07/20/2004
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
July 20, 2004
Present: Ed Hooper
John Doran
David Gildersleeve
Shirley Moran
Kathy Milam
J. B. Jonson
Daniel Dennehy
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member - departed at 5:38 p.m.
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Acting Board Member
Absent: Alex Plisko
Board Member
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
Lisa Fierce
Frank Gerlock
Patricia O. Sullivan
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: June 15, 2004
Member Moran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 15, 2004,
as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
D. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff,
neighboring property owner, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting. (Items 1 - 7)
.
Case: FLD2004-02009 - 1455 and 1459 Court Street
Owners: Linda S. Griffin, Trustee, and McDowell Holdings, Inc.
Applicant: Linda S. Griffin.
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: 0.167 acre (1455 Court Street) and 0.331 acre (1459 Court Street) (0.498 acre
total) located on the south side of Court Street approximately 300 feet west of the Court
Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Highland Avenue intersection.
Atlas Page: 297 A.
Zoning District: Office (0)
Request: Flexible Development approval 1 ) to retain an existing office use with proposed
parking improvements at 1455 Court Street with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25
Pulled from Action Agenda
Level Two Application
1.
Community Development 2004-07-20
1
.
.
.
feet to five feet (to existing/proposed pavement), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 20
feet to zero feet (to existing/proposed pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 20
feet to 12 feet (to existing/proposed pavement) and a reduction to the rear (south) setback from
20 feet to 9.5 feet (to existing/proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1004. B, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along
Court Street (north) from 15 feet to five feet, a reduction to the landscape buffer along the rear
(south) property line from 12 feet to 9.5 feet and a reduction to the foundation landscaping from
five feet to three feet (existing), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the
provisions of Section 3-1202.G and 2) to amend a previously approved Flexible Development
request to permit offices at 1459 Court Street to additionally reduce the side (west) setback from
20 feet to zero feet (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-1 004.B [prior approval under FLD2003-01 002 on April 15,
2003, was to permit offices with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17 feet
(to pavement and building), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to
building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 20 feet to seven feet (to pavement) and a
reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 11 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to
three feet (to dumpster enclosure), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the rear
(south) property line from 12 feet to three feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program,
under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G].
Proposed Use: Offices.
Neighborhood Associations: Gateway Neighborhood (Paul Charles, 1367 Park Street,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 813-205-8779); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug
Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Planner Wayne M. Wells reviewed the request. Both properties are on the south side of
Court Street, approximately 300 feet west of the Court Street, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and
Highland Avenue intersection. The property at 1455 Court Street is 0.17 -acre in size and is
developed with a small office building with limited parking in the front and parking in the rear
accessed by a drive on the east side of the building, which straddles the common property line
with property at 1459 Court Street. This office building was most likely developed as a dwelling
(built in 1951) and later converted to an office use.
The property at 1459 Court Street is 0.33-acre in size and is vacant. On April 15, 2003,
the COB approved Flexible Development case FLD2003-01002 for the development of this
property at 1459 Court Street for offices with various reductions to setbacks and landscape
buffers and with the following conditions: 1) That a Unity of Title be recorded prior to the
issuance of a building permit; 2) That a Code compliant trash enclosure, consistent with the
material and color of the principal building, be shown on the site and/or building plans prior to
the issuance of a building permit; 3) That any freestanding signage be designed as a monument
sign, at a maximum height of six feet above grade and consistent with the materials and color of
the principal building; 4) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of
any permits, including fire hydrants; 5) That tree replacements be provided on an "inch for inch"
basis for all trees previously removed without authorization, to the satisfaction of the Planning
staff, prior to the issuance of any permits; 6) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, copies of
a SWFWMD permit and all required State right-of-way permits be submitted to staff; 7) That soil
borings, seasonal high water determination, percolation test and drawdown calculations meeting
Community Development 2004-07-20
2
.
City criteria be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits; and 8) That a six feet high solid
masonry wall, stuccoed and painted to match the building, be installed along the south property
line.
