04/20/2004
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 20, 2004
Present: Ed Hooper
John Doran
David Gildersleeve
Shirley Moran
Alex Plisko
Edward Mazur, Jr.
Kathy Milam
Daniel Dennehy
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Acting Board Member - departed 5:00 p.m.
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 2:07 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: March 16,2004
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 16,
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: FLD2004-02008 - 926 South Myrtle Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Patrick J. Shaughnessy and Sheryl M. Haynes.
Representative: Roger A. Larson, Attorney (Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel, and Burns,
LLP, P.O. Box 1368, Clearwater, FI33757-1368; phone: 461-1818, email:
roqerl@jpfirm.com)
Location: 1.36 acres located at the northeast corner of Myrtle Avenue and Magnolia
Street, approximately 200 feet south of Druid Road.
Atlas Page: 295B.
Zoning District: C, Commercial.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use development with a
proposed medical clinic and an existing congregate care facility, as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: A 7,971 square-foot medical clinic in association with an existing 32-
bed congregate care facility.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner.
Member Moran recused herself.
Community Development 2004-04-20
1
.
.
.
Member Doran moved to continue Item D1, Case FLD2004-02008 for 926 South Myrtle
Avenue. The motion was duly seconded. Members Doran, Gildersleeve, Plisko, Mazur, Milam,
Acting Member Dennehy, and Chair Hooper voted "Aye"; Member Moran abstained. Motion
carried.
E. CONSENT AGENDA: (Items 1-3):
1.
Case: FLD2003-11 058 - 161 Brightwater Drive Level Two Application
OwnerlApplicant: Paul Camp Lane (Clearwater Townhomes, Inc., 7087 Grand National
Drive, Suite 100, Orlando, FL 32819; phone: 407-316-0343; fax: 407-316-0372).
Representative: Bill Woods (Woods Consulting, Inc.; 322 Ridge Road, Palm Harbor, FL
34683; phone: 727-861-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; cell: 727-871-0084; email:
bi Ilwoods@woodsconsultinq.orq).
Location: 0.47 acre located on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 800
feet east of Hamden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: T, Tourist.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the construction of five multi-use
docks providing 10 slips for a 1 O-unit townhome (FLD2002-11 042), with each dock
measuring 60 feet in length (25 percent of the waterway width) from seawall and 1,080
square-feet of total decking for the five proposed docks, under the provisions of Section
3-601 .
Proposed Use: Five shared multi-use docks.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827
Mandalay Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 446-5801; email: dmacnav@att.net).
Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner.
The 0.47-acre site is on the south side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 800 feet east
of Hamden Drive. The site is within the Small Motel District of Beach By Design, which provides
for mid-rise town homes and timeshares between 2-4 stories above parking. This island finger
currently is transitioning through major redevelopment from older motels into townhomes and
condominiums. On January 21, 2003, the Community Development Board approved the upland
development of a 1 O-unit town home at this address under Case FLD2002-11 042.
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 total area comprised of the
proposed five docks is 1,400 square-feet or 280 square-feet each. The five docks will provide
10 slips for use by the owners/tenants of each townhome. Each dock will extend 60 feet in
length from the seawall, which is less than 75% of the 180-foot waterfront property width and
approximately 25% of the 247-foot waterway width. The properties to the east and west are
multi-family. The required setbacks for the proposed docks are 18 feet from either property.
Signatures were provided from both neighboring property owners on the variance request form
in the application packet stating no objection to the proposed structures.
There are areas of sparse sea grass over which the docks pass. To minimize the
impacts to the seagrass the applicant will grate the docks with a material that allows 70% light
penetration for a distance of 30 feet out from the seawall. A copy of the manufacture's sheet for
the grating material is attached to the application. The design also will reflect finger piers on
each dock at the 30-foot interval to preclude boats from pulling into the seagrass areas. This
will allow for 27.5 feet of permitted area in which to moor or dock boats. Boatlifts will be
Community Development 2004-04-20
2
,
j
.
.
.
installed and boats are required to be moored with their bows pointed towards the seawall. The
depth of water in the area where boats will berth is a minimum of approximately five feet at
mean low water to a maximum of seven feet. This should provide in excess of one foot of
clearance between the lowest portion of a vessel and the bottom at mean low water.
The dock patterns within the surrounding community are typically smaller docking
facilities consistent with the age and character of existing upland developments. Most existing
docks were built when boats were much smaller. The construction of upgraded docking
facilities to accommodate larger boats is consistent with redevelopment and the construction of
upscale three- and four-story town homes.
