06/17/2003
.
.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
June 17, 2003
Present: Carlen A. Petersen
Ed Hooper
David Gildersleeve
Edward Mazur, Jr.
Shirley Moran
John Doran
Alex Plisko
Kathy Milam
Chair
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member - departed 3:31 p.m.
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member - voting
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
Lisa Fierce
Frank Gerlock
Brenda Moses
Assistant City Attorney
Assistant Planning Director
Development Review Manager
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - May 20,2003
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 20,
2003, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of
the meeting (Item 1 - 4).
1.
Case: FLD2003-04018 - 914 Nicholson Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services.
Representative: E.J. Robinson. (phone: 727-442-4155 / cell: 727-415-4799 / fax:
727 -446-4911).
Location: 0.16-acres located on the northwest corner where Nicholson Street intersects
Pennsylvania Avenue.
Atlas Page: 278A.
Zoning: MDR, Medium Density Residential District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (south) setback along
Nicholson Street from 25 feet to 17.66 feet to house and reduce the front (east) setback
from 25 feet to 10 feet to driveway, as part of the Residentiallnfill Project under Section
2-304.G.
Proposed Use: A single-family dwelling totaling 1,636 square feet.
Neighborhood Associations: North Greenwood Association: Jonathon Wade, 908
Pennsylvania Avenue, 33755/727-461-5291.
Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner.
Community Development - 2003-0617
1
6/17/03
.
This 0.16-acre site is an undeveloped, vacant lot located at the northwest corner of
Nicholson Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. The site has remained vacant since the demolition
of a duplex years ago. The proposal is to construct a one story, single-family dwelling unit. Due
to the double frontage created by the corner lot location, a reduction from the Minimum
Standard Development required in the Community Development Code is requested. The
reduction is from the required 25 feet front setback along Nicholson Street to 17.8 inches (house
to property line) and the 25 feet front setback along Pennsylvania Avenue to 10 feet (driveway
to property line). Side setbacks of 5 feet will be met. The house will be 1,636 square feet and
23.5 feet in height. A one-car attached garage is included with driveway along Nicholson Street.
This will be analogous in scale, size, and character to the surrounding residential neighborhood.
Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services Inc. is one of the four approved non-profits
under the City of Clearwater's Housing Division. Through these city approved Non-Profits,
assistance is provided in the form of a deferred payment loan with no interest and/or payments
as long as the borrower does not sell, refinance, rent or otherwise transfer title of the property.
This assistance compliments Objective 16.2 in the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan stating that,
liThe City of Clearwater shall continue to provide assistance and incentives for the development
of housing that is affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income households, including
those with special needs, consistent with the level of growth in these income categories."
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 15, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to reduce the front (south) setback along Nicholson Street from 25 feet to 17 feet 8
inches to house and reduce the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (driveway) as part of
the Residentiallnfill Project, under Section 2-304.G., with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval:
1. The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residential Infill
Project under the provisions of Section 2-304.G;
2. The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code, including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and
3. The development is compatible with the surrounding area.
AND
2.
Case: FLD2003-04020 - 19246 US Highway 19 N Level Two Application
Owner: Nation Land Trust.
Applicant: Lennie Jacobs.
Representative: Sally Lochmondy.
Location: 0.44 acres located on the west side of US Highway 19 N, approximately 600
feet north of Ham Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 309B.
Zoning: C, Commercial District.
Request: Flexible Development approval as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project to reduce the lot width from 200 feet to 70 feet, reduce the front (west) setback
from 25 feet to 15 feet, reduce the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 0.44 feet, reduce
the side (north) setback from 10 feet to four feet, and reduce the lot size from 40,000
square feet to 19,250 square feet.
.
Community Development - 2003-0617
2
6/17/03
.
Proposed Use:Vehicle sales and display in association with an existing auto sales
use.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Michael Reynolds, Senior Planner.
This 19,250 square foot lot has approximately 70 feet of frontage on the west side of US
Highway 19 North. There is an existing one-story, 1,972 square foot building that is proposed to
remain. There are two existing trees, located toward the front and the rear of the site, along the
north property line. There are some flowering plants located along a fence which separates the
auto sales establishment from the multi-family residential development. The site is relatively
flat. The property directly north is a Pontiac dealership. The site directly south houses a car
rental business. Directly west is a multifamily residential land use.
.
An automotive sales business is currently operating at this site. The site plan proposes a
reduction in asphalt, additional landscaping, and a provision of 11 parking spaces. Due to lot
size, the number of vehicles on display for sale should be limited to only what can fit within the
limits of the outside vehicular sales display area (4, 122 square feet).
Ingress and egress is facilitated by one curb cut to US Highway 19. There are 11 parking
spaces for employees and customers, including one handicap space. Four spaces are on the
north side and seven spaces are on the south side. Vehicle sales outside display accounts for
4,122 square feet of the lot. There is an existing 1,972 square foot building. The vehicular
circulation is linear, east to west from the curb cut. The existing landscaping will be enhanced,
which will help to improve the appearance of the site along US Highway 19. The plantings will
include 20 trees, with a mix of Cabbage Palm, Southern Magnolia, and Live Oak. Numerous
shrubs will also be planted. Parson Juniper is proposed as ground cover. Weed-free grass sod
pads will be installed as well.
Aside from the existing building, the site is almost all pavement. Removing of some of
the pavement will result in a reduction of runoff. Runoff will also be reduced by the small swale
to be constructed at the rear of the site. Most of the drainage will go the front of the site. There
is no new signage proposed at this time. All existing signage needs to be brought into
compliance. There are no plans to modify the existing building. The solid waste dumpster will
be shared with the abutting lot to the south. The dumpster, within an enclosure and on a
concrete pad, will be located on the abutting lot.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 15, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development request to reduce the lot width from 200 feet to 70 feet, reduce the front (west)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet, reduce the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 0.44 feet, reduce
the side (north) setback from 10 feet to four feet, and reduce the lot size from 40,000 square
feet to 19,250 square feet, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Sections 2-704., with a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions
of Section 3-1202, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval:
1. The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704;
.
