompanying boat slips has not been undertaken, it is conceivable that such a use could be developed elsewhere in the City, away from the periphery of the CBD, given the amount of waterfront property within the City limits. The City's staff report states that the site is suitable for a marina and for attached dwellings. The site is suitable for these uses, but not at the scale and height proposed. 6. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The development of the parcel as a high-rise will not upgrade the adjacent property to the north, and will in fact create a visual barrier for these properties. The development will also not upgrade the immediate vicinity of the property as it creates development with absolutely no transition between residential densities. Again, the development proposes densities approximately four times higher than the adjacent densities to the north. 7. The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Page 5 of 8 The design of the property does not enhance the community character as it creates a visual barrier to the property to the north. The community character is not enhanced with the development of a structure of a height and scale which is more appropriate in the interior of the downtown as opposed to the periphery. 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; The increased height is not justified as no benefit is given to the immediate vicinity of the property by the increased height. The increased height is actually detrimental to the adjacent properties. The development creates a visual barrier, places incompatible residential densities next to each other, and proposes a structure on the periphery of the CBD which would be more in keeping in the interior of the district, where it would be less likely to negatively impact single family residences. The City's staff report states that the increase of the height may be apparent along the street or from adjacent properties, but may be mitigated by the grade differential and existing tree canopy. The height of the structures will be readily visible regardless of the tree canopy or the grade differential. 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; N/A 10. The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. The City of Clearwater Design Guidelines states that "new infill buildings located in block faces with existing buildings should strive for a range between 70% and 130% of the average height of structures in the block face to which the building is oriented. Buildings in excess of 130% of the prevailing height should be stepped back so the additional height is not visible from the street to which the buildings are oriented." The proposed development is inconsistent with this height guideline, as the building is much taller than the adjacent buildings, and the "step backs" in the building design are minimal. This criterion is not evaluated within the City's staff report. Page 6 of 8 Comprehensive Plan Goals/Objectives/Policies The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas and encourage infill development. The proposed development will not ensure neighborhood preservation for the property to the north, as a significant visual barrier will be created, which may be an impediment to the future sale of the property. The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment. As previously referenced, this project is not consistent or compatible with the surrounding environment as it proposes development that is much higher in density, height, bulk, and intensity than are the adjacent residential properties. The innovative planning techniques referenced above would include transition between the adjacent uses and disparate densities, which is not proposed with this plan. On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned developments that are compatible. The proposed site plan contemplates infill development that is not compatible in its current configuration. The incompatibility is due to the proposed project's density, height, bulk and intensity as it relates to the properties to the north. The property directly to the north has a future land use designation of Residential Urban (RU) and is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) which permits approximately 7.5 units per acre, whereas the proposed development consists of 31 units per acre. Only one other zoning district (Low Density