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 construction of five multi-use docks to provide 10 slips for
a 10-unit Townhome under case number (FLD2002-11042), with each dock measuring 60 feet
in length (25 percent of the waterway width) from seawall and 1,400 square-feet of total decking
for the five proposed docks, under the provisions of Section 3-601, for the site at 161
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 current redevelopment efforts within the surrounding area.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That Pinellas County Water Navigation, Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD) permits be approved prior to the issuance of building
permits; 2) That a site plan indicating lighting on the end of dock to enhance navigation safety
be submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 3) That the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 303 standards for "marinas and boat yards" be met to
satisfaction of the Fire Department, prior to the issuance of building permits; 4) That boats
moored at these docks shall be for the exclusive use by the residents of 161 Brightwater Drive
and that there will be no commercial activities at the docks; 5) That floating and dock-supported
signage be permanently installed containing wording warning boaters of the existence of
protected seagrasses and manatees in the vicinity; 6) That covered boat lifts be prohibited
(uncovered boat lifts may be reviewed at an administrative level provided all requirements of
Section 3-601 are met); 7) That the proposed docks be used for the sole use of the owners
and/or guests of the townhomes and not be permitted to be sub-leased and; 8) That all boats
will be moored with there bows facing the seawall, keeping the lower units of all engines and
rudders closest to the channel.
While the agenda item incorrectly states the proposed length of the docks, the staff
report is correct.
See page 9 for motion.
2.
Item Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2003-12070 - 395 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Marla Winner.
Representative: Fowler and Associates (Stephen Fowler, 1421 Court Street, Suite D,
Clearwater, FL 33756).
Community Development 2004-04-20
3
.
Location: 0.09-acre lot located on the east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately
200 feet north of Pier 60 Drive.
Atlas Page: 267 A.
Zoning District: T, Tourist.
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,
as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-
803.C and termination of status of non-conformity regarding density.
Proposed Use: Restaurant and three residential units.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner.
.
The 0.09-acre site is on the east side of Mandalay Avenue, approximately 200 feet north
of Pier 60 Drive. The parcel is "L" shaped with the eastern one third of the parcel extending
further north, as indicated on the survey. The property has two existing buildings, with the
primary structure being two stories and totaling 4,204 square-feet. The primary building is
divided into two separate tenant spaces on the ground floor and currently is used as retail sale
of women's clothing, jewelry, and accessories. Two residential dwelling units are located on the
second floor of the primary building. The second building, or cottage, is 574 square-feet and
consists of one dwelling unit, bringing the total number of existing dwelling units on site to three.
The parcel is on Clearwater Beach and falls under the vision of Beach By Design's Retail
and Restaurant District. The overall vision for the district is to establish and maintain a vital
retail and restaurant streetscape. A key element of the Retail and Restaurant District strategy is
the construction of a parking garage, which will provide convenient parking to the District. The
property has no physical parking on site. The only parking provided according to the applicant,
are six leased spaces from the adjacent property owner to the north at 399 Mandalay Avenue.
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing 2,100 square-foot ground floor from
retail sale into a restaurant and add an additional 351 square-feet onto the rear eastern portion
of the building for a kitchen and walk-in cooler/freezer. A restaurant is a permitted use within
the Tourist District. The proposed restaurant will seat approximately 151 customers, not
including the total number of barstools and sidewalk tables shown on the plan. Because the
applicant has requested a change of use from the existing retail sale to restaurant, the existing
lot area, lot width, building floor area ratio, setbacks, parking, and density are non-conforming
with regards to the present Community Development Code; therefore the applicant has filed as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project.
.
The parcel is within a strip of development along Mandalay Avenue that is largely
dependent upon available public parking. This is an existing condition all property owners along
Mandalay Avenue are facing with regards to meeting parking requirements through any change
of use or redevelopment. A large portion of the potential customers for the strip of development
along Mandalay Avenue are "walk-up" due to surrounding uses and the pedestrian nature of the
Retail and Restaurant District as planned in Beach By Design. Some of the nearby hotels and
residential developments within walking distance are The Hilton, Clearwater Beach Hotel,
Mandalay Beach Club, and Belle Harbor.
Community Development 2004-04-20
4
.
The restaurant use requires 7-15 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of floor space.
The number of parking spaces required is a minimum of 17, at the seven per 1,000 ratio and 39,
at the 15 per 1,000 ratio. Due to existing site and building conditions, there currently is no
parking located or potentially available on site.
One of the criteria set forth under the Restaurant use in the Community Development
Code in Section 2-803 is a reduction may be granted if adequate parking is available on a
shared basis as determined by all existing land uses within 1,000 feet of the parcel proposed for
development, or parking is available through any existing or planned and committed parking
facilities.