2. The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913;
Community Development - 2003-0617
3
6/17/03
. 3. The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other
redevelopment efforts; and
4. The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.
Conditions of Approval:
1. The outdoor vehicle display will not encroach into any customer or employee parking
spaces, drive aisles or landscaped areas;
2. The asphalt removal will require removing base and to backfill with proper soil;
3. The solid waste dumpster (shared) on Ham Boulevard comply with City codes;
4. The on-loading or off-loading of vehicles from any transport vehicle occur on-site
and not within any abutting right-of-way; and
5. All signage meet Code and be architecturally integrated into the design of the site
and/or buildings. All signage needs to be brought into compliance and inspected by the
Sign Inspector prior to the issuance of an Occupational License.
AND
.
3.
Case: ANX2003-04008 - 2040 Range Road Level Three Application
Owners: Range Road Partners, LLC.
Applicants: Colontonio's Fine Foods, Incorporated.
Location: 1.10-acres located on the north side of Range Road, approximately 200 feet
east of Hercules Avenue.
Atlas Page: 271 B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 1.10 acres to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Land Use Plan amendment from the IL, Industrial Limited Classification (County) to
the IL, Industrial Limited Classification (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from the M-1, Light Manufacturing and Industry (County) to the IRT,
Industrial, Research & Technology District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Existing warehouse.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner.
.
The subject property is located on the north side of Range Road, at 2040 Range Road,
approximately 200 feet east of Hercules Avenue. The applicant is requesting this annexation to
receive City sewer service. The property is located in an enclave that is surrounded by city
property on all sides and is within the borders of the City's planning area; therefore the
proposed annexation is consistent with Pinellas County Ordnance 00-63 with regards to
voluntary annexation. The subject site is approximately 1.1 O-acres in area and is occupied by
an existing warehouse use. It is proposed that the property have a Future Land Use Plan
designation of Industrial Limited (IL) and a zoning category of IRT, Industrial, Research and
Technology.
Community Development - 2003-0617
4
6/17/03
.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including water,
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The applicant has paid the required sanitary sewer impact fee and
assessment fee and is also aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City
sewer system.
The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the Pinellas Planning Council's Countywide Plan Rules with regard to both the Future
Land Use Map and the goals and policies. The existing and future use of this site as a
warehouse use is consistent with the IRT zoning district. Finally, the proposed annexation is
consistent with Pinellas County law regarding voluntary annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following
actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of the property located at 2040 Range
Road; 2) approval of the Industrial Limited (IL) category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive
Plan; and 3) approval of the IRT, Industrial, Research and Technology zoning district pursuant
to the City's Community Development Code.
AND
4.
Case: ANX2003-04009 - 2500 Sunset Point Road Level Three Application
Owners/Applicants: Robert & Marcia Warren (727.799.1960).
Location: 0.20-acres located on the north side of Sunset Point Road, approximately
1,200 feet west of US Highway 19 North.
Atlas Page: 254B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.20 acres to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Land Use Plan amendment from the CG, Commercial General Classification
(County) to the CG, Commercial General Classification (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District (County) to the C,
Commercial District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Existing retail florist shop.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Planner.
.
The subject property is located at 2500 Sunset Point Road, which is on the north side of
the street approximately 1,200 feet west of US Highway 19 North. The applicant is requesting
this annexation in order to receive City sewer service. The property is contiguous with the
existing City boundaries to the south; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with
Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is approximately 0.20
acres in area and is occupied by an existing retail sales and service use. It is proposed that the
property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial General (CG) and a zoning
category of C, Commercial.
.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including
sanitary sewer, solid waste, police, fire and emergency medical services without any adverse
effect on the service level. The applicant has paid the required sanitary sewer impact fee and
assessment fee and is also aware of the additional cost to connect the property to the City
sewer system.
The proposed annexation and existing use are consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Community Development - 2003-0617
5
6/17/03
.
.
.
Plan and the Pinellas Planning Council's Countywide Plan Rules with regard to both the Future
Land Use Map and the goals and policies. The existing and future use of this site as a retail
sales and service use is consistent with the C zoning district. Finally, the proposed annexation
is consistent with Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing
City boundaries and is compact in concentration.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following
actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of the property located at 2500 Sunset
Point Road; 2) approval of the Commercial General (CG) category pursuant to the City's
Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the C, Commercial zoning district pursuant to the City's
Community Development Code.
Member Mazur moved to approve Consent Agenda items D1, Case FLD2003-04018 for
914 Nicholson Street; Item D2, Case FLD2003-04020 for 19246 US Highway 19N with
conditions listed; Item D3, Case ANX2003-04008 for 2040 Range Road; and Item D4, Case
ANX2003-04009 for 2500 Sunset Point Road. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
E. NON-CONSENT AGENDA (Items 1 - 3):
1.
Case: FLD2002-12045 - 657 Court Street Level Two Application
Owners: The CEPCOT Corporation and Clearwater Train Station, Inc.
Applicant: The CEPCOT Corporation.
Representative: Mr. Randy Wedding; Wedding, Stephenson & Ibarguen Architects, Inc.
Location: 0.95-acres located on the west side of East Avenue between Court Street and
Chestnut Street.
Atlas Page: 286B.
Zoning: D, Downtown District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in the
Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-903.C.
Proposed Use: The redevelopment of the site with a 3,200 square-foot
convenience store with gas pumps.