Residential) has a lower maximum density than does the LMDR district. No transition between these disparate densities is provided. The City shall encourage the implementation of historic overlay districts, the maintenance of existing historic properties, and the preservation of existing neighborhoods through the use of design guidelines and the implementation of the City's Community Development Code. The implementation of the City's Community Development Code should provide for some sort of transition of density and intensity between this proposed use and Page 7 of 8 the adjacent use and none is provided. Approval of the development will not result in the preservation of the neighborhood, but will create a substantial visual barrier for the properties to the north. Page 8 of 8 COMPARISION OF EXPIRED PLAN VS. PROPOSED PLAN FLD2002-10036 (CLEARWATER BAY MARINA) EXPIRED PLAN 75 +/- feet north setback PROPOSED PLAN 30 +/- feet north setback Balconies oriented northwest. 100 +/- feet Windows oriented north. 126 +/- feet (north tower) 138 +/- feet (south tower) At- rade parkin 160 +/- feet building length ad"acent to north ro ert line Swimming pool at grade near waterfront. Three Story Structured Parkin 400 +/- feet building length ad"acent to north ro ert line Swimming pool elevated over parking ~ 1/vt1Q CO!:; M~ fV~l- J(J)',~ ~ 0 ffOS( ~ r---.. ..- JUN-16-2003 16:21 P.01 BRENDA HARRIS NIXON 902 PINELLAS STREET CLEARW A TER, fL 33756 727-447-1602 ~A){ -TO: Sl,J .405:l RECEIVED To: Clearwater Community Development Board Rc: Clearwat~r Ray Marina project JUN f 6 2003 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE I urge you 10 deny approval of the proposed pr~iect. No highrise huildings should be allowed north of Seminole Street. The highrises to the south should be tiered so that the taller buildings ore near downtown and taper down toward Seminole Street. The Old Clearwater Bay neighborhood should be allowed to redevelop only as single family homes. Many in that neighborhood have spent many thousa.nds of dollars to restore some of Clearwater' s oldest homes. Please tet them continue. r ., PA~1 P, Q C: ~ RECEIVED JUN t ~ 2003 PLANNil\lli & DEVELOPMENT , . SERVICES CITy OJ- CLtA,(WATER { ;Jc ki W!'r1JIS I] ~ ____~t"ltj)~~ TOTRL P.01 For CDB meeting -----Original Message----- From: Tropicalweddings@aol.com [mailto:Tropicalweddings@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:48 PM To: CityManagerWeb@c1earwater-f1.com Subject: Seminole Boat Ramp Mayor, The boat ramp is over crowded and needs developement. We cannot allow a condo developement on public recreation use land until! a provision is made for the expansion of the ramp facilities. Stop (board meeting at 2pm Tuesday) the developement of public use property for private residential use. We don't need more residents on the waterfront we need facilites for boaters. The proposed new marina at the bridge will not supply that need. Fred Allen 4430039 6/17/2003 pL0ZflZ ~({}J)C:> -----Original Message----- From: Tropicalweddings@aol.com [mailto:Tropicalw~ddings@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:30 PM To: AsstCityManagerWeb@c1earwater-f1.com Subject: Seminole Boat Ramp The City is violating it's own code by selling more launch permits than it has parkin trucks and trailers being parked on our residential streets and grass areas also in \ board approves the proposed condo project at Clearwater Bay Marine, the new re~ it that the boat ramp does abide by the codes and will insist that the noise and ille!;; as eliminating the public trailer parking that the marina is providing. Stop the appro Hall meeting Tuesday at 2pm. Thanks Fred Allen 4430039 6/1712003 ~'T)lib'Z ~ (;fJf51r . ' -----Original Message----- From: Brink, Carolyn Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:20 AM To: 'Tropicalweddings@aol.com' Subject: RE: Clearwater Bay Marine Dear Mr. Allen: Your e-mail has been received and distributed to the Mayor and Commissioners, -----Original Message----- From: Tropicalweddings@aol.com [mailto:Tropicalweddings@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:35 PM To: citycomm@c1earwater-fl.com Subject: Clearwater Bay Marine We must stop the approval of the condo developement at the Clearwater Bay Marine at least untill a study is performed and a plan developed to provide additional parking and facilities for the Seminole Boat Ramp. The City is in violation of the City code by selling more launch permits than it has parking spaces. Trailer parking thruout the neighborhood is also a violation of City code. Plus, the Clearwater Bay Marine parking will be lost. Stop the vote of approval at the meeting at 2 pm on Tuesday. Thanks Fred Allen 4430039 6/17/2003 , ~1iJ~ ---------- --- - . . _. _m___ \ ~ ~~~ ~~ ..,::e'"' ~r::~ =- ~~ ,..i1".