The applicant submitted a typed statement, signed by the property owner at 399
Mandalay Avenue for the lease of six spaces. No documentation was provided showing the
owner at 399 Mandalay Avenue to have sufficient parking for the existing use and an additional
six spaces to lease. The applicant also submitted a parking study performed by Gulf Coast
Consulting. The scope of the study was on Friday, December 5th and Saturday, December 6th
from 11 :00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The study concluded that 714 public parking spaces are located
within the required 1,000 feet of the parcel, with a maximum number of 373 spaces (or 43%)
being occupied during any hour of the study period.
.
A plan for a five-story public parking facility at 483 Mandalay Avenue has been submitted
to the Planning Department and reviewed by the Development Review Committee on April 1,
2004. The 1.69-acre parcel is proposed to accommodate 418 public parking spaces for the
greater Retail and Restaurant District in Beach By Design.
The subject property is 4,060 square-feet or 0.09 acre. The underlying future land use is
Residential Facilities High (RFH), which permits 30 dwelling units per acre or 40 overnight
accommodations. The total number of permitted dwelling units for the parcel is two. Currently,
there are three dwelling units on the property. The applicant is requesting to terminate the
nonconforming status regarding density and retain the three dwelling units. Section 6-109.8 of
the Community Development Code states a level two approval shall not be granted to terminate
status as a nonconforming use or structure unless the nonconformity is improved according to
the following requirements:
1. Perimeter buffers conforminq to the requirements of Section 3-1202.0 shall be
installed:
Perimeter buffers are exempt in the downtown and tourist districts. The parcel also
is within a strip of development that would not function well with buffers separating
adjacent parcels.
2. Off-street parkinq lots shall be improved to meet the landscapinq standards
established in section 3-1202.0:
There is no parking located on site.
.
3. Anv nonconforminq siqn, outdoor liqhtinq or other accessory structure or accessory
use located on the lot shall be terminated. removed or brouqht into conformity with
this development code:
Community Development 2004-04-20
5
.
There is no existing signage on the parcel. All advertising is through window display
on the storefront. There is no outdoor lighting that is non-conforming. A 574 square-
foot accessory structure or cottage is on the parcel in the northeastern portion of the
property. This cottage houses the third dwelling unit that is in the request to be
terminated from the non-conforming status.
4. The comprehensive landscapinq and comprehensive siqn proqrams may be used to
satisfy the requirements of this section:
The proposed signage is 20 square-feet. This is the minimum per business
establishment with a principal exterior entrance.
The applicant is proposing to renovate the exterior by replacing the two existing doors
with one main entrance, along with additional painting and one attached sign. The proposed
colors are compatible with the color palette recommended in Beach By Design and the fa<;ade
renovations will help to enhance the streetscape along Mandalay Avenue. The hours of
proposed operation are from 11 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The application meets the intent of the
Retail and Restaurant District of Beach By Design.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on January 29, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the application for
Flexible Development approval to permit a reduction in 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 and
termination of status of nonconformity regarding density for three existing units for a mixed use
totaling 2,450 square-feet of restaurant and 2,679 square-feet of residential use as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, with the
following bases and conditions.
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria
per Section 2-803.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 the applicant provide the necessary documentation to
validate the use of the required six parking spaces for the three residential units within thirty
days of the date of the COB meeting (4/20/2004); 2) That a grease (trap) compliance
certification be installed prior to building permit; 3) That the final design and color of the building
be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by the COB; and 4)
That all signage be consistent to the design/colors submitted and comply with the requirements
of the signage portion of the Community Development Code.
Concerns were expressed: 1) That the property owner granting the leased spaces
would conform with Code after granting the leased spaces, and 2) if the applicant met the
criteria required for a Level Two application.
.
Planner Bryan Berry said Wings does not meet its parking requirements for a retail and
service use and does not have parking spaces to lease. Mr. Berry referenced a diagram of the
Community Development 2004-04-20
6
.
.
.
Wings property and 399 Mandalay Avenue, reporting no documentation was submitted to
determine if 399 Mandalay Avenue has additional parking to offer the applicant. Development
Review Manager Frank Gerlock recommended approval be conditioned upon the applicant
submitting necessary documentation that leasing the six parking spaces conforms with Code.