Neighborhood Association(s): Pierce 100 Condominium Association (Terry Turner,
100 Pierce Street, #710, Clearwater, FL, 33756).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner.
Member Plisko declared a conflict of interest.
This case was continued at the March 18, 2003, Community Development Board
meeting at the request of the applicant in order to resolve site plan issues.
The 0.95-acre site is a triple-fronted lot with frontages on Chestnut Street to the south,
East Avenue to the east and Court Street to the north. The surrounding area is developed with
office-type uses to the west and south, a utility plant (under construction) for the Church of
Scientology to the north, and warehouse-type buildings to the east. With the construction of the
new Memorial Causeway bridge, traffic patterns accessing the beach will be re-routed to Court
Street (westbound) and Chestnut Street (eastbound). Railroad tracks and the Pinellas Trail are
adjacent along the east side of the property, within the East Avenue right-of-way.
Community Development - 2003-0617
6
6/17/03
.
The site currently is developed with a restaurant at the northeast corner (former train
station), a retail sales (thrift) store at the northwest corner, and Freedom Park (privately owned)
on the south side. The restaurant/historic train station is located immediately west of the
Pinellas Trail. All existing improvements will be razed as part of the redevelopment of the site.
There are some large trees on the southern portion of the site worthy of preservation.
The proposal includes the redevelopment of the site as an automobile service station
consisting of a 3,200 square-foot retail sales/convenience store and two gas pump islands (one
on the north side; one on the south side). The retail sales/convenience store is proposed to be
adjacent to East Avenue/Pinellas Trail, with the building set back 15.75 feet from the east
property line. The entrance to the building is on the west side adjacent to the parking area. The
building is designed with sidewalk access from the Pinellas Trail, with a bike rack with benches
between the building and the trail. Windows are shown on the east and west sides of the
building. Limited windows are on the north and south sides. Parking is proposed on the north,
west and south sides of the building. This is a suburban-style design. Vehicular access is
proposed from Court and Chestnut Streets. The existing driveway access from East Avenue
will be eliminated. A number of large trees, including a 35-inch oak tree, are being preserved.
The proposed convenience store and gas canopies will have pitched roofs, finished with
terracotta tile. The building and gas canopies will be painted buff yellow with accent banding in
a darker shade and forest green window and door frames. No specific tenant is identified at this
time, so only attached signage areas are shown. Both freestanding and attached signage must
meet Code requirements. In the Downtown District, freestanding signs are limited to six feet in
height with a monument style design.
.
The applicant proposes canopies covering each of the two gas pump islands, one on the
north side of the site off Court Street and the other on the south side off Chestnut Street. Each
island will have four gas pumping stations (with access from either side). A dumpster enclosure
is shown at the southeast corner of the convenience store.
The drainage design under this proposal provides a small retention pond southwest of
the convenience store building, as well as a vault for storage under the parking lot adjacent to
Chestnut Street. Vaults within vehicular areas need to be designed with sufficient structural
strength (as a bridge-type structure) for delivery and fire truck traffic. Should the request be
approved by the Community Development Board, this should be a condition of approval.
The site is located within the Downtown District, a designated redevelopment area. An
automobile service station is not a permitted use in the Downtown District. This request is being
processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as the only method the use can be
requested within the Downtown District. With the adoption of the Community Development
Code in 1999, an automobile service station use was specifically not included as a permitted
use in the Downtown District, rendering all existing automobile service stations in the Downtown
District nonconforming uses. The Community Development Code lists all "permitted uses"
within each zoning classification and the three respective development options (Standard,
Flexible Standard and Flexible). Therefore, uses not listed as permitted uses are prohibited.
The Community Development Board has the discretion to review this proposal against the
standards within the Community Development Code and the pending Downtown Plan Update.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on January 16, February 13, and May 15, 2003. Inconsistencies with the pending Downtown
Plan Update are significant and have impacts beyond the borders of the proposed amendment
Community Development - 2003-0617
7
6/17/03
.
.
.
site. In particular, an automobile-oriented use in the heart of Downtown does nothing to further
the designed pedestrian-orientation of an urban center. When evaluated against the 1995
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, the Design Guidelines
and Community Development Code, the proposal is inconsistent with those goals and
recommendations. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development
application to permit an automobile service station in the Downtown District (as a
Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Project) under the provisions of Section 2-903.C for the
site at 657 Court Street, with the following bases:
Bases for Denial:
1. The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code,
Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown
Design Guidelines;
2. The proposal is inconsistent with and prohibited within the Downtown of the pending
update of the Downtown Plan;
3. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the Downtown
District;
4. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to
Downtown redevelopment;
5. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-803; and
6. The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code including the
General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913.
In response to a question, Senior Planner Wayne Wells said although the staff report
makes a reference to the pending update of the Downtown Plan, staff's recommendation for
denial of this request was based on the current Downtown Plan. Assistant City Attorney Leslie
Dougall-Sides said there is case law with respect to the pending amendment to the Downtown
Plan being applicable if the appropriate department is pursuing an amendment, which could
culminate in a zoning change. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said staff references the
pending Downtown Plan Update because the City Commission has held several public
meetings which included specific issues related to automobile services in the Downtown core
being undesirable. She said staff also had presented a review of the proposed character
districts and capital improvement projects, which included prohibition of the proposed use in the
Downtown core. Staff agrees that certain uses are undesirable in the Downtown. She said as
this proposed use is not listed in the current Downtown Plan, it is prohibited. She said if a use is
not listed in the plan, the only opportunity the applicant would have is for the application to be
heard by the CDB as a comprehensive infill development application. It is the responsibility of
the appropriate regulatory agency to determine if the application is consistent with the City's
goals, vision, and applicable law.