~ - ;:s,'!i' ~?.A~~~~,\' ...,~rIA"; ~~~ ~*,:J'41E\\ ' }"1'- ~~~111 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOlITH MYRTIE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (]27) 562-4576 LoNG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REvIEW HOUSING DMSION NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES January 2,2001 Mr. Donald Harrill Florida Marine and Resort Developers, Inc. 670 Island Way #305 Clearwater, Florida 33767 RE: Development Order regarding case FL 00-10-46 - 880, 900 and 908 North Osceola Avenue. Dear Mr. Harrill: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206 D.7 of the _ Community Development Code. On December 12, 2000, the Community Development Board reviewed your application for Flexible Development approval to increase the height of attached dwellings from 35 feet to 100 feet and to reduce the (north) side setback from 10 feet to three feet (to an emergency access aisle), with a Comprehensive Landscape Program. The proposal includes the redevelopment of the existing Clearwater Marina to include a 140-unit condominium, 112-slip marina, a 7,000 square foot restaurant, a 2,000 square foot retail shop, and a 4,500 square foot office. Based on the application and the staff recommendation, the Board found that the proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, the maximum development potential standards and all other applicable standards of the Community Development Code. The Community Development Board approved the application subject to the following conditions: 1. That a building permit for either the attached dwellings or restaurant be submitted within two years from approval of the site plan (December 12, 2002); 2. That the existing chain link fence along the south property line be replaced with a decorative fence including masonry columns and metal grill work; 3. That a gate be installed along the south property line to prevent restaurant patrons from parking at the Seminole Boat Ramp (City-owned) property; 4. That the existing curb cut along the west side of Ft. Harrison A venue be removed and reflected on a revised site plan; ~I,", \.1[; j BRlANJ, AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER if) ~Tr'-O' J,B, JOHNSON, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER BOB CLARK, COMMISSIONER buY .0-1!R~. ED HART, COMMISSIONER * ED HOOPER, COMMISSIONER ().- 00 f!j i I {1l D '1 "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND MFIRMATNE ACTION EMPLOYER" ~ fL,6~"D2 -1(J)?y . \ Harrill, Page 2 880,900 and 908 North Osceola Avenue - Development Order January 2, 2001 5. That all signage be integrated/coordinated with the building architecture and all freestanding signs be limited to monument-style signs; 6. That the final design of all new buildings be architecturally coordinated and consistent with the conceptual elevations as submitted; 7. That emergency access be provided to the south/west of the proposed restaurant/retail buildings, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall, prior to issuance of building permits; 8. That the cover for the boat slips along the east end of the marina be removed prior to any building permits for the attached dwellings; 9. That the balconies and views of the northernmost bank of the condominium units be oriented to the northwest, and the building line of the condominium adjacent to the residential properties to the north shall extend no farther east than what is generally shown on the sketch attached hereto as Exhibit A; 10. That no air conditioners or other mechanical equipment be located along the northern and eastern property lines and that they be located on the roof, to the extent feasible; 11. That there shall be no outdoor music or outdoor speakers at the proposed restaurant on the property; and 12. That at such time as the applicant obtains a building permit for the proposed condominium building, the applicant shall install landscaping on the property located at 301 Cedar Street (Morgan residence) generally consistent with the landscaping plan attached hereto as Exhibit B (the property owners of 301 Cedar Street will be responsible for the maintenance of same landscaping). Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (January 2, 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. The Community Development Board may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. Please remember that a building permit and impact fees will be required prior to the construction of the project. Should you have any questions, please call W. Ryan Givens, Planner at 727-562-4504. Very truly yours, /)~~r Edward Mazur, Vice Chairman Community Development Board Cc: Gerald Figurski Ed Armstrong, Johnson, Blackely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P,A. Attachments as Noted (Exhibits A and B) SvJJr~_{ HcJ ~?\ ~()~ G Co~ f[Ouvz,.; 160 ?7Jo QUALIFICATIONS OF NICHOLAS A. CLARIZIO, MAl, SRA INTRODUCTION Nicholas Clarizio has over 20 years of real estate appraisal experience. Since 1985 Nicholas Clarizio has specialized in the appraisal of properties in eminent domain or litigation matters. PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATION Member of the Appraisal Institute - MAl, #9302 - March 1992 Senior Residential Appraiser - SRA - November 1984 State Certified General Appraiser - License #0000202 APPRAISAL COURSES SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Course 101 American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part A Capitalization Theory and Techniques, Part B Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation Standards of Professional Practice Appraisal Institute Standards of Professional Practice Course 430 APPRAISAL COURSES SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Course 102 SEMINARS Society of Real Estate Appraisers Narrative Report Writing The Appraiser as Expert Witness Condemnation Seminar Professional Practice Comprehensive Workshop Real Estate Education Specialists Modern Appraisal Techniques USPAP Law Update Appraisal Methods and Applications Appraisal Institute Standards of Professional Practice Course 410 Advanced Income Capitalization Course 510 Attacking & Defending an Appraisal in Litigation - May 1981 - June 1986 - September 1986 - May 1987 - September 1988 - June 1999 - April 1983 - January 1989 - April 1989 - July 1990 - January 1991 - July 1994 - July 1996 - July 1996 - May 1999 - December 1999 - June 2000 Valuation 2000 Valuation of Inland Angling Rights -July 2000 Two Sides of the Story-The Valuation of Citrus -July 2000 Business Enterprise Value -July 2000 Plantings in Changing Markets -July 2000 N.A. CLARIZIO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. NICHOLAS A. CLARIZIO, MAl, SRA QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) COMPREHENSIVE EXAM Appraisal Institute - February 1991 - Successfully Completed EXPERT TESTIMONY Federal Bankruptcy Court (Hillsborough County) Circuit Court (Pasco County) Circuit Court (Pinellas County) Circuit Court (Hillsborough County) Circuit Court (Lake County) Special Master for Pinellas County Property Appraisal Adjustment Board - 1985 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Appraisal Institute, MAl and SRA Designations Association of Eminent Domain Professionals EXPERIENCE Nicholas Clarizio has personally appraised numerous property types including the following: Vacant Land Single Family Dwellings Two-Four Unit Dwellings Apartments Condominiums Residential Subdivisions Adult Care Facilities Day Care Centers Mobile Home Parks Vacant Commercial Vacant Industrial Parks Environmentally Sensitive Land Proposed Commercial Centers Retail Buildings Banks Shopping Centers (Non Anchored) Anchored Shopping Centers Office Buildings Restaurants Motels Hotels Mini Warehouses Warehouses Industrial Properties Easements Manufacturing Auto Service Centers Marinas N.A. CLARIZIO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. NICHOLAS A. CLARIZIO, MAl, SRA QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) Service Stations Convenience Stores Agricultural Lands Nurseries Churches Mining Properties Golf Courses EMINENT DOMAIN PROJECTS Nicholas Clarizio has appraised one or more parcels in the following projects. State Road 44 (Citrus) State Road 35 (Charlotte) State Road 35 (Desoto) Suncoast Parkway (Hernando) State Road 50 (Hernando) Cortez Road (Hernando) Bloomingdale Avenue (Hillsborough) Upper Tampa Bay Trail (Hillsborough) State Road 200 (Marion) State Road 35 (Marion) State Road 54 (Pasco) State Road 52 (Pasco) Little Road (Pasco) Decubellis Road (Pasco) Ridge Road (Pasco) Massachusetts Avenue (Pasco) Rowan Road (Pasco) Suncoast Parkway (Pasco) US 41 (Pasco) Bayside Bridge (Pinellas) East Bay Drive (Pinellas) Live Oak Extension (Pinellas) McMullen Booth Road (Pinellas) State Road 580 (Pinellas) Bryan Dairy Road (Pinellas) Drew Street (Pinellas) Belcher Extension (Pinellas) Curlew Road (Pinellas) Gulf Boulevard (Pinellas) 49th Street (Pinellas) 40th Street (Pinellas) Sunset Point Road (Pinellas) Blind Pass Road (Pinellas) 66th Street (Pinellas) Interstate 4 (Polk) Catfish Creek (Polk) N.A. CLARIZIO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. NICHOLAS A. CLARIZIO, MAl, SRA QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) PARTIAL LIST OF APPRAISAL CLIENTS All Florida Financial Amsouth Bank Amp, Inc. Amresco Bay Area Investment Brian A. Bolves, Esquire Stephen Booth, Esquire Mark P. Buell, Esquire Gerald Buhr, Esquire Carlisle Motors Marcus Castillo, Esquire Cenlar FSB Centerpointe Realty Citifed Chemical Mortgage City of Clearwater City of Port Richey Columbia HCA David M. Corry, Esquire Bruce Crawford, Esquire Crown Bank Harvey V. Delzer, Esquire Diocese of St. Petersburg, (Catholic Church) Mary Lynne Duet, Esquire Gerald Figurski, Esquire Brain Forbes, Esquire First American Title First Bank of Oak Park First Florida Bank First N. H. Bank Florida Department of Transportation Florida Gas Transmission Company Florida Power Corp. Ford Motor Credit Amy J. Galloway, Esquire Joseph M. Hanratty, Esquire Bruce Harlan, Esquire J. Ben Harrill, Esquire Lee Haas, Esquire James A. Helinger, Jr., Esquire Hillsborough County Holiday Inn Jon C. Kieffer, Esquire Suzanne LaBerge, Esquire Life Savings Emil Marquardt, Esquire Daniel Martin, Esquire Robert McDermott, Esquire William T. McCaig, Esquire Donald O. McFarland, Esquire N.A. CLARIZIO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. NICHOLAS A. CLARIZIO, MAl, SRA QUALIFICATIONS (Continued) D. Guy McMullen Properties Mobil Oil Corp. Raandi L. Morales, Esquire NCNB Mark Ossian, Esquire William McCaig, Esquire H. Rex Owen, Esquire John Pecarek, Esquire Judge Charles W. Phillips Pinellas County Daniel Rock, Esquire Red Ribbon Homestead Resolution Trust Corp. Jawdet I. Rubaii, Esquire Michael Sierra, Esquire David Smitherman, Esquire Storz Opthalmics Suburban Propane Tampa Bay Water Judge Vilanti Fred J. Wilder, Esquire West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority Word of Life Youth and Family Alternatives N.A. CLARIZIO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ( .sLJ?'~. . "1~ Q ~r) ROBERT C. PERGOLIZZI, AICP #;;~JJljL -1 ftJ 3,.; VICE PRESIDENTrrRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Mr. Pergolizzi has conducted numerous transportation studies in Hi1lsboTOUgh, Pinellas, Pasco, Hernando, Collier, Sarasota, Lee, Manatee, Polk and Citrus Counties. These studies include site impact analyses, traffic engineering and traffic operations studies, transportation analyses for DRI submittals, roadway capacity analyses and alternative corridor/alignment studies. He also prepares signal warrant studies and signalization plans in accordance with MUTCD and MUTS procedures and access permits in accordance with FDOT and local government regulations. Mr. Pergolizzi has also served as a transportation planner with the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization where he conducted numerous studies and prepared reports to assess traffic impacts of amendments to the long-range transportation plan. He is familiar with the latest transportation software including FSUTMS, Highway Capacity Software (lICS), FDOT QLOS Software, SIGNAL 2000, PASSER and TRANSYT-7F. He has also served as land use consultant and expert witness fOT various land use plan amendments, rezonings, conditional use and variance hearings for Clients in the Tampa Bay area. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Significant projects in which Mr. PergoliZ7.i played a key role include: { Land Use/Zonine . Lowe's/Publix - Pinellas Park II Waterchase - Hillsborough County . Suburban Lodge - Largo . Cypress Cove Townhomes - Hillsborough County . Oak Valley Townhomes - Hillsborough County · Oak Park - Pinel1as Park · Eckerd - Largo · Walgreens - Pinellas County . Pinellas Expo Center - Pinellas Park . Park Place Townhomes - Pinellas Park . St. Petersburg College EPICENTER - Largo DRI Traffic Studies . Northwood DRITraffic Analysis , . Summerfield Crossing DR! BiannUal Traffic Analysis · Park Place DR! Traffic Analysis - Clearwater . River Ridge DR! Traffic Analysis - Pasco County . Heritage Pines DRY Traffic Analysis - Pasco County . Timber Pines DRI Expansion - Hernando County . leOT Center DR! Traffic Analysis - Pinellas County · Mitchell Ranch Plaza - Pasco County . Crossroads Mall- Largo . CORPOREX Business Park - Hillsborough County ...~ f ' . Roadwav Corridor Planninl!lAlternative Systems Studies · Lynn Turner Road - Hillsborough County · CR 48 Extension .' Citrus County · Drew Street - Clearwater · Belcher Road Extension - Pinellas County · Keene Road (CR 1) Extension - Pinellas County . CR 44/CR 486 Connector Road - Citrus County . City of Tarpon Springs Traffic Circulation Element Update - Tarpon Springs · Gateway to Clearwater Beach/Causeway BoulevardIRoundabout - Clearwater 1& DeCUbellis Road - Pasco County :traffic ODerations StudieslDesi~s . MPO Transportation Plan Amendment Studies - Preparation of numerous studies (Westshore Boulevard, Sligh A venue, Lakewood Drive, Lutz E/W Road, Park Road Extension, Ehrlich Road Extension) for roadway plan amendments. · Baywalk/Mid-Core Traffic Analysis/Signal Design - St. Petersburg · Gulf BoulevardlW. Gulf Boulevard - Treasure Island . Ulmerton Road Concurrency Traffic Analysis - Largo/Pinellas County - Several detailed traffic operations analysis of various segments ofUlmerton Road. . Bayshore Boulevard Concurrency Traffic Analysis - Dunedin . U.S. 19 Concurrency Analysis - Pinellas County - Prepared a traffic analysis to demonstrate ex.isting levels of service on U.S. 19 in northern Pinellas County. The work effort included HCM intersections and arterial analysis and report preparation recommending intersection improvements. · Venetian Residential Development - Sarasota County · Wal-MartlSam=s Club - Traffic studies for rezoning and FDOT permits for numerous facilities in PineIIas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Manatee, Sarasota, Lee and Collier Counties · Suncoast Lakes MPUD - Pasco County · Perrine Ranch Road Analysis - Pasco County · Diamond Hill- Hillsborough County · CleaIWater Community Sports Complex - Clemwater · Sonoma - Manatee County · Morton Plant Hospital Master Plan. Cleanvater Campus · Palm Harbor University High School - Pinellas County . Key Vista Transportation Analysis - Pasco County · Madison A venu~Gould Street - Clearwater · Bryan Dairy Road/Eckerd COl]lOration Traffic Signal - Pinellas County · Bryan Dairy Road/Longwood Drive Tra.:ffi.c Signal - Pinellas County 1\ Clearwater Mall Transportation Analysis - Clearwater · McMullen Booth Elementary School ~ Pinellas County · 16th Street Middle School- Pinellas County Access Permits · Numerous access permits for commercial and residential project"! throughout Florida. ... < . EDUCATION Master of City and Regional Planning, Rutgers University, 1987 Bachelor of Arts, Environmental and Urban Studies, Montclair State College, 1985 Successful completion of 128 hours of training conducted by the Federal Highway Administration and the Florida Department of Transportation on Urban Systems Modeling, Transportation Planning and Site Impact Analysis Graduate course work in Traffic Engineering, University of South Florida PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION American Institute of Certified Planners #9023, 1990 AWARDS 1990 Florida Institute of Transportation Engineers Past Presidents Award for Technical Paper submittal Unsignalized Intersection Analysis on Florida=s Divided Arterials ;MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS American Institute of Certified Planners Institute of Transportation Engineers American Planning Association Tampa Bay Applications Group CLEARWATER BAY MARINA Additional Conditions to Address Concerns of Adjoining Owners 1. The balconies and views of the northernmost bank of the condominium units will be oriented to the northwest, and the building line of the condominium adjacent to the residential properties to the north shall extend no further east than what is generally shown on the sketch attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. No air conditioners or other mechanical equipment shall be located along the northern and eastern property lines of the subject property with a preference to placing all such equipment on the roof. 3. There shall ne no outdoor live music or outdoor speakers at the proposed restaurant on the property. 