The site plan approved by the COB for 1459 Court Street included a building of 2,789
square-feet of floor area and a total of 15 parking spaces accessed from a driveway on Court
Street (only 10 parking spaces required). The development of this property at 1459 Court Street
anticipated the removal of the encroaching drive accessing the rear parking area at 1455 Court
Street. At the COB meeting on April 15, 2003, there was no opposition to the request at 1459
Court Street, although a revision to the buffering was requested by adjoining property owners to
the south and approved by the COB. Months after the COB meeting, the owner of 1455 Court
Street inquired about the approved site plan for 1459 Court Street and the loss of access to the
rear parking area. The property at 1459 Court Street has not yet been developed in accordance
with the prior approval.
.
Negotiations between the two property owners have produced the current request. The
proposal is to continue to develop the property at 1459 Court Street in accordance with the
approval granted under FLD2003-01 002, but combine it with plans for the site at 1455 Court
Street. This will result in a loss of two parking spaces on the southwest portion of 1459 Court
Street to provide a driveway to the rear parking area for the property at 1455 Court Street. A
cross-access easement will be necessary to provide legal access through the parking lot of
1459 Court Street to the rear parking area at 1455 Court Street. While the owner of the
property at 1459 Court Street requested a time extension through the Planning Department to
retain the prior approval under FLD2003-01 002, the Planning Department cannot approve the
time extension due to the proposed reduction of the west side setback from the previously
approved seven feet to zero feet (to pavement). The COB must approve this further reduction
of required setback, which is to provide for this proposed cross-access to 1455 Court Street.
Other than this proposed cross-access drive, there are no other changes to the site plan for
1459 Court Street. The proposal must be processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project due to the proposed reduction to setbacks to pavement.
.
The current (and previously approved) proposal at 1459 Court Street is for the
construction of a 2,789 square-foot office building. The rectangular building is proposed to be
oriented north to south, with the front doors facing west. The building will be stucco, with stone
for the first four feet from the ground, where the stucco will be painted white sapling, trim will be
painted sea gull gray, and the pitched roof will be darker gray shingles. Awnings will be a
palace gate color. Drainage facilities, including a vault under the building, are located along
Court Street and to the east of the building. While only 10 parking spaces are required, and
after losing two parking spaces to provide the cross-access to 1455 Court Street, 13 parking
spaces will be provided. Excess parking is anticipated to be used by employees of the owner's
dentist office located farther west on Court Street. Employees of the owner's dentist office
continue to park on the grass on this parcel, which is not permitted by Code. Unused driveways
will be eliminated, providing a cleaner "curb" appearance at this location. Prior to the issuance
of any permits for the site at 1459 Court Street, the site plan will need to be revised, acceptable
to Traffic Engineering, to show wheel stops for all parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas
or the sidewalk and an accessible handicap path to the public sidewalk along Court Street.
Landscaping improvements in the front will complement landscaping improvements planned in
the Court Street right-of-way as part of the City's improvements to the gateway corridor to the
downtown and beach. Trees previously removed from the 1459 Court Street site without
Community Development 2004-07-20
3
.
.
.
authorization will need to be replaced as part of the development of this parcel on an "inch for
inch" basis, to the satisfaction of the Planning staff, prior to the issuance of any permits for the
1459 Court Street parcel.
The current (and previously approved) proposal at 1459 Court Street includes a
reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17 feet (to pavement and building), a
reduction to the side (east) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building), a reduction to the side
(west) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement; previously approved at seven feet) and a
reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 11 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to
three feet (to dumpster enclosure). The proposal includes a reduction to the rear (south)
landscape buffer from 12 feet to three feet (to the dumpster enclosure). While only attached
signage has been indicated, approval of this request should continue to be conditioned that any
future freestanding signage be a monument-style sign. The proposed construction of the office
building at 1459 Court Street will aesthetically enhance this area of the Court Street corridor and
still will be compatible with the detached dwellings to the south with the buffering of the required
wall.