Ed Armstrong, applicant's representative, said the staff report repeatedly references
prohibited use. He questioned how the applicant could come before the CDB if this application
was a prohibited use. Ms. Tarapani said the application is inconsistent with the current and
proposed Downtown Plan. She reiterated that the proposed use is not listed in the Code, and is
Community Development - 2003-0617
8
6/17/03
.
.
.
therefore prohibited. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said staff has other site plan concerns
with this application that have been addressed separately from the proposed use.
Randolph Wedding, architect, referred to the applicant's site plan. He said this
application was submitted to staff three or four times. Numerous site plan issues were resolved
with staff in an attempt to develop a plan that would conform to the design guidelines. He
reviewed the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Armstrong said staff is recommending denial of this application, however a large
portion of their objection appears to be based on the pending Downtown Plan Update. He
objected to the reference that the building on this property is a historical one, as it was restored
and very little of the original architecture remains. He said the property owner could demolish
the building if he so chose.
Ethel Hammer, Englehardt, Hammer & Associates, reviewed her credentials as an
expert witness for the applicant. She reviewed the proposed site plan and its proximity to the
downtown core. Her opinion was the proposed project would be a convenience for Pinellas
Trail users and would be compatible with surrounding uses. She said a planning association
study done in 1993 indicated that most cities permit automobile service stations in their
downtowns, some of which are permitted as a conditional use if they meet the criteria in the
Code. She said a study on convenient stores focused on appropriate locations for compatibility,
hours of operation, etc., but made no mention of prohibiting them in specific areas. She said by
virtue of the fact that the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria allows the use, it
is permitted. In response to a question, Ms. Hammer said any community could establish
whatever it desires its downtown to be with respect to its planning philosophy, however those
desires should be based on the wants and needs of the community. She said the only reason
the applicant must go through the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment process is because this
use is not permitted in any other section of the Code. In response to a question, Ms. Hammer
said she researched cities comparable to Clearwater and found that Tampa, Orlando,
Bradenton, and Sarasota permit service stations in their downtowns, but St. Petersburg does
not. She said Largo uses performance standards for various uses; Dunedin and Oldsmar are
not comparable in size to Clearwater. In response to a question, Mr. Armstrong said the cities
on the chart supplied by Ms. Hammer provide Conditional Use for Special Exception criteria
similar to Clearwater's where a board judges applications against that criteria.
Member Gildersleeve moved to accept Ethel Hammer as an expert in her field. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Armstrong referred to two sets of City meeting minutes regarding discussion of
prohibited uses in the downtown. Ms. Tarapani disagreed with Mr. Armstrong's opinion that
there the Commission gave staff no direction at those meetings regarding prohibition of
automobile uses in downtown. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani reviewed the criteria in
the Code for permissible, prohibited, and flexible standard uses. She said in October 2002,
general discussion was held at a public meeting regarding the vision for downtown with
subsequent discussions thereafter. She said the Downtown Plan Update would go to the
Commission in August. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said after discussions with the
Commission, staff felt that adult uses should specifically be addressed in the Code. She said
the ability to submit an application to the City is merely a due process issue. The appropriate
regulatory agency is responsible to determine if the application is consistent with the adopted
Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Design Guidelines, and applicable laws. She said
Community Development - 2003-0617
9
6/17/03
.
.
.
approval of this application would encourage other like uses in the downtown that cater to
automobiles instead of pedestrians. In response to a question, she said retail uses are allowed.
in the downtown.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani reviewed the criteria for listing on the Historic
Register. It was suggested that staff Item #2 under Bases for Denial in the staff report be
deleted, as it refers to the applicability of the project with the pending Downtown Plan Update.
Discussion continued regarding how the proposed project fits with the City's vision for the
downtown.
Member Gildersleeve moved to deny Item E1, Case FLD2002-12045 for 657 Court
Street, a request for Flexible Development approval to permit an automobile service station in
the Downtown District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-903.C, and that Item #2 under Bases for Denial in the staff report be deleted. The
motion was duly seconded and upon the vote being taken, Members Hooper, Gildersleeve,
Moran, Milam, and Chair Petersen voted "aye"; Members Mazur and Doran voted "nay";
Member Plisko abstained. Motion carried.
The meeting recessed from 3:31 to 3:42 p.m.
2.
Case: FLD2002-10036 - 900 North Osceola Avenue Level Two Application
Owner: Decade 80-XIV.
Applicant: Clearwater Bay Marina, LLC.
Representative: Don Harrill (work: 727 -443-3207/ fax: 727-443-3349/ email:
d harrill@vahoo. com).
Location: 8.89-acres located on the east and west sides of North Osceola Avenue,
south of Nicholson Street and west of North Fort Harrison Avenue.
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning: D, Downtown District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to increase the height of a building with
attached dwellings from 30 feet to 138 feet (as measured from base flood elevation), as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C,
and to reduce the buffer width along the north property line from 10 feet to five feet (to
fire access drive), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: A mixed-use development with 134 attached condominium
dwellings, four attached townhome dwellings and a 120-slip marina (62 public
slips and 58 slips reserved for condos).
Neighborhood Association(s):
> Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association: Rowland Milam, 1828 Venetian Point
Drive, Clearwater, FL 33755/727-461-1929.
> Edgewater Drive Homeowners Association: Chip Potts, 1150 Commodore, St.
Clearwater FL 33755/727-448-0093.
> North Greenwood Association: Jonathon Wade, 908 Pennsylvania Ave., Clearwater
FL 33755/727-461-5291.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, Senior Planner.
The parcel is 8.89 acres north of the Downtown core and abuts Clearwater Harbor to the
west. Of this acreage, only 5.03 acres is developable, with 4.52 acres in submerged, water
area that they own. Also, approximately five acres are zoned Downtown District and 3.8 acres
are zoned Preservation District. The property is on a sloped bluff with a grade differential of
Community Development - 2003-0617
10
6/17/03
.
approximately 23 feet. The parcel is in two parts, with the eastern portion located between N.