Regarding adequate parking, it was remarked that the applicant's drawing indicates there is
onsite parking. It was questioned where the applicant's employees park and if the
Comprehensive Infill provisions require 1.5 parking spaces per residential unit. It was remarked
while the application indicates a perimeter buffer will be installed, the site has no off-street
parking lots to buffer. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides opined that the termination
of status of nonconformity speaks of use and structure. She said the definition section of use
and structure does not cover density. She will recommend that staff provide recommendations
to clarify that Section in a future Code amendment and to include a remark that criteria must be
met where applicable. Mr. Gerlock said the four nonconformity items are not applicable in this
zoning district. Mr. Berry said a nonconformity cannot be expanded unless it is terminated with
regard to setbacks, building structure, density, etc. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-
Sides said 1) Downtown and tourist districts exempt properties from perimeter buffer
requirements as there is no signage; 2) The second requirement is not applicable as there is no
off-street parking and the applicant proposes to provide parking by other means; 3) The third
nonconformity regulation is not applicable; and 4) The fourth requirement involves the
comprehensive sign program and is not applicable. Mr. Gerlock said staff had suggesting
amending the application when the applicant requested to expand the nonconformity. He
recommended a condition requiring the applicant to provide confirmation regarding parking
needs prior to issuance of a development order would satisfy the requirements of Code and
allow the applicant to proceed with this project.
Steve Fowler, applicant's architect, said the applicant would provide documentation
regarding the six leased parking spaces.
Marla Winner, applicant, stated she has leased six parking spaces from Mr. Coronas.
The subject property has been brought up to Code. Three parking spaces are used for tenants
and two are used for retail operations. As only one retail space is needed, one space is not
necessary. She said as the City must have felt she did not need additional parking as it
removed parking from the east side of Mandalay Avenue. She did not oppose the loss of
parking, as mostly tourists frequent businesses on Clearwater beach. She said parking
available at the City parking lot to the north, at the marina, Pier 60, and on-street parking are
sufficient to meet the needs of her restaurant.
In response to a question, Mr. Fowler said the applicant has six parking spaces available
offsite. Originally, the application stated five additional spaces were to be obtained from Wings,
however they are not available. Mr. Fowler said extensive interior renovations are planned.
Mr. Gerlock proposed adding a condition "The applicant shall provide the necessary
documentation within 30 days of today, validating the applicant's ability to secure the required
six parking spaces for the existing three residential units."
Mr. Fowler said the additional condition is acceptable to the applicant.
Member Doran moved to approve Case FLD2003-12070 for 395 Mandalay Avenue,
Flexible Development request 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
Community Development 2004-04-20
7
.
.
.
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, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-803.C and termination of status of non-conformity regarding
density, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, as well as the additional condition that
the applicant shall provide by May 20, 2004, the necessary documentation validating the ability
to secure the required six parking spaces for the existing three residential units. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Case: ANX2004-01001 - 2135 Burnice Drive Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Remzi Dalip (phone: 727-461-5039).
Location: 0.23-acre located on the south side of Burnice Drive, approximately 750 feet
west of Belcher Road and 950 feet north of Lakeview Road.
Atlas Page: 308B.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.23-acre to the City of Clearwater;
(b) Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to the
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and
(c) Rezoning from the R3, Single Family Residential District (County) to the LMDR, Low
Medium Density Residential District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Detached dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Gina L. Clayton, Long Range Planning Manager.
The subject property is at 2135 Burnice Drive on the south side of the street,
approximately 750 feet west of Belcher Road and 950 feet north of Lakeview Road. The
applicant is requesting this annexation to receive City solid waste service. The property is not
contiguous to existing City boundaries, however, it is in an enclave 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 Ordinance #00-63 with regards to voluntary
annexation. The subject site is approximately 0.23 acre in area and is occupied by a single-
family detached dwelling. It is proposed the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation
of Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential.
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater solid waste, police, fire
and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. At this time
sanitary sewer service is not available, however, when it becomes available in the future, the
applicant is aware of the assessment and impact fee payments required for sewer connection.
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 proposed use of this site as a
single-family detached dwelling is consistent with the LMDR zoning district. The proposed
annexation is consistent with Pinellas County law regarding municipal annexation.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends the following
actions on the request: 1) Approval of the annexation of property located at 2135 Burnice Drive;
2) Approval of the Residential Low (RL) category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan;
and 3) Approval of the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential zoning district pursuant to the
City's Community Development Code.
Community Development 2004-04-20
8
.
Member Mazur moved to approve Item #1, Case FLD2003-11-58 for 161 Brightwater
Drive, and recommend approval of Item #3, Case ANX2004-01 001 for 2135 Burnice Drive. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Acting Member Dennehy did not vote.
F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2):
1. 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: 2.57 acres at the southeast corner of Sunnydale and Edgewater Drives.
Atlas Page: 251A.
Zoning District: T, Tourist.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a reduction to 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 Section 2-803.B.
Proposed Use: A 77-unit development of attached, multi-family 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 Member Dennehy recused himself.