The proposal for the property at 1455 Court Street is to continue the use of the building
for offices and for repaving existing parking areas in front and rear of the building, providing two
parking spaces in front and four parking spaces in the rear. Existing pavement will be removed
along the frontage to provide a five-foot wide landscape buffer that does not exist today (15-foot
wide buffer required by Code; site is nonconforming). Pavement also will be removed from the
west and south sides of the property to provide greater pervious areas. While the drive along
the east side of the building will be removed, pedestrian access will be improved from the rear
to the front through the installation of a sidewalk with an accessible handicap path to the public
sidewalk along Court Street. A previously approved sign for this site will be relocated to the
west side of the site, outside of visibility triangles. A six-foot high solid wood fence is proposed
for buffering of the detached dwellings to the south. The proposal includes retaining the existing
three-foot wide foundation landscape area in front of the building (five-foot required by Code).
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-
1004.8) have been met.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on April 1, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to retain an existing office use with proposed parking improvements at 1455 Court
Street with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to existing/proposed
pavement), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to existing/proposed
pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to existing/proposed
pavement) and a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 9.5 feet (to
existing/proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-1004.8, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along Court Street
(north) from 15 feet to five feet, a reduction to the landscape buffer along the rear (south)
property line from 12 feet to 9.5 feet and a reduction to the foundation landscaping from five feet
to three feet (existing), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of
Section 3-1202.G; and (2) to amend a previously approved Flexible Development request to
permit offices at 1459 Court Street to additionally reduce the side (west) setback from 20 feet to
zero feet (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-1004. B [prior approval under FLD2003-01 002 on April 15, 2003, was to
Community Development 2004-07-20
4
.
.
.
permit offices with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17 feet (to pavement
and building), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building), a
reduction to the side (west) setback from 20 feet to seven feet (to pavement) and a reduction to
the rear (south) setback from 20 feet to 11 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to three feet (to
dumpster enclosure), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-1004.B, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the rear (south)
property line from 12 feet to three feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under
the provisions of Section 3-1202.G], for the sites at 1455 and 1459 Court Street, 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 2-1004.8; 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. AND
Conditions of Approval: 1) That permits for the construction of site improvements at 1459 Court
Street be issued prior to or in conjunction with the issuance of permits for site improvements at
1455 Court Street. The issuance of final inspections for 1455 Court Street shall be contingent
on final inspections also being obtained for 1459 Court Street; 2) That, prior to the issuance of
any permits for 1455 Court Street, an access easement be recorded over the property at 1459
Court Street for 1455 Court Street; 3) That the following conditions of approval shall apply to
1459 Court Street: (* Indicates prior condition of approval adopted April 15, 2003, under
FLD2003-01002 that is carried forward) a) That a Unity of Title be recorded prior to the issuance
of a building permit*; b) That a Code compliant trash enclosure, consistent with the material and
color of the principal building, be shown on the site and/or building plans prior to the issuance of
a building permit *; c) That any freestanding signage be designed as a monument sign, at a
maximum height of six feet above grade and consistent with the materials and color of the
principal building *; d) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the issuance of any
permits, including fire hydrants *; e) That tree replacements be provided on an "inch for inch"
basis for all trees previously removed without authorization, to the satisfaction of the Planning
staff, prior to the issuance of any permits *; f) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, copies
of a SWFWMD permit and all required State right-of-way permits be submitted to staff *; g) That
soil borings, seasonal high water determination, percolation test and drawdown calculations
meeting City criteria be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits *; h) That a six feet high
solid masonry wall, stuccoed and painted to match the building, be installed along the south
property line *; i) That a revised landscape plan be submitted prior to the issuance of any
permits reflecting the changes to the parking lot providing for cross-access to 1455 Court Street;
j) That a tree preservation plan acceptable to the Planning Department be submitted addressing
the retention of existing trees prior to the issuance of any permits; k) That wheel stops be
installed for all parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas or the sidewalk and be shown on
revised plans prior to the issuance of any permits; and I) That an accessible path be shown on
revised plans prior to the issuance of any permits, acceptable to the Traffic Engineering
Department.
Representative Housh Ghovaee agreed to the conditions.
One resident spoke in opposition to the request.
