Loading...
03/16/2004 . . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER March 16, 2004 Present: Ed Hooper John Doran David Gildersleeve Shirley Moran Alex Plisko Daniel Dennehy Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Acting Board Member Absent: Edward Mazur, Jr. Kathy Milam Board Member Board Member 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: February 17,2004 Member Doran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 17, 2004, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Item 1): 1. Case: FLD2003-12070 - 395 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Marla Winner. Representative: Fowler and Associates (Stephen Fowler, 1421 Court Street, Suite 0, Clearwater, FL 33756). Location: 0.09 acre located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of Pier 60 Drive. Atlas Page: 267 A. Zoning: T, Tourist District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a reduction to lot size from 5,000 square-feet to 4,040 square-feet, a reduction in the side (south) setback to 0.5 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction in the front (west) setback to three feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction in the side (north) setback to 0.9 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction in the rear (east) setback to 0.5 feet (to building) and zero feet (to pavement), a reduction in required parking from 15 spaces per 1,000 square-feet to zero for a restaurant and to permit three dwelling units above as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C Proposed Use: Restaurant and three residential units. Community Development 2004-03-16 1 . . . Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner. Member Gildersleeve moved to continue Case FLD2003-12070 for 395 Mandalay Avenue. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. E. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting (Items 1 - 6): 1. Case: FLD2003-11063 - 116-120 Brightwater Drive Leve/ Two Application Owner/Applicant: Belle Aqua Villas, LLC Representative: Bill Woods, Woods Consulting, Inc. (322 Ridge Road, Palm Harbor, FL 34683; phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email: billwoods@woodsconsultinq.orq). Location: 0.34 acre located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning: T, Tourist District. Request: Flexible Development to permit a multi-use dock, under the provisions of Section 3-601. Proposed Use: Multi-use dock for six slips totaling 720 square-feet, with each dock measuring 60 feet in length from the seawall, in conjunction with a six-unit town home development. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-5801; email: dmacnav@att.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Senior Planner. The 0.34-acre site on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Hamden Drive is within the Beach By Design Small Motel District, which is a distinctive area of overnight accommodation uses being demolished and redeveloped with attached dwellings of townhomes or condominiums. On September 16, 2003, the COB (Community Development Board) approved Case No. FLD2003-07032/PL T2003-00006 with seven conditions to develop the upland portion of this site with six attached dwellings (townhomes). There are two docks, which under the prior approval were to be retained, unchanged. Section 3-601.C.3 requires docks over 500 square-feet in area (in association with a multi- family development or condominium) to be treated as a commercial dock and approved as part of a Level Two, Flexible Development review. This proposal includes removal of the existing docks and construction of three docks totaling 720 square feet for six slips for use by the owners/tenants of the townhomes. The proposal is to construct three docks/catwalks in line with the common lot line between two units, allowing shared use of each dock/catwalk by two townhome owners. Tie poles are proposed on the east and west sides of the overall property at a one-foot setback, meeting Code requirements. The easternmost dock/catwalk is proposed 17 feet from the east property line, while the westernmost dock/catwalk is proposed 19 feet from the west property line. A minimum side setback of 12 feet is required for the docks/catwalks. Each slip is a minimum of 15 feet wide. Code dock provisions limit the width of docks to a maximum of 75 percent of the lot width, or 90 feet in this case. The proposed overall dock width is 65 percent of the lot width (78 feet). Code Community Development 2004-03-16 2 . provisions restrict dock length to a maximum of 75 percent of the lot width (90 feet). Three docks are proposed to be 60 feet in length each from the seawall. To comply with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) requirements for three feet water depth at mean low water, the slips serving units 5 and 6 can accommodate a boat 32 to 36 feet in length, versus slips serving units 1 and 2 which can accommodate a boat approximately 45 feet in length. The width of the waterway at this location is approximately 510 feet. There are no issues regarding sea grasses or navigation with the proposal and the other criteria for docks have been met. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including but not limited to General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and dock criteria (Section 3-601.C.3) have been met. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 29, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development to permit a multi-use dock, under the provisions of Section 3-601, for the site at 116-120 Brightwater Drive, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The dock development is compatible with the surrounding area. . Conditions of Approval: 1) That boats moored at the docks be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the townhomes and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the townhomes, and 2) That dock-supported signage be permanently installed containing wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity. See pages 10 and 11 for motion. 2. Level Two Application Case: FLD2003-12066 - 1320, 1324 and 1330 South Fort Harrison Avenue Owner/Applicant: ENTA Investments, LLC. Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email: nestech@mindsprinq.com). Location: 0.63 acres located on the west side of South Fort Harrison Avenue between "B" and "C" streets. Atlas Page: 305B. Zoning: C, Commercial District. Request: Flexible Development to permit the expansion of a medical clinic with reductions to the front (east along South Fort Harrison Avenue) setback from 25 to 10 feet (to existing building), from 25 to three feet (to existing pavement) and from 25 to 15 feet (to proposed pavement), reductions to the front (north along "B" Street) setback from 25 to zero feet (to existing building) and from 25 to seven feet (to proposed dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the front (south along "C" Street) from 25 to two feet (to existing pavement) and reductions to the side (west) setback from 1 0 to eight feet (to existing building), from 1 0 to zero feet (to existing pavement) and from 1 0 to five feet (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and to permit reductions to the landscape buffer along the front (east along South Fort Harrison Avenue) property line from 15 to 10 feet (to existing building) and from 15 to three feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the landscape . Community Development 2004-03-16 3 . buffer along the front (north along "B" Street) from 1 0 to zero feet (to existing building), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the front (south along "C" Street) from 1 0 to two feet (to existing pavement) and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west property line from five to zero feet (to existing pavement), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202. G. Proposed Use: Expansion of an existing 3,096 square-foot medical clinic through the renovation of an existing 2,357 square-foot building for administrative purposes. Neighborhood Association: South Clearwater Citizens for Progressive Action (Duke Tieman, 1120 Kingsley St., Clearwater, FL 33756; email: duketieman@aol.com). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Senior Planner. The 0.63-acre overall site is on the west side of South Fort Harrison Avenue, between "B" (north side) and "C" (south side) streets. Both "B" and "C" streets are only one lot deep and dead-end at the Belleair County Club (west side of subject property). The site currently is developed as three separate lots with retail sales (Hobby Shop) at 1320 South Fort Harrison Avenue, retail sales at 1324 South Fort Harrison Avenue, and a medical clinic at 1330 South Fort Harrison Avenue. The retail building at 1320 South Fort Harrison Avenue is nonconforming to setbacks and parking, as all parking exists within the right-of-way of "B" Street. The building at 1324 South Fort Harrison Avenue is a historical structure and the applicant desires it be preserved. Preservation off-site is permissible. The medical clinic at 1330 South Fort Harrison does not meet Code setback requirements (to existing pavement). . The proposal is to redevelop three lots into one parcel for use as a medical clinic (the recording of a Unity of Title is necessary). While the existing medical clinic on the southern portion of the site meets the current Code requirements for number of parking spaces, it is insufficient to meet the newly proposed parking needs of the applicant. It is the applicant's desire to add an administrative office area on the north side with required additional parking spaces. The proposal includes retaining the medical clinic building, parking and other site improvements at 1330 South Fort Harrison Avenue. This building, associated parking and site improvements were constructed in 1986. The parking lot does not meet current front setback or landscape buffer requirements to Fort Harrison Avenue or "C" Street, or side setback or landscape buffer requirements to the west property line. "C" Street is only one lot deep and dead- ends at the Belleair County Club (west side of subject property). The handicap parking space on the west side of the building will be modified to a regular parking space. Unless the porte-cochere at the existing medical clinic building has a vertical clearance of a minimum of 114 inches for handicap accessible loading/unloading, a limited vertical clearance warning (sign) will need to be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscape buffer area along South Fort Harrison will be upgraded in landscape materials similar to those proposed for the northern