This 2.572-acre site is on the southeast corner of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive,
and north of Sunset Point Road. Commercial, and residential land uses dominate the
immediate vicinity. Two motels are on the property proposed for redevelopment.
The proposal is to completely raze the site, including the two motels and all ancillary
structures, and to construct 77 (attached) multi-family residential 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.B) have been met. The
application as advertised is seeking Flexible Development 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 from 50 feet (FLS level) 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 the parking space requirement to be met. The plan indicates heavy
landscaping will be installed along the east property line, where the setback reduction is 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 provisions of Sections 2-803.B. and
2-303. with the following bases and conditions:
.
Community Development 2004-04-20
9
.
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria per
Section 2-803.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) That a revised landscape plan be submitted satisfactory to
Planning staff, prior to building permit issuance; 2) 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; 3) That a copy of the SWFWMD permit be provided prior to building
permit; 4) That Traffic Impact Fees be determined and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy
issuance; 5) That a tree preservation plan be provided prior to building permit issuance; 6) That
all Fire Department requirements be addressed prior to building permit issuance; 7) That a 10-
foot sidewalk, drainage and utility easement along frontage of Edgewater Drive be granted; 8)
That a Condominium plat be recorded prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 9)
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; 10) That a vacation of alley
and/or easements be completed prior to issuance of a building permit; 11) That the installation
of sanitary sewer main be completed prior to issuance of a building permit; 12) That all right-of-
way permits be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; 13) That a revised site plan be
submitted prior to building permit issuance, correctly showing visibility triangles measured from
the property lines; 14) That a sediment and erosion control prevention plan be submitted prior to
any demolition and building permits; 15) That the separate site plans be consolidated to one site
plan set with one site data table; 16) That the site data table indicate both the maximum and
proposed Impervious Surface Ratio; 17) That the site data table state the number of motel
rooms existing on site; and 18) 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 Mike Reynolds said this item was continued on March16, 2004, to
provide the applicant time to redesign the project to reflect the character of the neighborhood.
The building's design includes a stair-stepping effect whereby a section of the building rises to
52.5 feet and then transitions to 75 feet in height. The redesign meets side setback
req uirements.
It was questioned how staff determined this project is consistent with the Flexible
Standard criteria. Mr. Reynolds said staff determined the four criteria have been met. The
increased height improves site plan. The building's 75-foot height will result in a better layout of
the site with respect to landscaping and off-street parking. A side setback reduction will not
prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles, and results in an improved
appearance. Mr. Reynolds said staff feels the site plan is consistent with Code. Concern was
expressed the stair-stepping proposed consists of only one step, which is 40 feet high. It was
remarked the proposal is not consistent with the residential area and nearby developments.
It was indicated the flood zone lines on the boundary survey differ from elevations
depicted in the application by one foot. It was suggested staff verify those numbers.
.
Harry Cline, representative, said this site is at one of the City's gateways.
This property contains outdated buildings, which are marginally functional. The property is
nonconforming in a host of ways and is unmarketable. He said LMDR zoning to the west allows
for increased density. He said the area is a transient rental environment in a flood zone. He
Community Development 2004-04-20
10
.
said the applicant has proposed a quality development that will save oak trees, raze old
structures, and reconstruct the project on the north end of the property. The applicant seeks an
increase in height between 50 and 100 feet.
Robert Aude, architect, said the Flexible Development criteria permits a height of 50 to
100 feet under a Level Two approval. He said the site's prominent trees greatly influenced the
placement of the structure. Site ingress/egress has been reduced from six to two with ingress
only off Sunnydale Drive. The developer and applicant held community meetings to obtain
public input, which indicated opposition to ingress from Sunnydale, and support of a six-foot
high, continuous wall along the east property line, and a change to the landscaping. All of those
concerns influenced the design. The north and south portions of the building are 120 feet from
the east property line, which is buffered by large trees. The proposal to transition the building
was discussed with staff.
.
The design is of a mission style architecture. Mr. Aude said the trees cannot be
preserved if the design is changed, the trees could not be preserved. In response to a question,
he said the 77 units vary in size from 2,200 to 4,200 square-feet. Larger townhome units are to
be located on the west side. He said the developer and applicant are in the process of
performing a marketing study related to pricing, but estimated the units will be priced from
$450,000. In response to a question, Mr. Aude said changing the building horizontally would
place the project closer to residential property lines and impact traffic circulation. In response to
a question, Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce reviewed Level One Flexible standards. Mr.
Aude said limiting the project's height to 50 feet would cause the project to cover most of the
site. He said the large oak trees provide a great buffering element to the east where parking will
be located. He said the combination of landscaping, parking lot, and swimming pool will provide
a 120-foot buffer.