4.At such time as the applicant obtains a building permit for the proposed condominium building, the applicant shall install landscaping on the Morgans' property generally consistent with the landscaping plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Morgans will be responsible for the maintenance of the landscaping installed upon their property. ..-. ~h~ ~d ~ ~~ fb C~~ 6t/tllpj fIj)zo-?- -I ()() 3~ t....u.Jplll ""'" ,"",,,,,.. , O'M" , :: .~ANqvh~,~qf"Ob" I' ,'-'" ::;;j;~l ! " ~~~!1DSCAPIN ' I I C~/ , .. ,r, I ----_.'_ ~25 ~eh!~~~~~~~~~r !llull., FL J3np . 72~-599'87-46 . Fax nt-s86-2604 To' /'hon-;:--:------;-~--~_____ "~'_'" . : D~le: , , N.m<< fM~:~ ~ t;. !7lJ. ____. ' loC~IIOt1 is ~' ' ~---,--- =;:=~__r ~-="'==f T _ :.-:0:-........ I : I ~~fYA(~}iP~L2'lf~~:..-.II',' ',.-" ~ , 0>$ ." '..-a.e!/~=;.i~e '~' II -t': ' ~~t::f:~j & f~ :1. .2/0' 'lAd hf~, . .~!, . , . ., . ", ,,~,. , j 1;;lsD . ;. I , .. " . J ., ~/I_ 1: . C{J<.I'-U ....,,', I ~(:M. 3k ;:UO ~.' , !_(12 j.'J /9.tllJ:.- , .~ ~ i f 8 3t/c?~ 1 '. 1M.. . , .-.----.. j, ! , I , I i ,( I I I " , I . I . . , . \ 1. ~~~~~.~~"'~k 'po, ""P::~'~'~,~: b",":"': d'",,,~ 0' 'bo~~, ( A/I m Ie al is guaranteed lor 90 days 10 be a~ ~p~~lIeQ, ^J1 Walk to be campI I In II workmanlike manne1'3ccoldlng 10 standard practices, Any bil~la on or dev/alian (rom above lpecific/llians Inv~l\li,,~ e~rra eml! will be "K II doniI' llpon wr;l/en orders, and will beCt'lme an l!lXlra charlie over "nd ~ v the C&limille. ? D '/tJ ' (.f) ), Acre n e of Ptopi>>lIl - The above price~. specj(jc~1I0/lS a,;-d cpnctlllon~ arE! sa &( lory and are hereby accepted. You are aUlh~ri2:ed 10 do thtl work ., 5pl: 'in d. paymenl will bo made a& OUlllned above. ^ulhorlzcd, 51gnalure ; 'I , I , f' , . --.-....~~...........-~~==:.......l::':'I::::.._~...... , I . , ,/ r S/gnarure , Nole: This propanl may be' withdrawn by ljS If IlQt accepfe wllhln r I . J~ ~ d~y" . . _ w......_.__.. ~ ~. .... ".~. .~___._.__".. ...... ......--...-.--- , ..~.. -~....... ..~.. .............- 140 UNITS 210 PARKING SPACES 12 STORIES OVER PARKING 2.8 ACRE :f: SITE .... ...... .' . . , " .. , ., .' . . .' .~ . . . .. . .....:. .' ~.:' . ~ .. ..... .. ........ .... ..... ... . ~ ..... ..... .... .... .......- ... .~........ ..... ... .... ..... "'" ..... ...-. ................. ....:........:...:.::. ......... .. ..... ..... . .... . :-: ...::::..... ..... . :::. ..... ..... .... ,,;,:':.:.;.' .~ ........ ... ,,;,'-.;,;."- ....... :::"';:';T'.''''':''::'''':::''';::'''::::''::'''':T;::::,e::::-':::....... ....... ....... .. ...~~ ........ ..--.-. . - MARINE WAYS ~EMOVED AND ..u..... ..,..' H 6 NEW BOAT'......' ",.., '~_..... .Q .._.. 0 / ~/-~- lj~~_ j~- f--~ ~J J-~~ j~~ a ~ - - ---1 ===---== ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J/ t-J ,.. ....'::::,..,:..",',",..'::..:::.... '.., '::;;:::::~':,';,,:;;,'..::,.. '.." "", ,.. "... ..." .. .... '" '" ..,.. ..,,'.... ,. t:j'.., ........ ... ........ .... ......... ......... ......... ....n..... ......... ......... .......... ........ .......... ........ .:n...:::::.....::..~.:.. . ........ .....n... ..._....~._.4_U_..u. SLIP AREA TO BE RENOVATED ; ~._......-......... (FOR USE OF CONDOMINIUM AREA) ::,.........,..." (17 SLIPS) ,..,..,...., / ~ ~ =---------:1 ----- -r;: \---- r--'~-- ---uu.__> - ~ \Y. , r~, ) . '- ~// ( I I L .. !::: to ' , x< :>< W .satQQOl .. ~ ~ .. .. , . ,-- V--I___--~V~--~ I ~ --\..-v }-r--Jr-- I---Jr---r---r--rl--_ \ r--- ["'--I -- r--- {r-- J --t---1r--- __Ir-- __ IJ 'I " :; ',::,::~: m~ ~- I" .... '" -....l ( - - -- -- .. -- --- '.. .... .... '.-- ..... .... '. '.. . , I }-)OO . '() '.' 1fz. ro~~ ~ /~)~A8t.tllrf-N. /;-fi/a ....... '4.-a 4. . --.-...0:---- "- CO> ' ...... I ...... lii6_~_:',' .- " ...... . . . -_. ...4.___..a_ _ ~ CO> ...... ...... . CO> a... <.0 co>. In I r- , <.0 CD "'<:' "'<:' "'- ---... ...... ...... , + >- -' UJ '"" -< -' CO = = en = = <:) -, I E o '.:.- J~/() '. " "~~' ~m'-7f1~ ~~~~. MfiV '..~-,.~", ':,'.:"..,:, t- CD ~ >< w .....----. . -.___.4a_....__ .._. __4"_4___U "_. ......-.-...... fitbtebN' ~JCGvct; 3?1 '~sr; ~~A:l!,~,fL .5a!qq~ E Co '" = = , ~ - = I "~,"":