portion of the site. An existing retention pond will be enlarged to accommodate the drainage runoff associated with the additional parking proposed on the northern portion of the site. An unhealthy 65-inch oak tree, between the northeast corner of the medical clinic and the retention pond will be removed to enlarge the retention pond. Due to many existing, established trees, the insufficiency of parking spaces, and the additional landscaping proposed for the northern portion of the site, staff supports the parking lot remaining on the southern portion of the site in its existing location. . Community Development 2004-03-16 4 . . . The retail sales building (hobby shop) at 1320 South Fort Harrison Avenue will be converted to administrative offices for the medical clinic. The western portion of the building will be removed to provide additional parking. All parking and asphalt within the right-of-way of "B" Street will be removed. A canopy facing South Fort Harrison Avenue also will be removed and this area converted to a 10-foot wide landscaped area. Building access will be relocated from the east to south side of the building, while retaining a door on the north side (accessed from a new public sidewalk within the right-of-way). To provide continuity of site/building design, the exterior concrete block fac;ade of the building will be completely renovated with siding and a mansard roof similar in material and color to the medical clinic building at 1330 South Fort Harrison Avenue. The overall site includes the Louis Ducros House at 1324 South Fort Harrison Avenue, currently used as a retail sales establishment. This Carpenter Gothic structure, built in the 1890's, currently is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Its historic significance is due to Louis Ducros being Clearwater's first official photographer. Presently, this portion of the site does not have any paved parking or access. The proposal is to relocate this structure to an, as-yet- undetermined, off-site location. Preservation of this structure is highly desired by staff and any approval of this case should include a condition requiring its preservation prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. In its place, the proposal is to provide a parking area serving the overall medical clinic site. This portion of the site provides a minimum 15-foot front setback (to pavement) from South Fort Harrison Avenue. Two handicap parking spaces are proposed, centrally located to both buildings with sidewalk access to both buildings and to South Fort Harrison Avenue. A new handicap ramp will be constructed on the east side of the medical clinic building as an extension of an existing wood porch. The existing middle and northern buildings presently are served by black barrels for trash collection, while the southern building shares an unscreened dumpster located in "C" Street. The proposal includes a properly screened dumpster adjacent to "B" Street at a seven-foot front setback. Both the medical clinic and the Louis Ducros House have freestanding signs. The proposal includes the removal of these freestanding signs and the construction of a six-foot high monument sign meeting sign size requirements. This sign will need to be consistent with the materials and color of the principal building(s) and include the site address. All requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code will need to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Tree Preservation Plan also will need to be prepared by a Certified Arborist and submitted for approval by the Planning Department. Redevelopment of these three parcels to act and look as one lot for a medical clinic, with adequate parking and enhanced landscape improvements will improve the appearance of this overall site and the surrounding area. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (Section 2-704.C) have been met. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on October 30, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of a medical clinic with reductions to the front (east along South Fort Harrison Avenue) setback from 25 to 10 feet (to existing building), from 25 to three feet (to existing pavement) and from 25 to 15 feet (to proposed pavement), reductions to the front (north along "B" Street) setback from 25 to zero feet (to existing building) and from 25 to seven feet (to proposed dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the front (south along "C" Street) from 25 to two feet (to existing pavement) and reductions to the side (west) setback from 1 0 to eight feet (to existing building), from 1 0 to zero feet (to existing pavement) Community Development 2004-03-16 5 . . . and from 10 to five feet (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and to permit reductions to the landscape buffer along the front (east along South Fort Harrison Avenue) property line from 15 to 10 feet (to existing building) and from 15 to three feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the front (north along "B" Street) from 1 0 to zero feet (to existing building), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the front (south along "C" Street) from 1 0 to two feet (to existing pavement) and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west property line from five to zero feet (to existing pavement), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for the site at 1320, 1324, and 1330 South Fort Harrison 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 2-704.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria per Section 3-1202. G; and 4) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1) That the Louis Ducros House at 1324 South Fort Harrison Avenue be preserved at an off-site location acceptable to the Planning Department. A preservation plan for this structure shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permits for this overall site; 2) That a Unity of Title be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permit; 3) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a Certified Arborist be submitted. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) and how these impacts will be addressed (crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems). Other data required on this plan must show actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines, if required), the tree barricade detail and any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation; 4) That all requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code be met prior to issuance of a building permit; 5) That site signage be limited to one monument sign a maximum of six feet high, consistent with the materials and color of the principal building(s) and include the site address; and 6) That, unless the porte-cochere at the existing medical clinic building at 1330 South Fort Harrison Avenue has a vertical clearance of a minimum of 114 inches for handicap accessible loading/unloading, a limited vertical clearance warning be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. See pages 10 and 11 for motion. 3. Item Pulled from Consent Agenda Case: FLD2003-12067 - 720 Lakeview Road Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: IIhan Bilgutay / Pat Sheppard. Representative: Housh Ghovaee (Northside Engineering, 601 Cleveland Street, Suite #930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email: nestech@mindsprinq.com). Location: 2.59 acres located on the northwest side of the Myrtle Avenue and Lakeview Road intersection, approximately 200 feet northeast of Hamlet Avenue. Atlas Page: 305B. Zoning: 0, Office District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit construction of two medical clinic offices with building A totaling 7,985 square-feet and building B totaling 8,488 square- feet along with reductions to the front (southeast) setback along Lakeview Road from 35 Community Development 2004-03-16 6 . to 15 feet (to pavement), the side (north) setback from 20 to 10 feet (to pavement) and the side (west) setback from 20 to 15 feet (to building) under the provision of Section 2- 1004.C. Proposed Use: Two medical clinic offices totaling 16,473 square-feet. Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner. The 2.59-acre site on the northeast side of the Myrtle Avenue and Lakeview Road intersection, approximately 200 feet northeast of Hamlet Avenue, currently is vacant, undeveloped, and heavily wooded. Surrounding the property is a public cemetery to the immediate north. Across Lakeview Road to the south is commercially zoned property with retail and light manufacturing/assembly uses. To the immediate west is industrial research and technology zoned property with doctor and medical offices. The applicant is proposing to construct two buildings to serve as medical clinics. The first building "A" is 7,985 square-feet and will be occupied by two physicians. The second building "B" is 8,488 square-feet and will be occupied by three physicians. The buildings will be on the rear northwest portion of the property and will be similar in design and color. The buildings will have pale yellow vinyl lap siding and green fiberglass shingle roof. The applicant is proposing attached signage but will submit plans for review at a later date. . The parcel will have two points of ingress and egress. The first will be at the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. The City has purchased mast arms and signal heads to replace the span wire system at this intersection. Traffic Engineering reviewed this proposed access point location and has added a condition to the development order that the developer will pay for any additional equipment and installation to accommodate the new driveway. The second access point will be 300 feet south from the first access point, along the front property line. The proposed interior-parking layout will accommodate 91 parking spaces and provide an adequate amount of handicap parking spaces. The reduction to the front setback along Lakeview Avenue from 25 to 15 feet is permitted for parking lots provided the land area is not sufficient to accommodate the full setback requirement and the reduction results in an improved design and appearance and landscaping is in excess of the minimum required. The reduction to the front setback for parking will be similar in design and appearance to existing medical facilities to the west of the parcel along Lakeview Avenue. The proposed landscaping will exceed the minimum requirements at 11.4 % interior greenspace, when the Code requires 10%. The proposed medical c1inic(s) will be consistent and characteristic to the established uses within the vicinity. To the immediate west of the parcel are medical clinic facilities fronting along Lakeview Road. The size of the parcel along with the proposed site plan will accommodate the use and required medical clinic standards. . The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on October 30, 2003. The Planning Department recommends approval of the application for Flexible Development approval to permit construction of two medical clinic offices with building A totaling 7,985 square-feet and building B totaling 8,488 square-feet along with reductions to the front (southeast) setback along Lakeview Road from 35 to 15 feet (to pavement), the side (north) setback from 20 to 10 feet (to pavement) and the side (west) setback from 20 to 15 feet (to building) under the provision of Section 2-1004.C. Community Development 2004-03-16 7 . . . Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria per Section 2-1004.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 redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1) That all trees be shown on the Staking Plan prior to building permit; 2) That "ribbon" tree barricade detail is removed prior to issuance of a building permit; 3) That the two Live oaks shown in the island where utility lines are located be replaced with a smaller tree (Dahoon holly or similar); 4) That any open space impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of building permits; 5) That the developer will incur any additional cost for equipment and installation of the mast arm(s) and signal head(s) to be placed at the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Lakeview Road; 6) That all signage will be submitted for Planning Department review before construction; 7) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by the COB; and 8) That all traffic impact fees be paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. In response to a question, Land Development Engineering Manager Scott Rice said the applicant is proposing a new driveway near the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Lakeview Road, and has agreed to pay for the cost of mastarms for improved signalization. Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item #E3, Case FLD2003-12067 for 720 Lakeview Road with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. Case: FLD2004-02007 - 407 North Belcher Road Leve/ Two Application Owner/Applicant: John Rich (2135 Camden Way, Clearwater, FL 33759; phone: 727- 492-6418). Location: 0.73 acre located on the east side of North Belcher Road, approximately 175 feet south of Sharkey Road. Atlas Page: 281A. Zoning: I, Institutional District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a medical clinic with reductions to parking from 42 to 29 spaces, a reduction of the front setback from 25 to 17 feet (to building), a reduction in the side (south) setback from 10 to zero feet (to the dumpster enclosure), a reduction in the side (north) setback from 10 to six feet (to building), and a reduction of the rear setback from 20 to 14 feet (to pavement) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1204, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the east property line (no continuous hedge along property perimeter provided), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202. G. Proposed Use: Change of use from an existing 8,072 square-foot social center building to a medical clinic. Neighborhood Association: None. Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Senior Planner. This 0.73-acre site on the east side of North Belcher Road, approximately 175 feet south of Sharkey Road, has a 8,072 square-foot building with a curb cut on Belcher Road. The proposal is to change the use from a Masonic Temple meeting hall building to a medical clinic. According to the applicant, the medical clinic will have at least one physician on staff, and the building will house the electronic filling of pharmacy prescriptions. The site has an Community Development 2004-03-16 8 . . . overabundance of asphalt and setback deficiencies. The applicant proposes to improve this site by removing asphalt and adding landscaping. The application is seeking Flexible Development approval to permit a medical clinic with reductions to parking from 42 to 29 spaces, a reduction of the front setback from 25 to 17 feet (to building), a reduction in the side (south) setback from 10 to zero feet (to the dumpster enclosure), a reduction in the side (north) setback from 10 to six feet (to building), and a reduction of the rear setback from 20 to 14 feet (to pavement) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1204, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the east property line (no continuous hedge along property perimeter provided), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 29, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit a medical clinic with reductions to parking from 42 to 29 spaces, a reduction of the front setback from 25 to 17 feet (to building), a reduction in the side (south) setback from 10 to zero feet (to the dumpster enclosure), a reduction in the side (north) setback from 10 to six feet (to building), and a reduction of the rear setback from 20 to 14 feet (to pavement) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1204, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the east property line (no continuous hedge along property perimeter provided), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. for the site at 407 North Belcher Road, 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 2-1204 A; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1) That a reduced pressure backflow preventor device be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. All applicable fees to be paid for by owner/applicant/contractor; 2) That plans submitted for fire review reflect adherence to Florida Fire Prevention Code-2001 Edition and the following codes: NFPA 101 2000 Edition, NFPA 70 (National Electric Code) 1999 Edition and F.S. 633 prior to building permit issuance; 3) That the site plan be revised, prior to building permit issuance, to show a 28-foot turning radius at ingress/egress to allow emergency vehicle access; 4) That a Knox Box key safe for emergency access be installed, as per NFPA-1 3-6, prior to Certificate of Occupancy; 5) That all Fire Department concerns be addressed prior to Certificate of Occupancy, unless otherwise stated; 6) That dumpster service be established with a dumpster enclosure installed to City specifications; 7) That a Traffic Impact fee to be assessed and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy by the applicant; 8) That wheel stops be provided for all parking spaces abutting the sidewalk, including the two handicap parking spaces; 9) That the landscape plan be revised to the satisfaction of Planning staff prior to any building permit issuance; 10) That all signage meet Code, consist of channel letters for any wall signs, and be architecturally integrated to the design of the building and site; and 11) That the revised site plan provide a complete site data table with required and proposed FAR, ISR, and building height. AND Community Development 2004-03-16 9 . . . 5. Case: ANX2003-12033 - First Street East Road right-of-way Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater Planning Department (100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-562-4567; fax: 727-562-4865). Location: 0.22-acre of road right-of-way located at the southerly most section of First Street East, approximately 100 feet south of Second Avenue North and 600 feet east of Chautauqua Avenue. Atlas Page: 233A. Request: (a) Annexation of 0.22-acre of road right-of-way to the City of Clearwater; (b) Provide an initial Future Land Use Plan designation to the Residential Suburban (RS) (City of Clearwater) Category; and (c) Provide an initial zoning designation to the LOR, Low Density Residential (City of Clearwater). Proposed Use: Vacation. Neighborhood Association(s): None. Presenter: Gina Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager. The site is at the southerly-most portion of the First Street East right-of-way, approximately 100 feet south of Second Avenue North and 600 feet east of Chautauqua Avenue. Rottlund Homes, the developer of the adjacent property commonly known as the Dimmitt property, approached the City about annexing this section of the 60-foot wide unimproved First Street East right-of-way. Rottlund Homes ultimately would like to request the vacation of this right-of-way so it may be incorporated into its proposed 46 unit single-family detached subdivision (FLS2003-1 0054/PL T2003-00013). The right-of-way is contiguous with the existing City boundaries to the south, east and west; therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. The subject site is approximately 0.22-acre in area and only provides access to the Dimmitt property. The Planning Department is requesting that an initial Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Suburban (RS) and a consistent zoning designation of LOR, Low Density Residential be provided for the right-of-way. The purpose of this application is to provide initial City Future Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas designations for this site. It is proposed that the Future Land Use Plan category be designated as Residential Suburban (RS), with a consistent initial City zoning designation of LOR, Low Density Residential District. The proposed annexation will not have any negative impacts on public facilities and the proposed use of the property is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Plan. 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 approval of the following actions on the request: 1) Annexation of the First Street East road right-of-way; 2) Initial Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Suburban (RS) (City); and 3) Initial zoning designation of LOR, Low Density Residential (City). Member Doran moved to recommend approval of Consent Agenda Item #E1, Case FLD2003-11 063 for 116-120 Brightwater Drive with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, Item #E2, Case FLD2003-12066 for 1320,1324, and 1330 South Fort Harrison Avenue with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, Item #E4, Case FLD2004-02007 for Community Development 2004-03-16 10 . . . 407 North Belcher Road, with Bases of Approval and Conditions of Approval as listed, and Item #E5, Case ANX2003-12033 for First Street East Road right-of-way. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4): 1. Continued from December 16, 2003 Case: APP2003-00003 - 2959 Eagle Estates Circle West Owners: Jeffrey and Ambryn Finstad (2959 Eagle Estates Circle West, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-723-8724; fax: 727-724-8714). Applicants/Appellants: Michael and Stefanie Markham (2960 Talon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-796-5076; fax: 727-443-6548; email: mmarkham@tampabav.rr.com). Location: 0.423 acre located at the northeast corner of Eagle Estates Circle West and Eagle Estates Circle South. Atlas Page: 200B. Zoning: LOR, Low Density Residential District. Request: Appeal of the decision of a Level One application (Flexible Standard Development case FLS2003-08038), under the provisions of Section 4-501, that approved an application reducing the side (east) setback from 15 to 10 feet for a two-story addition to an existing single family dwelling, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-103.B. Proposed Use: A 1,528 square-foot, two-story addition, including a third car garage (with a driveway extension) in association with an existing single-family dwelling. Neighborhood Association(s): None. Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Senior Planner. The COB (Community Development Board) heard this appeal case on December 16, 2003, and continued it to a date no later than the March 16, 2004, COB meeting. The COB encouraged resolution of the setback issue through the homeowners' association prior to the March COB meeting. The owners have not yet sought approval from the homeowners' association, desiring a COB decision first. Section 4-504.A provides that a decision by the COB be made not later than 70 days from the receipt of the notice of appeal, unless the parties by mutual consent extend the timeframe for the Board's decision. Both parties consented at the December 16, 2003, COB meeting to the timeframe of rendering a decision by the Board no later than March 16, 2004. This 0.298-acre site is on the northeast corner of Eagle Estates Circle West and Eagle Estates Circle South. It presently contains a 2,815 square-foot, single-story detached dwelling, including an attached two-car garage, and is zoned LOR, Low Density Residential District. This case is an appeal of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) that approved an application reducing the side (east) setback from 15 to 10 feet for a two-story addition to an existing single family dwelling, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 103. B, under Case No. FLS2003-08038. The application was considered by the Development Review Committee on September 18, 2003. A Development Order was issued approving the request on October 29, 2003. The appellants filed this appeal on November 4, 2003. Section 4-501.A.3 of the Community Development Code states that the Community Development Board has the authority to hear appeals from Level One approval decisions. Section 4-502.A provides that an Community Development 2004-03-16 11 . . . appeal of a Level One approval (Flexible Standard Development) may be initiated by an applicant or property owner within the required notice area and who presented competent substantial evidence in the Level One review within seven days of the date the Development Order is issued. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. Section 4-504.B states that upon receipt of the application/notice of appeal, the Community Development Board (COB) shall place the appeal on the consent agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the COB. Notice of the date of such meeting shall be provided the applicant and the appellants by mail and by telephone. The appeal may be removed from the consent agenda only by a vote of at least four members of the COB. If the appeal is not removed from the consent agenda, the decision of the Community Development Coordinator is confirmed as part of the consent agenda by a vote of the majority of the members of the COB. If the appeal is removed from the consent agenda, the COB shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the application in accord with Section 4-206 (notice and public hearings) and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4- 206.0.5 granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions or denying the appeal. Pursuant to Section 4-504.C of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an appeal, (overturning or modifying the decision under appeal), the COB shall find that, based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party, all of the following criteria are met: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted provisions of the Community Development Code; and 2) That the decision will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said extensive testimony was given at the December 2003 COB meeting regarding this case. The COB could request that the involved parties update them. Senior Planner Wayne Wells said staff received a letter from the Homeowner's Association stating their opposition to staff's approval of the request. The applicants have stated they have met the requirements for approval and also acknowledge that they require approvals from both the Homeowner's Association and the COB. Adjacent property owners, Michael and Stefanie Markham, are appealing the case. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed the criteria that the COB must apply in order to grant an appeal of the Community Development Coordinator's decision. Ambryn Finstad, property owner, said she and her spouse had decided to get a ruling from the COB prior to going to the Homeowner's Association, as she felt the COB had more legal authority than the Association. She also stated that the Association requires an application fee and she did not want to spend more money than necessary. Michael Markham, appellant, said he was surprised that after last month's meeting, the Finstad's did not contact the Homeowner's Association. He said the deed restrictions only require a $100 fee at the time architectural plans are submitted. He said Ms. Finstad's remark that the COB has more legal authority than the Homeowner's Association is incorrect. The COB simply has a different type of authority than the Homeowner's Association. He requested the COB reverse staff's decision regarding approval of the request, as it does not meet the criteria in the Code. He said staff has admitted they have misconstrued/misinterpreted the Code. Community Development 2004-03-16 12 . . . One person spoke in support of the appeal. Ms. Finstad said she was not trying to use the COB's decision to affect the outcome of the Association's decision. She said if the COB were to deny her request, she would not follow through with the request to the Homeowner's Association. She felt there was no safety issue, as they are permitted to convert the home into a two-story dwelling. She said this matter has alienated her relationship with the Markhams. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said there are many corner lots in this subdivision. He did not know if any of them have made requests similar to this one. Ms. Dougall-Sides concurred with Mr. Markham that the COB a different authority than the Association. She said the Homeowner's Association enforces deed restrictions. It was remarked that deed restrictions are almost never in concurrence with the City Code unless an overlay district is in place. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said staff feels the Finstad's met all the criteria in the Code for reduction of side yard setbacks, under the flexibility standards and the general standards. He said they cannot construct a third garage without a reduction in the setbacks. To mitigate the setback reductions, staff imposed a number of conditions to minimize the impact to adjacent property owners, such as appropriate hedges along the east property line and specific architectural details. He said all construction involves safety considerations, therefore neighbors, particularly parents, need to be aware of them and act accordingly. He opined staff did not misconstrue the Code. Concern was expressed the Finstad's did not make any attempts after the December meeting, to go back to the Homeowner's Association, nor did they consider design changes. It was remarked that despite the lack of cooperation, the Finstads' request is in compliance with the Code. Acting Board Member Dennehy moved to deny Item #F1, regarding Case APP2003- 00003 for 2959 Eagle Estates Circle West, an appeal by Michael and Stefanie Markham of the decision of a Level One application (Flexible Standard Development case FLS2003-08038), under the provisions of Section 4-501, that approved an application reducing the side (east) setback from 15 to 10 feet for a two-story addition to an existing single-family dwelling, as a Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-103.B. The motion was duly seconded. It was noted that the Finstads could continue to pursue their request with the Homeowner's Association if they so choose. Upon the vote being taken, Members Moran, Doran, Gildersleeve, and Acting Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Plisko and Chair Hooper voted "Nay". Motion carried. Mr. Markham remarked that two board members were absent. It was suggested that he contact Ms. Dougall-Sides regarding his options. Community Development 2004-03-16 13 . . . 2. Case: FLD2003-11 062 - 125 Brightwater Drive Level Two Application Owner/Applicant: Belle Aqua Villas, LLC. Representative: Bill Woods, Woods Consulting, Inc. (322 Ridge Road, Palm Harbor, FL 34683; phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email: billwoods@woodsconsultinq.orq). Location: 0.32 acre located on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 500 feet east of Hamden Drive. Atlas Page: 276A. Zoning: T, Tourist District. Request: Flexible Development to permit a multi-use dock, under the provisions of Section 3-601. Proposed Use: Multi-use dock for six slips totaling 720 square feet, with each dock measuring 60 feet in length from the seawall, in conjunction with a six-unit townhome development. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-5801; email: dmacnav@att.net). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Senior Planner. The 0.32-acre site on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 500 feet east of Hamden Drive, is within the Beach By Design Small Motel District, which is a distinctive area of overnight accommodation uses being demolished and redeveloped with attached dwellings of townhomes or condominiums. On September 16, 2003, the COB (Community Development Board) approved Case No. FLD2003-06030/PL T2003-00004 with seven conditions to develop the upland portion of this site with six attached dwellings (townhomes). There is one dock, which under the prior approval was to be retained, unchanged. Section 3-601.C.3 requires docks over 500 square-feet in area (in association with a multi- family development or condominium) to be treated as a commercial dock and to be approved as part of a Level Two, Flexible Development review. The proposal includes the removal of the existing docks and the construction of three docks totaling 720 square-feet for six slips for use by the owners/tenants of the town homes. The proposal is to construct the three docks/catwalks in line with the common lot line between two units, allowing shared use of each dock/catwalk by two town home owners. Tie poles are proposed on the east and west sides of the overall property at a one-foot setback, meeting Code requirements. The easternmost dock/catwalk is proposed 21 feet from the east property line, while the westernmost dock/catwalk is proposed 21 feet from the west property line. A minimum side setback of 12 feet is required for the docks/catwalks. Each slip is a minimum of 14.5 feet wide. Code dock provisions limit the width of docks to a maximum of 75 percent of the lot width, or 90 feet in this case. The proposed overall dock width is 65 percent of the lot width (78 feet). Code provisions restrict dock length to a maximum of 75 percent of the lot width (90 feet). Each of the three docks is proposed to be 60 feet in length from the seawall. To comply with the SWFWMD requirements for three feet water depth at mean low water, the slips serving units 5 and 6 can accommodate a boat up to 36 feet in length; slips serving units 1 and 2 can accommodate a boat approximately 53 feet in length. The width of the waterway at this location is approximately 246 feet. There are no issues regarding sea grasses or navigation with the proposal and the other criteria for docks have been met. Community Development 2004-03-16 14 . All applicable Code requirements and criteria including but not limited to General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and dock criteria (Section 3-601.C.3) have been met. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 29, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development to permit a multi-use dock, under the provisions of Section 3-601, for the site at 125 Brightwater Drive, with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The dock development is compatible with the surrounding area. Conditions of Approval: 1) That boats moored at the docks be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the townhomes and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately from the townhomes, and 2) That dock-supported signage be permanently installed containing wording warning boaters of the existence of protected seagrasses and manatees in the vicinity. Mr. Wells stated that staff received and distributed letters to the CDB from residents objecting to the request. He said the Brightwater area is beginning to transform. Bill Woods, representative, was present to answer questions. . Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item #F2, Case FLD2003-11062, for 125 Brightwater Drive, a Flexible Development request to permit a multi-use dock, under the provisions of Section 3-601. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. Case: APP2004-00001 - 24 North Fort Harrison Avenue OwnerlAppellant: Josee Goudreault (28 North Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-446-7248; fax: 727-446-8407). Location: 0.10 acre located on the southwest corner of Laura Street and North Fort Harrison Avenue. Atlas Page: 286B. Zoning: D, Downtown District. Request: Appeal of a Level One application (Flexible Standard Development case FLS2003-12066) that requires the building be repainted a neutral color, under the provisions of Section 4-501. Proposed Use: An existing building that has been painted light purple (main portion of the exterior of a building) and dark purple (base of the building and trim). Neighborhood Association: Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association (Vickie Morgan, 301 Cedar Street, Clearwater, FL 33755). Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner. . The 0.1 O-acre site on the southwest corner of Laura Street and North Fort Harrison Avenue is zoned D, Downtown District and is within the Downtown Core Character District of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This area is recognized as the economic and geographic heart of Downtown Clearwater. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan recommends this area be fully redeveloped in terms of streetscaping, parking, and most importantly, with a mix of residential and non-residential uses. Specifically, it recommends the redevelopment of the Downtown Core as a family-oriented entertainment destination recognizing that a key component required to diversify the Downtown Core is to attract Community Development 2004-03-16 15 . . . residential uses with a variety of housing types and prices. Permitted uses in the area include a variety of nonresidential establishments such as office, retail sales and service, restaurant, governmental uses, etc. This strategy has been identified as a way to stimulate the redevelopment of property in the area and to reposition the Downtown as a viable economic entity in the region. The site has been developed with a 7,942 square-foot, two-story building that dates back to 1924. There is a nightclub to the south (white and dark grey painted stucco), offices/retail across North Fort Harrison Avenue to the east (light sand painted stucco), and offices/retail to the north across Laura Street (natural brick). The building has been painted light purple (main portion of the exterior of a building) and dark purple (base of the building and trim). The applicant would like to maintain these colors and add new windows with purple aluminum frames. The Planning Department reviewed the application and approved it with specific conditions relative to the color. The overall concept of making exterior improvements is encouraged and desirable (e.g. new paint, windows, trim, awnings, etc.). The colors selected, however, are not in keeping with the intended character or vision for Downtown. The Code regulates design within the downtown under Section 3-502, which references the Downtown Design Guidelines (adopted May 1996). The Guidelines state that in general, light, cool colors should be selected for the main body of the building. White, off-white and pastels are appropriate. Light colors reflect the heat and are the traditional colors most frequently used in Florida. If trim is to be highlighted, a light pastel accent color should be used. Dark or overtly contrasting colors should be used very selectively. In general, the trim also may be painted using a slightly lighter or darker color tone of the main color. In some situations, normally on smaller, or residential and "Victorian" style buildings, darker base colors and accent trim colors may be considered for approval. Bright colors may be used on awnings, as an accent to the light, cool colors of the building itself. However, garish "electric" or "day-glo" colors should be avoided. Section 3-910 of the Code regulating color states that no building shall be painted or otherwise finished with a predominant color which is garish, gaudy, loud, excessive, ostentatious or otherwise constitutes a glaring and unattractive contrast to surrounding buildings. Staff was guided by both the Design Guidelines and the Code with respect to the request for exterior color for this application. The application was approved with conditions requiring a neutral color for the main portion of the building and windows. The (existing) trim color was approved to be maintained as the "brighter" accent color on the trim and watercourse. This is consistent with the regulations contained within the Guidelines and Code. The colors as proposed and painted on the building are not consistent with surrounding buildings that are neutral. This case is an appeal of a Level One decision that approved a Flexible Standard Development application with conditions. The conditions included the requirement that the building be repainted a neutral color (sand, beige, cream, etc.), the window frames be a neutral color (white, sand, beige, cream, etc.), the trim along the roofline, edge of canopy and window sills may remain a brighter color (existing Byzantine Purple 243-7) including a three-foot high (maximum) watercourse around the base of the building and that the awning material consist of a complementary color. A Development Order was issued on February 20, 2004. The appellant filed this appeal on December 23, 2003. Section 4-501.A.3 of the Community Development Code states that the Community Development Board has the authority to hear appeals from Level One approval decisions. Section 4-502.A provides that an Community Development 2004-03-16 16 . appeal of a level One approval (Flexible Standard Development) may be initiated by an applicant or property owner within the required notice area and who presented competent substantial evidence in the level One review within seven days of the date the Development Order is issued. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The legal Department has opined that, based on recent litigation, the case shall be legally noticed and placed on the next available COB agenda. The COB shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi- judicial public hearing on the application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206.0. The Board may grant the appeal, grant the appeal subject to specified conditions or deny the appeal. (This is a modification from Code Section 4-504.B that states that the appeal shall be placed on the consent agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the COB and can be removed only by a vote of at least four members of the Board.) In order to grant an appeal (overturning or modifying the decision under appeal), the COB shall find that, based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party, ~ of the following criteria are met: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted provisions of the Community Development Code; and 2) The decision will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) The decision will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. . Planner Mark Parry said when the appellant originally visited the Permit Department asking if she needed a permit to paint the structure, she was told she did not. While painting a structure does not require a building permit, a review of colors by the Planning Department and the Development Review Committee is required. A decision was made that some colors on the building met the vision in the Downtown Plan and the Code, however some did not. Staff imposed specific conditions on the appellant. In response to a question, Mr. Parry said appellant Josee Goudreault had requested a permit to modify the exterior of the building, specifically for new awnings. Concern was expressed the applicant could not be expected to know about applicable painting regulations if City staff improperly informed her. Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce said she did not know to whom Ms. Goudreault spoke, however, staff recently was informed and instructed to determine if a site is located in the Tourist or Downtown district prior to responding to permitting questions. Ms. Fierce said one can always do a better job of educating the public regarding the Code. Ms. Dougall-Sides said even if staff provides improper information, the applicant is not absolved from Code provisions. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said applications received regarding requests to obtain a permit for painting a structure in the Downtown are reviewed at a staff level, and if necessary, are reviewed by the COB. She said the Design Guidelines are specific with regard to color palettes in Downtown. . In response to a question, Mr. Parry said Design Guidelines remain in effect. Ms. Fierce said the Design Guidelines were adopted in 1996, and are referenced in the Code. The City encourages property owners to improve their properties. Staff advised the applicant to file a Flexible Standard Development. Staff, sitting as the Development Review Committee, reviewed the application and recommended modifying the purple color of the building. In response to a question, Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said a similar case regarding a property on Drew Street, which was outside the Downtown District, involved an applicant that complied with Code by repainting the bright yellow building. Ms. Tarapani said staff recognizes that some colors are Community Development 2004-03-16 17 . consistent with architectural styles. She said the Design Guidelines are specific with respect to acceptable colors of buildings. . Josee Goudreault, appellant, said she was shocked by staff's decision. She owns several properties and always tries to abide with the Code. She said after contacting the Permit Department, she was told she did not need a permit to paint her building. She said a City staff person urged her to paint the building prior to closing. Afterward, she was told she needed to speak to Ms. Tarapani regarding her actions. After meeting with Ms. Tarapani in December 2003, she was informed she was to pay a $500 application fee and submit an architectural rendering of improvements, which cost another $1,000. She discussed the color scheme with Ms. Tarapani and Ms. Fierce, who indicated they would send letters to property owners within 500 feet of Ms. Goudreault's property, and if no one opposed the color, they would have no problem with it either. Ms. Goudreault said in December 2003, Mr. Parry told her a decision would be made within the next three to four weeks. She had not received a response from staff by the end of January 2004, called the City and again spoke to Mr. Parry, who gave her a verbal approval and stated he would mail the development order to her the following Friday. As she did not receive the letter, Ms. Goudreault said she again called Mr. Parry, who indicated the letter was forthcoming. She said on approximately February 3, 2004, she was told her request was approved, however, she needed to paint the building beige. Ms. Goudreault said she already has ordered new windows in a purple tone to match the building. She expressed dismay at the contingency added to the approval letter that the building be repainted, as she already had spent $12,000 to paint it. She said she has spoken to nearby property owners who indicated they approved of the building's lilac color. She referenced before and after photographs of the building and felt that its appearance has been greatly improved. She also offered letters from various business owners who expressed their appreciation of the improvements she has made. She felt staff's position was arbitrary. In response to a question, Ms. Goudreault said awnings already have been designed. She said she has invested $225,000 improving the building and is not finished. Ms. Tarapani said when staff met with Ms. Goudreault to discuss the color of the building, she was informed not to order the windows until an agreement regarding the final design was reached by all parties. Ms. Fierce said staff told Ms. Goudreault that they would seek property owner input regarding the improvements, however they never told her that if those property owners liked the color, staff would approve it. Concern was expressed that a condition was included with the approval and development order written on February 20,2004, that the building be repainted. Ms. Tarapani said Ms. Goudreault had painted the building prior to staff's review of the request. Staff balanced all the issues, expenses of the project, and the longevity of the improvements. She said staff always attempts to weigh all pertinent factors and be consumer-friendly. Ms. Fierce said staff has no issues with the proposed design, just with the color. Ms. Goudreault's request was for new awnings, windows, and doors, not for a paint color. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said she saw no problem with the wording of the development order. In response to a question regarding Condition #4 in the staff report, Ms. Tarapani said the awning material could be a shade of purple to complement the trim. . Six persons spoke in support of the appeal. Community Development 2004-03-16 18 . Ms. Tarapani said the Design Guidelines stated that light cool colors for the main body of the building and white or off-white pastel colors are appropriate in the Downtown District. In response to a question, she said the update to the Design Guidelines has not been finalized with respect to language regarding color. Once finalized, it would be sent to the City Council and to the CDB. The City Council has directed staff not to suggest a restrictive color palette with a limited number of colors or one architectural theme. Ms. Goudreault said staff prefers pastel colors. She said she did not violate the Code by painting the building lilac. She did not order the windows until February 2004, after Mr. Parry gave her verbal approval of the improvements. Discussion ensued and it was remarked that urban planning and design is difficult. It was suggested that a more definitive direction regarding interpretation of the Code is needed. It was remarked there was some confusion in the interpretation of this process and that flexibility is needed in design guidelines depending on the type of development. Remarks were made that the color of Ms. Goudreault's building is not offensive. It was remarked that Planning staff and the Community Development Coordinator does a great job interpreting and reviewing the projects and issues that come before them. It was felt that after hearing the testimony of Ms. Goudreault, that the Permit Department had informed her she did not need a permit to paint the building, and the wording of the development order, that the criteria to grant her an appeal is applicable. . Member Dennehy moved to approve Item #F3, Case: APP2004-00001 for 24 North Fort Harrison Avenue, an appeal of a Level One application (Flexible Standard Development case FLS2003-12066) that requires the building be repainted a neutral color, under the provisions of Section 4-501. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Doran, Gildersleeve, Plisko, Acting Board Member Dennehy, and Chair Hooper voted "Aye"; Member Moran voted "Nay." Motion carried. 4. Case: FLD2003-09050 - 1925 Edgewater Drive Owner/Applicant: Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. Representative: Harry S. Cline, Esq. (625 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33766; phone: 727 -441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470). Location: 2.572 acres located at the southeast corner of Sunnydale and Edgewater drives. Atlas Page: 251A. Zoning: T, Tourist District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet, and an increase of building height from 35 feet to 75 feet from base flood elevation of 13 feet MSL (with height calculated to the midpoint of the roof slope) to construct 77 multi-family residential (attached) units, under the provisions of Section 2-803.B. at 1925 Edgewater Drive. Proposed Use: Attached multi-family residential units. Neighborhood Association: Edgewater Drive Homeowners Association (Chip Potts, 1150 Commodore St., Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-448-0093). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Senior Planner. Acting Board Member Dennehy declared a conflict of interest. . Community Development 2004-03-16 19 . This 2.572-acre site is on the southeast corner of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive, north of Sunset Point Road, and commercial, and residential land uses dominate the immediate vicinity. Two motels are proposed for redevelopment. The proposal is to completely raze the existing site, including the two motels and all ancillary structures and to construct 77 attached dwellings. All applicable Code requirements and criteria including but not limited to General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and the flexibility criteria for attached units (Section 2-803.8) have been met. The application as advertised is seeking flexible approval to permit attached dwellings with a reduction of the side (east) setback from 10 to 5.85 feet (to pavement), an increase of building height to 75 feet from base flood elevation of 13 feet MSL (with height calculated to the midpoint of the roof slope). The request for additional building height is to allow for the density to be designed within the limits of the property. The side setback request will allow for the parking space requirement to be met. Heavy landscaping is shown along the east property line where the setback reduction is being sought. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 29, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit attached dwellings with a reduction of the side (east) setback from 10 to 5.85 feet (to pavement), and an increase of building height, from 35 to 75 feet from base flood elevation of 13 feet MSL (with height calculated to the midpoint of the roof slope) to construct 77 multi-family residential (attached) units, under the provisions of Sections 2-803.8. and 2-303, with the following bases and conditions. . 