Ft. Harrison Avenue and N. Osceola Avenue at the intersection of Nicholson Street. The
western main portion is west of the N. Osceola Avenue and Nicholson Street intersection and is
north of the Seminole Street Boat Launching Ramp.
The eastern portion of the site between N. Osceola Avenue and N. Ft. Harrison Avenue
is occupied by a vacant two-story masonry building. The site almost is entirely covered by
asphalt and buildings. The western, main portion of the site has a mixture of existing structures.
A small, wood-frame house and a two-story garage with a rental unit are located along the
northeast property line fronting North Osceola Avenue. The applicant owns two out of three lots
on the south side of Cedar Street to the north, although not part of this application. The north
property line has a masonry retaining wall that will remain with this proposal. Boat repair and
dry-dock storage bays occupy the area along the north property line. The height of those dry-
dock buildings is approximately 40 feet. There are open and covered boat slips in the water
along the east end of the marina. A charter boat (SunCruz Casino) leases the site for docking,
but has not operated for approximately one year. The leasing office is within a one-story, 3,850
square-foot, masonry building along the southern property line. A 500 square foot bait
house/restrooms is located near the southwest corner of the property, adjacent to the public
boat ramp. An office building is adjacent to N. Osceola Avenue. The vegetation along N.
Osceola Avenue is poorly maintained. The overall site appearance is poor and is targeted for
redevelopment within the City's Periphery Plan and pending Downtown Plan Update.
.
The surrounding parcels include a mix of land uses. North Ward Elementary School is
to the north across Nicholson Street and to the east across N. Osceola Avenue. A mix of
single-family and small multi-family buildings are along the northwest property boundary. A
funeral home and the Clearwater Little Theater are along the southern property lines. The
Seminole Street Boat Launching Ramp is adjacent to the southwest corner of the site.
Generally, the area remains in fair condition.
.
The proposal is to transform the site into a mixed-use site, with a total of 138 dwelling
units (134 attached and 4 townhouses) and a 120-slip marina. Two attached dwelling
(condominium) buildings containing a total of 134 units with a three-level parking structure
connecting the two buildings are proposed. The northern building is proposed to be 127 feet in
height (measured from base flood elevation), while the southern building is proposed to be 138
feet in height. Four attached dwellings (townhouses) along the south side of the marina in one
building are also proposed. The existing public 120-slip marina will be redeveloped and
renovated into 62 public slips and 58 slips reserved for the condominiums. All existing
structures and uses on-site will be removed under this proposal, including all covers over the
existing boat slips, with the exception of the existing bait house/restrooms on the far west
portion of the site adjacent to the City boat ramps. The applicant currently has a management
contract with the City for operation of the bait house/restrooms, which is accessed solely from
the adjacent City property (Seminole Landing Boat Ramp). To reflect the significant upgrade of
the property over that of the existing development, the chain link fence existing along the south
property line should be replaced with a decorative fence including masonry columns and metal
grills. The exterior of the condominium buildings will be antique white and Navajo white colored
stucco accented by sea sand cast stone banding, white balustrades and trim and two shades of
green tile roofs. Each unit will have primary balconies overlooking the bay. Two vehicular
access points will be provided from North Osceola Avenue; the northernmost entrance will be
restricted for resident use.
Community Development - 2003-0617
11
6/17/03
.
.
.
The property adjacent to N. Ft. Harrison Avenue is currently accessible from N. Osceola
Avenue and Ft. Harrison Avenue. The masonry building will be removed, as well as most
pavement. This area of the overall site will be redeveloped as a main driveway
access/prominade to the site west of N. Osceola Avenue. It will be well designed with
landscaping to serve as a more prominent entryway to the development. The proposal includes
a tennis court adjacent to N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Nicholson Street and open play area to
the west of the tennis court. An existing drainage retention pond adjacent to N. Osceola
Avenue and Nicholson Street will be retained.
Redevelopment of the property as proposed will not degrade the Level of Service (LOS)
on Ft. Harrison Avenue. A Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by the applicant's consultant,
reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Operations Division, shows that the expected trip
volumes represent less than one percent of the Ft. Harrison Avenue peak hour volume, which is
insignificant. The current LOS for Ft. Harrison Avenue is LOS "D," although recent modeling of
this segment of road by the Metropolitan Planning Organization revise this segment to a LOS
"C". The projected LOS for this segment of Ft. Harrison is estimated to remain at LOS "C" with
the proposed project.
The proposed site intensity is consistent with the Periphery Plan. The Periphery Plan
allows for a floor area ratio of 0.5 and an allowable density of 50 dwelling units per acre for
properties in excess of two acres. The site is 8.89 acres, of which the 5.034 acres zoned
Downtown District will be used to calculate the project intensity. After calculating the mixed-use
formula, it has been determined that the site's maximum development potential is 250 dwelling
units. The proposed project falls well below the permitted density and intensity requirements.
The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review
Committee on November 14,2002 and April 17, 2003. The Planning Department recommends
approval of the Flexible Development request to increase the height of a building with attached
dwellings from 30 feet to 138 feet (as measured from base flood elevation), as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, in
conjunction with a 120-slip marina (62 slips public; 58 slips for condo use) and to reduce the
buffer width along the north property line from 10 feet to five feet (to fire access drive), as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for the property
at 900 North Osceola Avenue, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval:
1. The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project per Section 2-903.C;
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 similar
improvement efforts.
Conditions of Approval:
1.
The final design of the buildings be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted
or as modified by the CDB;
Community Development - 2003-0617
12
6/17/03
.
.
.
2.