Community Development 2004-07-20
5
.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said previous neighborhood concerns related to
parking at a dentist office to the west, which is not part of this request. No uses for the new
office building have been defined.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item D1, Case FLD2004-02009 for 1455 and
1459 Court Street, including the Bases and Conditions of approval as listed. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
2. Case: FLD2004-02006 -1315 South Fort Harrison Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Corbett Development, Inc.
Representative: F. Blake Longacre (phone: 727-446-5846; fax: 727-446-1296; email:
fbldev@>-tampabav.rr.com).
Location: 0.34-acre located on the east side of South Fort Harrison Avenue,
approximately 300 feet north of Lakeview Road.
Atlas Page: 305B.
Zoning District: Industrial Research Technology (IRT).
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce: the minimum lot size from 20,000 square-
feet to 14,850 square-feet, the front (west) setback along South Fort Harrison Avenue from 20
feet to 15 feet to pavement, the front (south) setback along "B" Street from 20 feet to 13 feet (to
building) and 1 0 feet (to pavement), the side (north) setback from 15 feet to five feet (to
pavement), the side (east) setback from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement) and to permit an office
use in the IRT district, under the provisions of Section 2-1304.C as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project.
Proposed Use: A 2,044 square-foot office.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Bryan S. Berry, Planner II.
The 0.34-acre site is on the east side of S. Fort Harrison Avenue, approximately 300 feet
north of Lakeview Road. The site is entirely paved and contains an existing 2,044 square-foot
building, located on the rear (southeast) portion of the property. The building has a brick fagade
facing South Fort Harrison Avenue and painted masonry stucco along the three other external
fagades. The building needs structural repair and major fagade renovations. A single car
garage door is located on the front (west) fagade along S. Fort Harrison Avenue. The front
(south) fagade along "B" Street has a two-car garage door with an aluminum awning cover that
extends from the building to five feet from the property line. These garage doors served many
former vehicle service and automotive sale uses that occupied the parcel. The property has a
four-foot chain link fence running along the entire side (north) property line. An 18-foot
(drainage and utility easement) alley, vacated in October 2003, is located on the side (east)
property line. The western nine feet of the vacated alley belongs to the property owner and is
paved. The property has two curb cuts located on "B" Street and one on S. Fort Harrison.
The applicant proposes to reuse the existing building as a real estate office, marketing
office, and office storage. Office use is permitted within the Institutional Research and
Technology District on the basis that the proposed use of the parcel shall be related to uses
permitted in the district and shall include, but not be limited to, office uses related to scientific or
industrial research, product development and testing, etc. As the parcel does not meet the
minimum lot area, the proposed front and side setback requirements, and the office use criteria,
the application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
6
.
.
.
The proposed site plan is designed to access the parcel along S. Fort Harrison Avenue.
Twelve parking spaces are provided in the proposed parking lot to the north of the building. A
one-way drive aisle runs from the parking lot, in front of the building, and exits onto liB" Street.
Three parallel parking spaces are located on each side of the one-way drive aisle. Immediately
to the east of the exiting one-way drive isle, a 12-foot apron/drive accesses the aluminum
awning cover and two-car garage door on the south side of the building. The applicant plans to
remove the two-car garage door along liB" Street and replace it with two French doors and a six-
foot sidewalk. Along with the two-car garage door on the south building elevation, the applicant
also is removing the single-car garage door on the west building elevation.
The applicant proposes to reduce the front (west) setback along S. Fort Harrison Avenue
from 20 feet to 15 feet to pavement. The Community Development Code allows for reductions
in the front setback to 15 feet for parking lots, provided the land area is not sufficient to
accommodate the full setback requirement and the reduction results in an improved site plan or
improved design and appearance and landscaping is in excess of the minimum required. The
perimeter landscape buffer along S. Fort Harrison Avenue meets the minimum landscape
requirements and would be characteristic with the Fort Harrison Medical Center front setback of
15 feet, immediately north of the parcel.
The Community Development Code requires an office use in the Industrial Research
and Technology District to have three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The existing
building is 2,044 square-feet and would require at least six parking spaces. The applicant
requests 18 parking spaces. The Code does not limit the maximum number of parking spaces
on a property.