8ases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria per Section 2-803.8; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. . Conditions of Approval: 1) That a revised site plan be submitted satisfactory to Planning staff, prior to building permit issuance, to address the mitigation of any impacts from the reduction in the side setback by a) designing the building height with a "stair stepping" effect with a section of the first floor (east side) beginning at 30 feet in height and transitioning to 75 feet in height (to the north and to the west, or b) relocate a section of the building approximately 20 feet from the east toward the west, or c) an alternative proposal satisfactory to Planning staff; 2) That a revised landscape plan be submitted satisfactory to Planning staff, prior to building permit issuance; 3) That Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact fees be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits or final plat, whichever occurs first; 4) That a copy of the SWFWMD permit be provided prior to building permit; 5) That Traffic Impact Fees be determined and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance; 6) That a tree preservation plan be provided prior to building permit issuance; 7) That all Fire Department requirements be addressed prior to building permit issuance; 8) That a 10-foot sidewalk, drainage and utility easement along frontage of Edgewater Drive be granted; 9) That a Condominium plat be recorded prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 10) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed underground and installation of conduit(s) along the entire length of the site's street frontage be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy; 11) That a vacation of alley and/or easements be completed prior to issuance of a building permit; 12) That the installation of sanitary sewer main be completed prior to issuance of a building permit; 13) That all right-of-way permits be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; 14) That a revised site plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance, correctly showing visibility triangles measured from the property lines; 15) That Community Development 2004-03-16 20 . a sediment and erosion control prevention plan be submitted prior to any demolition and building permits; 16) That the separate site plans be consolidated to one site plan set with one site data table; 17) That the site data table indicate both the maximum and proposed Impervious Surface Ratio; 18) That the site data table state the number of motel rooms existing on site; and 19) That all signage meet Code, consist of channel letters for any attached signs, and be architecturally integrated to the design of the building and site. Freestanding signage will need to meet Code and be monument-style in design. Senior Planner Michael Reynolds said Condition #1 proposed by staff addresses the compatibility issue and offers the applicant three options. Staff received several letters in opposition and support of this request. Concern was expressed staff has recommended a large number of conditions. It was felt it would be best not to approve a project that substantially could be redesigned. Harry Cline, representative, requested a continuance of the case. He said his client only received staff's condition regarding the site plan last week and has not had a chance to review it. Ms. Leslie Dougall-Sides suggested public comment should not be heard if the case is continued. Mr. Cline requested the case be continued, as the COB did not have full board membership. . Member Doran moved to continue Item #F4, Case FLD2003-09050 for 1925 Edgewater Drive, to April 20, 2004. The motion was duly seconded. Members Doran, Moran, Gildersleeve, Plisko, and Chair Hooper voted "Aye"; Acting Board Member Dennehy abstained. Motion carried. 5. Case: FLD2003-11 061 - 117 McMullen-Booth Road Owner/Applicant: Massoud Dabiri. Representative: Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. (101 Philippe Parkway, Suite 205, Safety Harbor, FL 34695; phone: 727-793-9888; fax: 727-793-9855). Location: 0.67 acre located on the southeast corner of Drew Street and McMullen- Booth Road. Atlas Page: 292A. Zoning: 0, Office District. Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the number of parking spaces from 34 to 32 spaces, to reduce the front setbacks (north and south) from 25 to 10 feet (to pavement), reduce the side setback from 20 to 10 feet (to pavement), and a building height increase to 39.5 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Development under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B. Proposed Use: Office building. Neighborhood Association: Harbour Towne Condominium Association (Joan Hennly, LCAM; 350 Bayshore Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33759; phone 727-725-2440; e-mail ihennlv@proqressivem.com). Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Senior Planner. . This .67-acre site on the southeast side of the intersection of McMullen-Booth Road and Drew Street is heavily wooded with two single-family residential structures and driveways accessing Bay Lane to the immediate south. One structure has a second driveway accessing Community Development 2004-03-16 21 . Drew Street. The property has three frontages: Bay Lane, McMullen-Booth Road, and Drew Street. Bay Lane is very narrow and 18 feet in width. The proposal is to demolish two single-family residential houses and construct an 11,350 square-foot office building, 39.5 feet in height, with a 32-space parking lot. The proposal seeks an increase in building height beyond the 30-foot limit and a reduction from the 34 parking spaces required. Proposed access to the site is limited to two curb cuts on Drew Street. The applicant is seeking Flexible Development approval to reduce the parking from 34 to 32 spaces, to reduce the front setbacks (north and south) from 25 to 10 feet (to pavement), reduce the side setback from 20 to 10 feet (to pavement), and a building height increase to 39.5 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Development under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B. The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 29, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit an 11,350 square-foot office building with a reduction to the parking from 34 to 32 spaces, a reduction to the front setbacks (north and south) from 25 to 10 feet (to pavement), a reduction of the side setback from 20 to 10 feet (to pavement), and a building height increase to 39.5 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Development under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B. for the site at 117 N. McMullen-Booth Road, with the following bases and conditions: . Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-1004.B; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. . Conditions of Approval: 1) Referring to the 30-inch pine tree at the southeast corner of the site, no grade changes are to occur within the drip line, an aeration system is to be designed to preserve the tree, crushed concrete is to be used in the design as the tree will not tolerate lime rock (submit prior to building permit issuance); 2) That the site plan be revised to the satisfaction of Planning staff, to enlarge the landscaped island between the two curb cuts and relocate the loading zone to two spaces immediately south of where the loading zone is shown on the site plan revised February 3, 2004, ensuring a 24-foot wide minimum drive aisle (submit prior to building permit issuance); 3) That the site plan be revised to a) correctly state the parking required and provided parking, and b) address the Fire Department concern for a 28- foot turning radius ingress/egress for emergency vehicles (submit prior to building permit issuance; 4) That a Traffic Impact fee to be assessed and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy by the applicant; 5) That an approved right-of-way permit be obtained from Pinellas County prior to issuance of a City of Clearwater Building Permit for the sanitary sewer extension; 6) That an approved health permit be obtained from Pinellas County Health for sanitary connection prior to issuance of a building permit; 7) That a reduced pressure back flow preventor device be required if the proposed use requires one to be installed; 8) That a redevelopment credit of 50% be applied to existing conditions hydrology with one hour Time of Concentration (before building permit issuance); 9) That all Fire Department concerns be addressed prior to building permit issuance; 10) That documentation of abandonment of septic system(s) be provided prior to Certificate of Occupancy; 11) That an irrigation plan sheet be submitted to the satisfaction of Planning staff, prior to building permit issuance; 12) That the landscape plan sheet be revised to the satisfaction of Planning staff, prior to building permit issuance; 13) That a Tree Preservation Community Development 2004-03-16 22 . Plan be submitted to the satisfaction of Planning staff, prior to building permit issuance; 14) That all proposed on-site utilities, including electric, phone and cable television, be located underground; and 15) That all signage meet Code, consist of channel letters for any wall signs, and be architecturally integrated to the design of the building and site. Mr. Reynolds said this applicant is seeking the aforementioned deviations from Code because his lot size is small and abuts residential property. He said letters of objection and a petition of objection have been provided to the COB. . Keith Zayac, representative, reviewed the request. He said Planning staff requested the applicant reduce the parking spaces from 34 to 32 in order to save a specific tree on the property. He said while the property provides great visibility, it also causes some challenges to the design. One side setback is adjacent to residential property. The applicant is requesting a building height increase of 9.5 feet to provide for 10-foot high ceilings and decorative features, rather than adding another level to the structure. The project is for a three-story office building. Mr. Zayac said 10-foot high ceilings are in demand in today's market. The building would be 140 feet from the nearest residential property line in an effort to provide the maximum separation possible. A six-foot high fence with a hedge is planned as a buffer between the office building and residential area on the eastern property line. Site access to Drew Street would be limited. Driveways would be placed