A Unity of Title be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits tying all parcels together
as one lot;
3. All freestanding signage be mOl'lument-style signs, coordinated with the color of the
building. A Comprehensive Sign Program shall be submitted for monument signage six
feet in height;
4. The covers over the boat slips along the east end of the marina be removed prior to the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the attached dwellings;
5. The existing charter boats cease operations and relinquish their occupational licenses
prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the attached dwellings;
6. That there be no live-a boards in the marina;
7. Boats moored in the private slips of the marina be for the exclusive use by the residents
and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately
from the condominiums;
8. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 303, Standards for Marinas and
Boat yards, be met for the marina (public and private slips) to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department prior to the issuance of building permits;
9. All applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall
setbacks;
10. If changes to the bait house/restrooms are contemplated that will result in an
amendment to the proposed site plan, the applicant shall notify the City 90 days prior to the
expiration of the management contract. The applicant shall negotiate in good faith with the City
to address extension of the management contract or in revising the site plan, prior to the
expiration of the contract;
11. A final landscape plan acceptable to the Planning Department be submitted and
approved prior to building permit issuance; and
12. The existing chain link fence along the south property line be replaced with a decorative
fence including masonry columns and metal grills.
Mr. Wells said "existing conditions" on page 2 of the staff report was changed to read
.... .5.034 acres is developable..."
Mr. Wells said this application is before the CDB as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project due to the request for the proposed buildings to be higher than 100 feet
as measured from the base flood elevation. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the
charter boat operations in this location would be required to cease operations due to the number
of boat slips proposed to be rented. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said if SunCruz was
notified that they would not be permitted to operate in this location in the future.
Gerald Figurski, applicant's representative, confirmed that the SunCruz lease expires in
August 2003 and would not be renewed if this application were approved. The other three small
charter boat operations have leases that would expire in six months that also would not be
renewed. Mr. Figurski said the applicant's request fulfills all the City's Code requirements. He
Community Development - 2003-0617
13
6/17/03
.
.
.
said the proposal includes residential uses with a marina and restaurant. The current use is a
marina that performs welding, repairs, painting, etc., and has had a history of code enforcement
issues including noise. He reviewed the site plan and the existing uses in the area and said the
proposed use is more compatible than the current use. Mr. Figurski said in December 2001, the
CDB approved a 100-foot high, 140-unit condominium project at this location. He stated at that
time, there was no question on the part of the applicant and the City that the Morgans, who
reside adjacent to this project, knew the applicant would come back before the CDB to request
greater density and greater height. Mr. Figurski said the applicant withdrew his initial application
for a 163-foot high project and submitted one for a 149-foot high project. This proposal is for a
138-foot high project. He said the proposed project would increase ad valorem taxes for the
City, provide impact fees, create new jobs, and revitalize the downtown. He requested Robert
Pergolizzi, architect, be accepted as an expert in his field.
Member Gildersleeve moved to accept Robert Pergolizzi as an expert in his field. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Robert Pergolizzi, land use and transportation consultant, said the project area currently
permits a density of up to 50 units per acre and consolidation of properties for redevelopment.
The applicant could develop a maximum of 250 units, but is only proposing 138 units, or 55% of
the permitted density. He said the Northwest Expansion Area of the Periphery Plan encourages
the development of townhomes and condominiums. The area is primarily comprised of
multifamily developments at a high density. The staff report states the project would hopefully
create a positive development. Mr. Pergolizzi said this project would reduce the impervious
surface ratio, would provide more green space, and would replace the current use with a
quieter, more compatible use. There would be adequate parking underneath buildings. He said
this project would serve as a catalyst for redevelopment.
Member Hooper moved to accept Richard Gillette as an expert in his field. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Richard Gillette, architect, said this project is a great opportunity for redevelopment in
the area. It provides three important links to the downtown. The water vista would be
preserved and a park would front the property on Ft. Harrison Avenue. The buildings would
have separations equal to the height. Buildings would include distinctive pavilions, a sloped
roof, and angles on the sides of buildings to soften their appearance. He reviewed the
proposed landscaping, garden and pool deck area, setbacks, etc.
Member Gildersleeve moved to accept Nicoholas Clarizio as an expert in his field. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Nicholas Clarizio, real estate appraiser, said he was unable to quantify any significant
reduction in property values due to the proposed use.
Ms. Tarapani said the applicant's previous application was approved in December 2000
and expired in 2002 because the applicant did not obtain a building permit for the site. She said
downtown zoning allows up to 250 units under two conditions: 1) The project must front on
Clearwater Bay, and 2) the project must be in the geographic area south of Drew Street and
west of Myrtle Avenue. This project is north of Drew Street, therefore the request has been
brought before this board as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project.
Three persons spoke in favor of the application.
Community Development - 2003-0617
14
6/17/03
.
.
.
Eleven persons spoke in opposition of the application.
It was remarked that Member Milam resides near the proposed development. After
responding to questions from Ms. Dougall-Sides, Ms. Dougall-Sides stated that Member Milam
did not need to recuse herself from the discussion.
In response to questions, Mr. Wells said an applicant has the right to have their request
evaluated based on criteria in the Code. He said the maximum height is not a matter of right.
In response to a question, Mr. Clarizio said he reviewed nearby properties and those
adjacent to high-rise developments. He did not compare single-family homes adjacent to
marinas, or the same homes adjacent to condominiums, as there was no available data.
Member Hooper moved to accept Ethel Hammer as an expert in the field of planning.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Ms. Hammer said the proposed project would adversely affect the surrounding area.
She said there would be noise and traffic impacts, loss of light and views to the adjacent
property owners, and it would impact the neighbors' privacy.
Shawn Galbraith, an opponent's photographer, submitted drawings of the proposed site.
Mr. Pergolizzi said the traffic on Osceola Avenue was not analyzed, as it was not a
requirement of the City, and there is no traffic problem on that roadway. He said the view of
nearby residents would not be impacted, as their current view is of a 40-foot high marina facility.