Ten persons spoke in support of the application; eighteen persons spoke in opposition.
The meeting recessed from 4:52 to 5:01 p.m.
In response to a question, Mr. Reynolds said the building height is specified in the Code.
Engineering Director Mike Quillen said the LOS (level of service) on Edgewater Drive between
Sunset Point Road and Union Street is F, however peak hour trips are 1 % of the total, which
makes it deminimus. He said changes to Alternate US19's designation will not impact this site.
Mr. Gerlock said the maximum height allowed for a Level One application is 35 to 50 feet,
without a public hearing. There are no "automatic" approvals.
Mr. Aude said as some Level Two development was anticipated to be up to 100 feet in
height, the applicant feels 75 feet is within that criteria. He said scale is a matter of proportion
and articulation. He said to fit the architecture into the community, proportions, dormers,
recessed balconies, and appropriate use of materials have been incorporated into this design.
Mr. Aude said the building's shadow will rarely reach the eastern property line.
Mr. Cline said of 40 property owners who received notice of this hearing, 36 signed a
petition in support of this application. He said the condominiums and the traffic are not at issue;
the height is. He said the applicant has addressed the scale, shadows, maximum separation,
oak trees, and improvement of this declining property.
.
Discussion ensued. It was remarked the CDS often had discussed the issue of height
versus bulk. It was remarked the applicant's team had worked diligently to address the site plan
Community Development 2004-04-20
11
.
creatively. It was felt that while residential uses are best for this site, concerns were expressed
regarding parking, the bulk, and the height of the project. It was remarked the oak trees already
block the water view; therefore this project would not impact those views. It was remarked the
applicant is not asking for rezoning, a land use change, additional density, or zero setbacks, and
that this design is better than a shorter, box-type development.
Mr. Cline requested a 90-day continuance.
Member Doran moved to continue Case FLD2003-09050 for 1925 Edgewater Drive, to
the July 20, 2004 meeting. The motion was duly seconded.
Discussion ensued and it was remarked that the project's height and parking are the
major issues. It was remarked that although the applicant has the right to request a height of 75
feet, the CDS is not obligated to grant it. A concern was expressed limiting parking to 1.5
spaces per unit, could cause parking to spill into the surrounding area.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Doran, Gildersleeve, Moran, Plisko, Mazur, Milam,
and Chair Hooper voted "Aye." Member Dennehy abstained. Motion carried.
2.
Case: APP2004-00002
Applicant/Appellant: Housh Ghovahee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601
Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-
8036; email: nesadmin@mindsprinq.com).
Request: Appeal of an interpretation of Section 4-1402 with regard to how to calculate the
maximum 20 percent of the permitted development potential of any given site.
Presenter: Lisa L. Fierce, Assistant Planning Director.
.
The Planning Director met with Housh Ghovaee of Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
(agent for appellant) to explain an interpretation of the Code with respect to calculating
density/intensity. A letter was later submitted to the Planning Department by Debra Harris of
Northside Engineering Services, Inc. requesting an interpretation of Section 4-1402 of the Code
(Allocated Development Rights are Freely Transferable). (The Planning Department's
interpretation letter was prepared after the appeal was submitted, but is consistent with the
conversation with the applicant.) This appeal is not specific to a subject site.
Subsections 4 and 5 are applicable to this case as follows:
4-1402.4
For parcels receiving density/intensity transferred from a designated
environmental, open space, archaeological, historical or architecturally significant
site, density/intensity may not exceed 20 percent of the permitted development
potential of the site prior to the transfer.
4-1402.5
For parcels located within an area designated Central Business District (CBD) or
Community Redevelopment District (CRD) on the Countywide Future Land Use
Plan map or parcels governed by approved redevelopment or special area plans,
a site may only receive density/intensity transferred from within the CBD, CRD,
redevelopment plan area or special area plan district, and may not exceed the
otherwise applicable maximum density/intensity by 20 percent provided that the
governing plan makes specific provision for the use of transfer of development
rights.
.
Community Development 2004-04-20
12
.
In addition to these Code sections, it is important to understand how density is calculated
as provided in Code section in 3-902 Comprehensive Plan Densities/Intensities. Subsection 0
states:
3-902.0
When calculating the lot area and/or density/intensity of a property, the total of
either number shall not be rounded up to the next whole number.
This provision means that densities/intensities are whole numbers and not fractions (e.g.
1.99 dwelling units is equal to one dwelling unit.). Density/intensity for any site is limited to the
maximum development potential permitted by the Future Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. The consistent land use categories are enumerated under each of the 14
zoning districts within the Community Development Code. The maximum development potential
is expressed as maximum dwelling units per acre of land or maximum floor area ratio/impervious
surface ratio.