along Drew Street rather than Bay Drive. Sidewalks would be placed along Drew Street and Bay Lane. Water and sewer construction will be designed to minimize the impact to the area. A septic tank will be removed and the building connected to the City water system. The stormwater and attenuation treatment will be sufficient for a 25-year storm level occurrence. The site would use dry treatment ponds and underground chambers instead of above ground drainage. Eleven trees would be saved. Extensive landscaping will be installed throughout the site. In response to a question, Mr. Zayac said the applicant is not proposing signage, just a street address. Abdie Bouka, construction engineer, said 10-foot ceilings are in high demand for office space. He said the ground floor will be used by a distributor and the building will feature a first- class design. Six persons spoke against the application; one of which said he represented 38 people via petition. Mr. Reynolds addressed citizens' concerns. He said the proposed building would be placed at the far western corner of the lot as far away from residential property as possible. He felt the applicant could work with staff to relocate the dumpster. He said in the Office District, flexible development allows up to 80 feet in height and the applicant is only seeking 39.5 feet. The two single-family residences on two lots (subject site) appear to be abandoned and they are both overgrown. He felt this project is a vast improvement to the site's current condition. Scott Rice, Engineering Department, said the drainage system for this project is designed for half-inch water treatment and would attenuate the 25-year storm plan. The attenuation is provided by a structured under parking lot. A control structure under the east end of the property will feature a pipeline to discharge into the swale and conforms to development code standards. . In response to a question, Mr. Rice said if a development discharges into the public right-of-way in excess of the 25-year storm level, it is possible that structures would hold water and increase run-off. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said in the (I) Institutional District, a Community Development 2004-03-16 23 . . . place of worship is permitted a 50 feet minimum standard height at Staff level review. Anything higher requires a public hearing. In response to a question, Mr. Reynolds felt this proposal was unique. He did not know if there is a trend with respect to ceiling heights in office buildings. Mr. Zayac said the applicant is not requesting to rezone the property, but is requesting to develop the property within the standards of the Code, with some minor setback relief to the pavement. The additional height request will provide an aesthetic feature to the project. He reiterated that traffic impacts would be addressed by placing driveways on Drew Street. He said this project is smaller than the permitted impervious surface ratio for such a project. He felt the project would be appropriately buffered and would be a positive addition to the area. In response to a question, Mr. Zayac said no wire fence is being proposed. Discussion ensued regarding ceiling heights as an architectural trend. It was felt that reducing the ceiling height to nine feet would cause a minimal difference in the project. It was remarked this property is unique, as it has three front yard setbacks. The property is zoned Office and the applicant is willing to direct traffic, by means of driveways on Drew Street, to minimize inconveniences to the residential area. It was felt the applicant has attempted to balance the unique challenges presented by the property. It was remarked this project is a better use than what currently exists on the site. In response to a question, Mr. Zayac said the applicant would work with staff regarding relocating the dumpster. It was suggested a sixteenth condition be added regarding the dumpster. Member Doran moved to approve Item #F5, Case FLD2003-11 061 for 117 McMullen- Booth Road, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, plus an additional condition that the applicant move the proposed dumpster to a location that is acceptable to and approved by staff. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Chair Community Developme y!)l;.u1t/1J 1{}1lf4/ Board Reporter Community Development 2004-03-16 24 ," .' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: March 16.. 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 395 jandalay Ave FLD2003-12070 Marla Winner yes no 2959 Eagle Estate'2 APP2003-00003 Jeffrey & Ambryn Finstad yes no 125 ~ghtwater Dr. FLD2003-11062 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC yes no 116 -}20 Brightwater Dr. FLD2003-11063 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC yes no 1320'J~~4 and 1330 S. Ft. Harrison Ave. es no FLD203-12066 ENT A Investments, LLC ~iew Rd. FLD2003-12067 Ilhan Bigutay / Pat Sheppard es no 407 N. Belcher Rd. J FLD2004-02007 John Rich yes no 1925 ~dgewater Dr. ~es FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. no 117 N. McMullen Booth,Rd. yes ~ no FLD2003-11061 Massoud Dabiri 24 N(. Ft. Harrison Ave. ~ yes APP2004-0000 1 Josee Goudreault no S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDB\2004\03 March 16, 2004\CDB property investigation check list 031604.doc Page lof2 .'" 120J First St. East Road RightOof-Way yes no ANX2003-12033 City of Clearwater - Planning Signature: ? -] ~ -- Of Date: S:\P/anning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDB\2004\03 March 16, 2004\CDB property investigation check list 031604.doc Page 2 of 2 (-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: March 16.. 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 395 Mandalay Ave yes FLD2003-12070 Marla Winner (~J! no 29J59. Eagle Estates Cir. W. yes no APP2003-00003 Jeffrey & Ambryn Finstad 125 }3rightwater Dr. V yes FLD2003-11062 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC no 116 f 120 Brightwater Dr. \) yes no FLD2003-11063 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC 1320, 1324 and 1330 S. Ft. Harrison Ave. FLD203-12066 \ / yes no - ENT A Investments, LLC 720 Lakeview Rd. , / yes v FLD2003-12067 Ilhan Bigutay / Pat Sheppard no 407 N Lelcher Rd. )' D~es FLD2004-02007 John Rich no 1925 Edgewater Dr. t,/ yes FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. no 117 N. McMullen Booth Rd. ~ yes no FLD2003-11061 Massoud Dabiri 24 N :1Ft. Harrison Ave. t/ yes APP2004-0000 1 Josee Goudreault no S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBl2004\03 March 16, 2004 \ CDB property investigation check list 031604.doc Page 1 012 . .' 12033 First St. East Ro~/RightOof-Way yes ~~ no ANX2003-12033 City of Clearwater - Planning -~, I \ 3/;-s/PI Date: Signature: S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBl2004103 March 16, 2004\CDB property investigation check list 031604.doc Page 2 of 2 ~. .' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: March 16" 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 395 /:dalay Ave FLD2003-12070 Marla Winner . yes no 29f1'agle Estates Cir. W. APP2003-00003 Jeffrey & Ambryn Finstad yes no 125~ghtwater Dr. FLD2003-11062 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC yes no ~ Brightwater Dr. FLD2003-11063 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC es no 132~4 and 1330 S. Ft. Harrison Ave. FLD203-12066 ENT A Investments, LLC es no 72~~view Rd. FLD2003-12067 Ilhan Bigutay I Pat Sheppard es no 40~;1cher Rd. FLD2004-02007 John Rich es no 19~;ewater Dr. FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. es no ~CMUllen Booth Rd. FLD2003-11061 Massoud Dabiri es no 24~arrison Ave. APP2004-0000 1 J osee Goudreault es no S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2004103 March 16, 20041CDB property investigation check list 03/604.doc Page 1 of 2 ~ 12~ St. East Road RightOof- Way yes no ANX2003-l2033 City of Clearwater - Planning Signature: Date) (1~~i S:IPlanning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2004\03 March 16. 2004\CDB property investigation check list 031604.doc Page 2 of 2 t' ) ... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: March 16" 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 395 Mandalay Ave j yes . no 2959 Eagle Estates Cir. Y'f. yes ~no 125 Brightwater Dr. / yes . no 116 - 120 Brightwater D1I' yes ~ no FLD2003-12070 Marla Winner APP2003-00003 Jeffrey & Ambryn Finstad FLD2003-11062 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC FLD2003-11063 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC 1320, 1324 and 1330 SJt. Harrison Ave. yes \,. no FLD203-12066 ENT A Investments, LLC 720 Lakeview Rd. yes /0 407 N. Belcher Rd. yes /no 1925 Edgewater Dr. /' yes ~no 117 N. McMullen Booth Rjf.' yes ~ no 24 N. Ft. Harrison A v/,' yes \ no - FLD2003-12067 Ilhan Bigutay / Pat Sheppard FLD2004-02007 John Rich FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. FLD2003-11061 Massoud Dabiri APP2004-0000 1 J osee Goudreault S:\P/anning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDB\2004\03 March /6, 2004\CDB property investigation check list 03/604,doc Page / of 2 ~- 12033 First St. East Roa~ightOof-Way yes ~ no Signature: ANX2003-12033 .~ City of Clearwater - Planning Date: S:\P/anning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDB\2004\03 March 16, 2004\CDB property investigation check /ist 031604.doc Page 2 of2 . J .. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: March 16.. 2004 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. 395 Mandalay Ave .....--- yes no 2959 Eagle Estates Cir. W. --- yes no 125 Brightwater Dr. ~ yes no 116 - 120 Brightwater Dr. ____ yes no FLD2003-12070 Marla Winner APP2003-00003 Jeffrey & Ambryn Finstad FLD2003-11062 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC FLD2003-11063 Belle Aqua Villas, LLC 1320, 1324 and 1330 S. Ft. Harrison Ave. FLD203-12066 ~ yes no ENT A Investments, LLC 720 Lakeview Rd. ............... yes no 407 N. Belcher Rd. ---yes no 1925 Edgewater Dr. ~es no 117 N. McMullen Booth Rd. ~es no 24 N. Ft. Harrison Ave. ------~ yes no FLD2003-12067 Ilhan Bigutay / Pat Sheppard FLD2004-02007 John Rich FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. FLD2003-11061 Massoud Dabiri APP2004-0000 I J osee Goudreault S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBl2004\03 March 16, 20041CDB property investigation check list 03 1604. doc Page lof2 ,. . 12033 First St. East Road RightOof-Way yes ----no ANX2003-12033 Signature: City of Clearwater - Planning Date: ~\,,\~+ S:\P/anning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBI2004\03 March 16, 20041CDB property investigation check list 031604.doc Page 2 of2