This proposal includes a view corridor to the south and the building would be oriented in a
westerly configuration to retain the water views.
Mr. Gillette said the large drawings submitted in opposition of the application were
inaccurate as they were computer-generated drawings made from photographs. They are
inaccurate with respect to heights, lengths, and widths of the project.
Mr. Figurski said the proposal meets the requirements in the Code with respect to
consistency and compatibility of the surrounding area. He said the City's former consultant
Charlie Siemon had indicated there is a need for residential uses in this area. Mr. Figurski
submitted maps of the project and petitions in favor of the project. In response to a question,
Mr. Figurski said the proposed parking garage would be 400 feet long. He said the eastern
boundary of the building would be farther to the west than the original project that was approved
in 2000.
Mr. Gillette said the proposed building would be 237 feet in length. The previously
approved project was 80 feet east of the bulkhead. This project would open the view corridor 12
degrees farther to the west. The 400-foot long parking garage may impact one of the residents,
as that house is 14 feet above grade, however that side of the garage would include
landscaping and trellises to obstruct the view of the garage. Mr. Figurski said the top of the
parking garage is lower than the existing marina. In response to a question, Mr. Figurski said
the proposed swimming pool would be on top of the parking garage.
Community Development - 2003-0617
15
6/17/03
.
Mr. Figurski requested the CDB view a two-minute portion of a video tape of a previous
CDB meeting regarding comments about a nearby resident's position on the previous proposal.
Discussion ensued and Mr. Figurski withdrew his request.
In response to questions, Mr. Figurski reviewed the proximity of nearby residential
properties to the proposed development.
In response to a question, Mr. Figurski said Mr. Gillette has indicated that the
comparison of the previous plan versus the proposed plan as offered by one of the persons in
opposition to the application was acceptable.
In response to a question, Engineering Director Mike Quillen said a traffic analysis report
was done on Osceola Avenue during the review of the Osceola Bay project. He did not recall
the speCific number of trips on Osceola Avenue. It was remarked that there is a stretch of
Osceola Avenue that is heavily traveled.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the opportunity for higher density along
Clearwater Harbor and Osceola Avenue is addressed in the pending Downtown Plan Update.
The vision also is addressed, however there is no specific calculation to achieve the transition in
that district of the downtown. Ms. Dougall-Sides said although the pending Downtown Plan
Update is referenced in this case, it was not used as a basis for staff's recommendation for
approval of this request.
.
Concern was expressed that it would be difficult for emergency vehicles to access the
north and south towers as presented in this project. It was remarked that redevelopment needs
to be sensitive to neighboring single-family residences. It was suggested the density of this
project be reconsidered. One member said the previous proposal by this applicant was of a
completely different design than the one submitted today.
Member Plisko moved to deny Item E2, Case FLD2002-10036 for 900 North Osceola
Avenue, a request for Flexible Development approval to increase the height of a building with
attached dwellings from 30 feet to 138 feet (as measured from base flood elevation), as a
Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C, and to
reduce the buffer width along the north property line from 10 feet to five feet (to fire access
drive), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
The motion was duly seconded, and upon the vote being taken, Members Hooper, Plisko,
Doran, Milam, and Chair Petersen voted "aye"; Members Gildersleeve and Moran voted "nay".
Motion carried.
3.
Case: TA2003-01002 - Code Amendments To be continued to July 15,2003
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Community Development Code as relating to
Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Projects, prohibited signs, residential, adopt-a-park
and portable storage unit signage, changes to the length of time for Level One (Flexible
Standard Development) and Level Two (Flexible Development) reviews, various
clarifications with regard to Level One and Level Two reviews, clarification of the effect
of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) and Level Two (Flexible Development)
approvals, minor amendment provisions regarding changes to Level Two development
approvals, increasing the number of times and under what circumstances Level One
(Flexible Standard Development) and Level Two (Flexible Development) approvals can
be extended and adding a definition for adopt-a-park signs.
.
Community Development - 2003-0617
16
6/17/03
.
.
.
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner.
Member Doran moved to continue Item E3, Case TA2003-01002, Code Amendments, to
the July 15, 2003, CDB meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
F. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
Discussion ensued regarding the length of the July 15, 2003, CDB meeting agenda.
Consensus was to begin the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
It was requested that staff research if parking spaces can be reserved for CDB members
prior to meetings.
Member Doran thanked Mark Parry and Wayne Wells for attending the Neighborhood
Conference on June 14, 2003.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6: 16 p.m.
~ Or~~
Chair
Community Development Board
Community Development - 2003-0617
6/17/03
17
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, Alfl:.HORITY, OR COMMITTEE
7. () (2- .:rr. CoMM tV I J)E, V I t:S (2../
ILlNG ADDRESS 1\ J, THE BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
J,I, 3 V Y"f"I'\; ~ 0 ("" WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY c.... (J COUNTY CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
'/'{ ".l.. .r- -01 . , 'L- A ~ NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVI?JON: /"
V ~rwa., Y I IV c.-:; Cle.c,"'w..v~
DATE ON, WHI ,H VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS:
'-' 0 ELECTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instruCtions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a .
re which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (includin
rent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the contlict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
W'OU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL.
"KEN;
· You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CEFORM8B-EF~1~OOO
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
· A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
· The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
.
· You must disclose orally the nature of your contlict in the measure before participating.
· You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
I,~
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
1/ /' -J-f-., hereby disclose that on 6 /; 7
, 20 !Z3...:
(a) A measure came or will co e before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or Joss of my business associate,
_ inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
~ured to the special gain or loss of c..,leY''''''''"foG J-
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
-
~~M~
, by
,which
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
NO ~~5 ~~;t ~
~ M Nv'-~':c_ *-- ---Jf" ~
.