The applicant submitted a proposed sign plan for one freestanding and one attached
sign that did not meet the City submittal requirements for review. No materials or colors were
submitted with the proposed locations. Any proposed signage needs to be reviewed by staff.
All freestanding sign requests should feature a low, monument-style sign, and all attached
signage should be architecturally integrated into the design of the building and site.
A Comprehensive Landscape Program application was submitted with the proposal.
This allows requirements in the Landscape Section of the Code to be waived or modified in
circumstances whereby existing site constraints limit full compliance with the Code. One criteria
is that the design, character, location and/or materials 6f the landscape treatment proposed in
the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be demonstrably more attractive than
landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum
landscape standards. Landscape requirements along S. Fort Harrison Avenue have been met
and will help to screen the six parallel parking spaces from the street. The minimum perimeter
landscaping has been met with a five-foot wide buffer along the north and east property lines.
The nine-foot paved portion of the vacated alley along the side (east) property line will be
removed and a five-foot landscaped buffer will be added. The applicant has provided
groundcover throughout the site in lieu of grass or turf. The requested Comprehensive
Landscape Program application is to reduce the amount of landscaping required as a result of
the site design and desire to maximize parking on site.
The front brick fac;ade will be replaced with stucco to match the other three elevations.
The building will be painted yellow and green shutters will be added to the four exterior
windows. Staff will require removal of the existing carport and that any new canopy proposed
Community Development 2004-07-20
7
.
on the side (south) elevation be consistent in color, style and pattern with the new canopy over
the main exterior entrance along the front (west) elevation on S. Fort Harrison Avenue. The
proposed reductions to setbacks and office use requested in the Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment application create an improved site plan with regards to the existing property.
Improvements to the building and landscaping will upgrade the appearance of the parcel.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on April 1, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of Flexible Development
approval to reduce: the minimum lot size from 20,000 square-feet to 14,850 square-feet, the
front (west) setback along S. Fort Harrison Avenue from 20 feet to 15 feet to pavement, the front
(south) setback along liB" Street from 20 feet to 13 feet (to building) and 10 feet (to pavement),
the side (north) setback from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement), the side (east) setback from 15
feet to five feet (to pavement) and to permit an office use in the IRT district, under the provisions
of Section 2-1304.C as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, for the site at 1355 S.
Fort Harrison Avenue, subject to the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The
proposal complies with the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment criteria under the provisions of
Section 2-1304.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 redevelopment of the project will
improve the parcel and immediate area. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That all signage meet
Code and be architecturally-integrated into the design of the building and site including a low,
monument-style freestanding sign; 2) That the existing carport along the side (south) elevation
be removed, prior to occupancy permit; 3) That the proposed canopies over the doors on the
front (west) and side (south) elevations be consistent in color, style, and pattern to the
satisfaction of planning staff; 4) The final color of the building must be approved by the Planning
Department; 5) That the handicap aisle's ramp next to the handicap parking space must comply
with the current City handicap details and not intrude in the access aisle; and 6) That the final
design of the building be consistent with the submitted elevations and/or any modifications
made by the CDB.
See motion on page 14.
3. Case: FLD2003-09052 - 1009 LaSalle Street Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Mt. Carmel CDC and City of Clearwater.
Representative: Maurice Mickens (1014 Pennsylvania Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755
phone: 727-447-4461).
Location: 0.82-acre located on the south side of LaSalle Street, approximately 100 feet
east of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Atlas Page: 269A.
Zoning Districts: Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Commercial (C).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings (eight units) entirely within
the 0.55-acre portion of the parcel zoned MDR, Medium Density Residential District and a
reduction to the front (north) setback along LaSalle Street from 25 feet to 10 feet (to pavement)
in the 0.55-acre portion of the parcel zoned MDR and the 0.27-acre portion of the parcel zoned
C, Commercial District under the provisions of Section 2-304.G (Residentiallnfill Project) and
Section 2-704.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project).
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (Eight units).
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Bryan S. Berry, Planner II.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
8
.