In order to determine maximum development potential, the following example shows each
step in the calculation:
1) Calculatinq lot area
20,000 square-foot lot divided by 43,560 (one acre) = 0.459 acre;
.
2) Calculatinq density/intensity
Site area = 0.459 acres multiplied by 30 dwelling units (permitted density per acre) =
13.774 dwelling units; this is rounded down to 13 dwelling units permitted, which
represents the maximum development potential of the site; and
3) Calculatinq maximum density/intensity with TOR process
Maximum permitted density = 13 dwelling units (maximum development potential of the
site) multiplied by 20 percent transfer = 2.6; this is rounded down to a maximum of two
units to be transferred; the overall density permitted based on maximum development
potential is 15 total dwelling units.
The points of disagreement between the appellant's agent and staff are in the way
density/intensity is rounded down as illustrated in #2 and #3 above. The Code specifically
prohibits rounding up to the next whole number (e.g. 1.1 through 1.99 still equals one dwelling
unit). Rounding up may artificially inflate the density and may exceed the maximum
development potential as regulated by zoning district and land use category.
Section 4-501.A.1 of the Community Development Code states that the Community
Development Board has the authority to hear appeals from administrative interpretations of the
development Code. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the
decision pending the final determination of the case.
.
The City Attorney's office has opined that, based on recent litigation, the case shall be
legally noticed and placed on the next available COB (Community Development Board) 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
Community Development 2004-04-20
13
.
scheduled meeting of the CDB and 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
CDB shall find that, based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or
other party, ill! of the following criteria are met:
1) The decision appealed from, misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the
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.
.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said Clearwater's Code strictly prohibits rounding
up to the next whole number. The PPC (Pinellas Planning Council), DCA (Department of
Community Affairs), and other regulatory agencies would require an explanation from the City
should that practice occur, as it would undermine the underlying land use and maximum
potential development allowed. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said language in the Code is
consistent with Pinellas County's transfer language. She said during negotiations with the PPC
regarding the Beach by Design Special Area Plan, the PPC requested the 20% cap be included.
The agency since has softened its position and staff feels the PPC would not object to removing
the 20% cap for a project in a redevelopment area, such as at the beach or Downtown. Staff is
considering incorporating an exception to the 20% cap in a future Code amendment. In
response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said TDRs (Transfer of Density Rights) are available
outside of historic, archaeological, and wetland preservation areas.
Housh Ghovaee, applicant, said the numbers should be rounded up only one time,
during the equation regarding density transfers. He presented an example of how he would
calculate an equation. Ms. Tarapani said staff has reviewed these calculations many times with
the applicant. Roland Rogers, applicant, recommended fractional numbers be rounded down
only once.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said a change in the way density is calculated
would greatly impact a small site, especially at the beach, would violate Code, and would
conflict with regulatory agency regulations.
Mr. Ghovaee offered to continue the case in order to present a letter from the PPC
regarding density calculations.
Discussion ensued regarding TDRs can shift from one area to another. In response to a
question, Ms. Tarapani said the City has employed this calculation method for many years. Mr.
Ghovaee said Clearwater is the only municipality that calculates density in this manner. It was
remarked that staff had not misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the
Community Development Code. Ms. Tarapani said the applicant is welcome to suggest a Code
amendment regarding his concerns.
.
Member Mazur moved to deny the appeal of an interpretation of Section 4-1402 with
regard to how to calculate the maximum 20 percent of the permitted development potential of any
given site. The motion was duly seconded.
Community Development 2004-04-20
14
.
.
.
It was remarked that TORs involve the transfer of the same number of units from one
location to another. It was suggested that consideration be given to increasing the amount of
density transferred as a percentage versus the calculation method.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
Other
Member Mazur reviewed his background supporting local organizations, including his
service on various City advisory boards. He announced he is resigning from the COB effective
at the end of this meeting.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 6:14 p.m.
Ch
Community Development Bo
~~~)JJ(YJW
Board Reporter
Community Development 2004-04-20
15
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
Ct)b
THE BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
W ICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER lOCAL AGENCY
AME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
e~~~
LJI\.A \/'<f
MY POSITION IS:
~
CCURRED
\...J0d:) ~
o ELECTIVE
APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, 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 mea-
'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 the
arent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; 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 min-
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 conflict before making any attempt to influ'ence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
'"'y you or at your direction.
.YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. 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)
CE FORM 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:
· You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
· You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of thE
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
~ DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
~N'~~~eu.'-\' , hereby disclose that on ~!\.OJ lLo A;....o A-pll\L 10
. ,
,20eL
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
.x inured to my special private gain or loss;
f; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
-f. inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
, by
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: .