~~"ul...-.!..::::_
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
EMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, 0
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 . EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNT~ MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
CITY
COUNTY
,', . ,.- c' .., ~7
!f"~ I .(1,/ ~; f"od'''d',fII'''lt '
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
C:..)"J.-i //f:.-t.A/l r'7 PC; V f;:-t...C, 'J~A."'1V7 t:>C'
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
(x;ITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
,;.. ' i , t CA:_G}tV ri:: ;..<'/,;IV t' c- /.--
LAST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME
.. A f.- f::.: ~.~
I
i:;?t2... t:$t...i_.) ....,;,;:..' l'
~ ..~.. .t.. i'V /< (..A 'i...) It lyrL.
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
/ \:~<, . /
'-'"
o ELECTIVE
APPOINTIVE
MY POSITION IS:
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a contlict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a .
re which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including
rent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the contlict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the contlict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction. .
.._~~;INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL
must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
j 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
· A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
· The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
fI
· You must disclose orally the nature of your contlict in the measure before participating.
· You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
I,
A ,'-
f..., b .iK.-
ii-l '-7,.:.)0
.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
(p --- i "7
, hereby disclose that on
," )'
,20 ,,-''-J:
"
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
;-::.. inured to the special gain or loss of /::"Af:O
rl-t,,-,' "V)A ;;..
, by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
,which
~f.l, GY)' r7r.~/ vv) /OJ "';'
I .
I :1
~:.\
G~':; ,:;...,
e ,fr"
~'
tY
/
.f
"
/, J "'-1 / 'i?JIIr":7. /) ,I'
j/V /L-i...1 { '::....c,-TL.t /<...Iv \....-
f;~-:-;:. tJ ! '/...-", /
fir'-" I
/ 7 "2-
....,1 -I / /C-, ;;
,,./
Date Filed
,/ J/'-"J j"
// /:>', - ,/~ ,/
'/-Jf' .r ,,' / v-:____."
</vYJ ~
,:;;,..../?
Signature /"
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
EMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, 01lA
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. _
CE FORM 88 . EFF. 1/2000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 17.. 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
657 Court Street
FLD2002-12045
CEPCOT Corp. and
ClealWater Train Station, Inc.
~s +no
900 North Osceola Avenue FLD2002-10036
Decade 80-XIV;
Cleatwater Bay Marina, LLC.
yes
no
914 Nicholson Street
FLD2003-040 18
Cleatwater Neighborhood
Housing Services
~ +no
yes
FL=4::0
National Land Trust
19246 U.S. Highway 19 N
Page 1 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Meeting Date: June 17. 2003
2040 Range Road
ANX2003-04008
Range Road Partners, LLC.;
Colontonio's Fine Foods, Inc.
yes
no
ANX2003-04009
A-no
Robert & Marcia Warren
2500 Sunset Point Road
yes
6/7(0)
Date:
S:\P/anning Department\C D BIAgendas CRC & CDB12003106-June 17, 20031CDB property investigation check list. doc
Page 2 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 17.. 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
657 Court Street
t/Ve5
900 North osceol7e
yes
914 Nicholson S7
yes
FLD2002-12045
CEPCOT Corp. and
Clearwater Train Station, Inc.
no
FLD2002-10036
Decade 80-XIV;
Clearwater Bay Marina, LLC.
no
FLD2003-04018
Clearwater Neighborhood
Housing Services
no
FLD2003-04020
National Land Trust
no
Page 1 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Meeting Date: June 17. 2003
2040 Range ROadJ
yes
ANX2003-04008
no
2500 Sunset PO~s
ANX2003-04009
no
Range Road Partners, LLC.;
Colontonio's Fine Foods, Inc.
Robert & Marcia Warren
Date:
S:IPlanning Department\C D BIAgendas CRC & CDB\2003106-June 17, 2003\CDB property investigation check list.doc
Page 2 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 17~ 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
657 Court Street
FLD2002-12045
CEPCOT Corp. and
Clearwater Train Station, Inc.
~yes
no
900 North Osceola Avenue FLD2002-10036
Decade 80-XIV;
Clearwater Bay Marina, LLC.
~yes
no
914 Nicholson Street
FLD2003-04018
Clearwater Neighborhood
Housing Services
~yes
no
19246 U.S. Highway 19 N FLD2003-04020
National Land Trust
~yes
no
Page 1 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Meeting Date: June 17.2003
2040 Range Road
ANX2003-04008
Range Road Partners, LLC.;
Colontonio's Fine Foods, Inc.
~
yes
no
2500 Sunset Point Road
ANX2003-04009
Robert & Marcia Warren
~yes
no
Signahrr~~
Date: \\ \1 \~
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas CRC & CDB12003\06-June J 7, 2003\CDB property investigation check list. doc
Page 2 of2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: June 17~ 2003
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
657 Court Street
FLD2002-12045
CEPCOT Corp. and
Clearwater Train Station, Inc.
yes
Ino
900 North Osceola Avenue FLD2002-10036
Decade 80-XN;
Clearwater Bay Marina, LLC.
/
no
yes
914 Nicholson Street
FLD2003-040 18
Clearwater Neighborhood
Housing Services
yes
/ no
19246 U.S. Highway 19 N
FLD27020
no
National Land Trust
yes
Page 1 0[2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Meeting Date: June 17.2003
2040 Range Road
ANX2003-04008
J
Range Road Partners, LLC.;
Colontonio's Fine Foods, Inc.
yes
no
ANX2003-04009
~no
Robert & Marcia Warren
2500 Sunset Point Road
yes
Signatu
Date:
S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas CRC & CDB\2003\06-June J 7, 2003\CDB property investigation check list. doc
Page 2 of2