The 0.82-acre site is on the south side of LaSalle Street, approximately 100 feet east of
Pennsylvania Avenue. The parcel is comprised of Lots 8, 9, and 10, which are zoned MDR
District (0.55-acres) and Lot 7 and the southern half of Lot 6, which are zoned Commercial
District (0.27-acres). The site is in the greater North Greenwood Community, approximately 550
feet north of the North Greenwood Aquatic Center. The parcel is vacant and undeveloped, with
large trees located throughout the property. The surrounding area is largely built out with older
single-family homes to the north and a place of worship to the southwest. The corridor along
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the east of the site is commercially zoned with low intensity
uses that range from a small convenient store to a small medical clinic.
The request is to permit an attached dwelling (eight-unit apartment), completely within
the 0.55-acre portion of the property zoned MDR District. Attached dwellings are a permitted
use as a Flexible Standard Development request. The total number of parking spaces required
by Code is 1.5 spaces per unit. The applicant is providing the required 12 parking spaces in
front of the proposed building at a 1 O-foot front (north) setback along LaSalle Street to the
pavement. The parking will be in both the MDR and C zoned portions of the property. Because
the applicant is requesting a 10-foot setback to the front (north) property line, the application is
being processed as a Residentiallnfill Project for the portion of pavement located in MDR and
as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project for the portion of the pavement located in C.
.
The height for a detached dwelling under the minimum standard development in the
MDR District is 30 feet. The building will be two stories, approximately 32 feet in height, two feet
higher than the minimum standard for a detached dwelling. The increase in height can be
justified by the improved landscaping, which is in excess of the minimum landscape
requirements. Off-street parking will be 30 feet from the side (west) setback and abutting
residential properties and 20 feet from the side (east) setback and abutting properties.
The primary building elevation color will be cream with light tan accents. The roof will be
grey and pitched along with white trim around the windows. A dumpster enclosure will be
located on the front (northeast) corner of the property and easily viewed from LaSalle Street.
The enclosure, therefore, must be consistent in material and color to compliment the proposed
building design. The swing gates must be made of wood or decorative aluminum material and
opaque in nature.
There is no proposed signage for the project. The applicant is aware that any signage
must be approved through Planning staff and may require a Comprehensive Sign Program.
The application meets the landscape buffer requirements by providing a continual two-
foot vibernum hedge along the side and rear property lines. Much of the existing foliage on site,
including many of the older live oaks, is being preserved due to site design. The 10-foot buffer
along the front (north) setback is landscaped with a variety of flora, along with the interior
islands also being landscaped.
The proposed development will remove a group of parcels that are currently vacant and
create a development that will upgrade the immediate vicinity. This development also is
consistent with the redevelopment that has taken place throughout the greater North
Greenwood Community. The project is compatible with adjacent land uses and will enhance the
surrounding community.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
9
.
.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on June 10, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval to permit attached dwellings (eight units) entirely within the 0.55-acre
portion of the parcel zoned MDR, Medium Density Residential District and a reduction to the
front (north) setback along LaSalle Street from 25 feet to 10 feet (to pavement) in the 0.55-acre
portion of the parcel zoned MDR and the 0.27 -acre portion of the parcel zoned C, Commercial
District under the provisions of Section 2-304.G (Residentiallnfill Project) and Section 2-704.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project), for the site at 1009 LaSalle Street, subject to the
following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria under the provisions of Section 2-304.G; 2) The proposal complies with
the other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913;
and 3) The redevelopment will upgrade the undeveloped parcel and immediate vicinity.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That any Open Space and Recreation fee be paid prior to the
issuance of a building permit; 2) That the final design of the building be consistent with the
elevations submitted or as modified by COB and the colors approved by Planning staff; 3) That
any proposed signage meet Code and be architecturally-integrated into the design of the
building and site; 4) That prior to the issuance of Building Permit a copy of the approved
SWFWMD permit, a double ring infiltrometer percolation test demonstrating that the pond will
draw down in 24 hours and a soil boring and water table elevation must be provided; 5) That the
dumpster enclosure be designed to match the building in terms of color, materials, and
architecture along with the swing gates be made of wood or decorative aluminum material and
opaque in nature; 6) That all Traffic Impact Fees be paid prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy; and 7) That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be
placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the
abutting right(s)-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size
and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the
exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the
City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work.