~WQ.CN'" (}? FLex \)VVtA..OI?M, lLea\)~\ 'fo L FL.\Yl.Q)~-~ 1 \'1l.5" 8ti,b~l\l'L
~.....\ '\It
,which
"
~~
----
4').0' 04
Date Filed
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: IMPEACH~.r..,. T,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, ,A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 20~ 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
16~twater Drive
___(,:;ses
FLD2003-11058
no
Paul Camp Lane
39~da1ay Avenue
--A--yes
FLD2003-12070
no
Marla Winner
~gewater Drive
yes
FLD2003-09050
no
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
~es
APP2004-00002
no
Housh Ghovahee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
xmice Drive
yes
ANX2004-0 1 00 1
no
Remzi Dalip
Signature:
Da~\W\oi
S:\Plllnning Depllrtment\C D B\Agendlls DRC & CD8\CDB\2004\04 April 20, 2004\CDB property investigation check list 042004. doc I of I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 20~ 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
161 Brightwater Drive FLD2003-11058
..---- yes no
Paul Camp Lane
395 Mandalay Avenue FLD2003-12070
~ yes no
Marla Winner
_1925 Edgewater Drive FLD2003-09050
~ yes no
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
APP2004-00002
Housh Ghovahee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
yes I ____ no
2135 Burnice Drive ANX2004-0 100 1
yes L----- no
Remzi Dalip
Signature~~
Date: ~t ~ ~i
S:\Planning Department\C D SlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDlJ\2004\04 April 20, 2004\CDB property investigation check list 042004.docl of J
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 20~ 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
161 Brightwater Drive ~LD2003-11058
yes \ no
~
Paul Camp Lane
395 Mandalay Avenue
/
~ yes
FLD2003-12070
Marla Winner
no
1925 Edgewater Drive
- /yes
FLD2003-09050
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
no
APP2004-00002
Housh Ghovahee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
yes
/
no
2135 Bumice Drive
yes
~/ no
ANX2004-0 1 00 1
Rernzi Dalip
~~
Signature:
I' f.
Date: Lf t l/;IJ') f
l~
S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CD8\CDlA2004\04 April 20, 2004\CDB property investiRation check list 042004.docI of 1
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 20" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
161 Brightwater Drive I FLD2003-11058
yes \ no
Paul Camp Lane
395/Mandalay Avenue
v yes
FLD2003-12070
no
Marla Winner
_1925 Edgewater Drivj FLD2003-09050
yes no
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
yes
j APP2004-00002
I no
Housh Ghovahee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
- /
2135 Burnice Drive / ANX2004-0 100 1
yes ~no
Rernzi Dalip
Date:
S:\Planning Department\C D E!lAgendas DRC & CDB\CD8I2004\04 April 20, 2004\CDB property investigation check list 042004.docl of 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 20'1 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
161 Brightwater Drive y FLD2003-11058
yes ~no
395 Mandalay AvenueG FLD2003-12070
yes ~no
_1925 Edgewater DriV' FLD2003-09050
yes ,no
yes
(/ APP2004-00002
,no
2135 Bumice Drive
yes
ANX2004-0 1 00 I
no
Signature:
Paul Camp Lane
Marla Winner
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
Housh Ghovahee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
Remzi Dalip
7j~r
S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDB\2004\04 April 20, 2004\CDB property investigation check list 042004.docl of 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 20~ 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
~rDrive FLD2003-11058 Paul Camp Lane
yes no
39~ay Avenue FLD2003-12070 Marla Winner
yes no
_1925 ~ewater Drive
Vye;
FLD2003-09050
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
no
~
APP2004-00002
Housh Ghovahee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
no
2135~ceDrive
yes
ANX2004-0 1 00 1
Rernzi Dalip
no
~/U!
Date:
Signature:
S:\Planning Department\C D /JIAgendas DRC & CD8\CD8I2004\04 April 20. 2004\CDB property investigation check list 042004.docl (if/
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: April 20" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
161 Brightwater Drive
. I
yes y.
FLD2003-11058
Paul Camp Lane
no
395, Mandalay Avenue
"f..... yes
FLD2003-l2070
Marla Winner
no
_19:25 Edgewater Drive
.'" yes
.
FLD2003-09050
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
no
~f~
yes
APP2004-00002
Housh Ghovahee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.
no
2135 Burnice Drive
yes
'i
...
ANX2004-0 1 00 1
Remzi Dalip
no
Signature:
Date:
S:\Planning Department\C D B\ARendas DRC & CDB\CDB\2004\04 April 20. 2004\CDB property investigation check list 042004.docl of I