See motion on page 14.
4. Case: ANX2004-04006 - 1627 Sherwood Street Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Susanne Roessler. (phone: 727-443-6546).
Location: 0.165-acre located at the southwest corner of Sherwood Street and Lynn
Avenue, approximately 200 feet east of Ridge Avenue.
Atlas Page: 270B.
Request: a) Annexation of 0.165-acre of property to the City of Clearwater;
b) Land Use Plan amendment from 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 Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-family home.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner II.
The subject property is at the southwest corner of Sherwood Street and Lynn Avenue,
approximately 200 feet east of Ridge Avenue. The parcel is 0.165-acre in area and is occupied
by a single-family detached dwelling. The applicant requests this annexation to receive City
Community Development 2004-07-20
10
.
.
.
sewer service. The property is contiguous with existing City boundaries to the north and west;
therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary
annexation. It is proposed that the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of
Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation currently receives City water. The property can be served by
City sewer, police, fire, and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the
service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval: 1) Annexation of
the property located at 1627 Sherwood Street; 2) Residential Low (RL) Category pursuant to the
City's Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district
pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See motion on page 14.
5. Case: FLD2004-04028 - 107 McMullen-Booth Road Level Two Application
Owner: Thomas Kelly.
Applicant: Patrick Hickey.
Representative: Keith Zayak (101 Philippe Parkway, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 phone:
727 -793-9888, e-mail: keith@keithzayak.com)
Location: 0.26-acre located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately 50
feet south of Bay Lane and approximately 140 feet north of Featherwood Court.
Atlas Page: 292A.
Zoning District: Office (0).
Request: Flexible Development approval for an office with a reduction to the side (north) .
setback from 20 feet to six feet to pavement, and a reduction of the side (south) setback from 20
feet to 7.1 feet (to existing building), and a reduction of the minimum lot width of 100 feet to
63.75 feet under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project) and as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section
3-1202.8.
Proposed Use: A 962.75 square-foot office building.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
This 0.26-acre site is on the west side of McMullen Booth Road, approximately 50 feet
south of Bay Lane and approximately 140 feet north of Featherwood Court. An existing single-
family house and garage occupy this very small lot. A residential driveway from McMullen-
Booth Road accesses the site.
The proposal is to demolish an existing garage and convert a residential structure to a
963 square-foot office building, with a three-space parking lot. The application is seeking
setback reductions on the north and south sides and a reduction to the minimum lot width of 100
feet to 63.75 feet. The proposal meets the criteria of the Code and is compatible with the
surrounding area. The hours of operation of the office will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The site has access along McMullen-Booth Road. A sidewalk will be provided along the
site's frontage. The existing building is setback approximately 56 feet from the road.
Community Development 2004-07-20
11
.
.
.
Stormwater retention will be located in front of the building. The required parking (three spaces)
will be located to the rear of the building, including one handicap space. Solid waste will be
serviced through a black barrel. The single-story building is constructed of plaster. It will be
patched and repaired and repainted a dark taupe color with white trim, windows, and doors.
Portions of the flat roof will be replaced with a gabled roof with dimensional gray shingles. The
height of the building to the midpoint of the new peaked roof is 11 feet.
The landscape plan includes a mix of plants including magnolia, live oak, cypress and
holly trees, as well as hedges around the perimeter of the site and building. A six-foot high
fence is proposed along the east property line to buffer the parking from the adjacent single-
family area. Although a signage proposal has not been submitted, it will need to be
architecturally-integrated into the design of the site (freestanding) and building (attached).
Channel-letters should be used should attached signage be requested. A low, monument-style
sign is appropriate should a freestanding sign be requested.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on June 10, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application for an office with: 1) Reduction to the side (north) setback from 20 feet
to six feet to pavement, 2) Reduction of the side (south) setback from 20 feet to 7.1 feet (to
existing building), and 3) Reduction of the minimum lot width of 100 feet to 63.75 feet under the
provisions of Section 2-1004. B. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project) and as part of a
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. 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
proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance redevelopment efforts. AND
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the site plan application be revised to correctly state the
required and provided parking, prior to building permit issuance; 2) That all Fire Department
concerns be addressed prior to building permit issuance; 3) That an approved health permit be
obtained from Pinellas County Health for sanitary connection prior to issuance of a building
permit; 4) That an approved SWFWMD permit be provided prior to building permit issuance; 5)
That a copy of a right-of-way permit from Pinellas County, for the driveway along McMullen-
Booth Road be provided prior to building permit issuance; 6) That a Traffic Impact fee to be
assessed and paid prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by the applicant; 7) That all
proposed on-site utilities, including electric, phone and cable television, be located underground;
and 8) That all signage meet Code, consist of channel letters for any attached signs, and low
monument-style for a freestanding sign and be architecturally-integrated into the design of the
building and site.
See motion on page 14.
6. Case: ANX2004-04007 - 1616 North Betty Lane Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Eugene Fields.
Representative: James Fields Jr. (1441 Kish Blvd., New Port Richey, FL 34655; phone:
727-375-8428).
Location: 0.16-acre located on the west side of Betty Lane, approximately 200 feet north
of Woodbine Street.
Atlas Page: 269B.
Community Development 2004-07-20
12
.
Request: a) Annexation of 0.16-acres of property 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 Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-family home.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner II.
The subject property is on the west side of Betty Lane, approximately 200 feet north of
Woodbine Street. The parcel is 0.16-acre in area and is occupied by a single-family detached
dwelling. The applicant requests this annexation to receive solid waste service. The property is
contiguous with existing City boundaries to the south and east; therefore, the proposed
annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. It is
proposed that the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL)
and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City services, including solid waste, police,
fire, and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service level. The
proposed annexation is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Florida law
regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries and
eliminates an enclave.
.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval: 1) of the
annexation of the property located at 1616 North Betty Lane; 2) of the Residential Low (RL)
Category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and 3) Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) zoning district pursuant to the City's Community Development Code.
See motion on page 14.
7. Case: ANX2004-03005 - 404 Oakmount Road Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Central Realty.
Representative: Stuart Cohen (4648 Park Blvd., Pinellas Park, FL 33781; phone: 727-
546-6611 ).
Location: 0.187 -acre located on the south side of Oakmount Road, approximately 200
feet south of Sharkey Road.
Atlas Page: 281A.
Request: a) Annexation of 0.187 -acre of property to the City of Clearwater and 0.17 -acre of
abutting Oakmount Road right-of-way to the City of Clearwater;
b) Land Use Plan amendment from 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 Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-family home.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Bryan Berry, Planner II.
.
The subject property is on the south side of Oakmount Road, approximately 200 feet
south of Sharkey Road. It is 0.187 -acre in area and currently vacant. The applicant requests
Community Development 2004-07-20
13
.
this annexation to receive City sewer and water service in order to construct a single-family
detached dwelling. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundary to the north;
therefore, the proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary
annexation. It is proposed that the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of
Residential Low (RL) and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City services, including sewer, solid waste,
water, police, fire, and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on the service
level. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with
Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City boundaries.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of the property located at 404 Oakmount Road and the abutting Oakmount right-of-
way; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and 3)
the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district pursuant to the City's Community
Development Code.
.
Member Doran moved to approve Item D2, Case FLD2004-02006 for 1315 South Fort
Harrison Avenue with Bases and Conditions of approval as listed and Item D3, Case: FLD2003-
09052 for 1009 LaSalle Street with Bases and Conditions of approval as listed, and to
recommend approval of Item D4, Case: ANX2004-04006 for 1627 Sherwood Street, and to
approve Item D5, Case: FLD2004-04028 for 107 McMullen-Booth Road with Bases and
Conditions of approval as listed, and to recommend approval of Item D6, Case: ANX2004-
04007 for 1616 North Betty Lane, and Item D7, Case: ANX2004-03005 for 404 Oakmount
Road. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E. CONTINUED ITEMS (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2003-09050 - 1925 Edgewater Drive Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
Representative: Harry S. Cline, Esquire (625 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33766; phone:
727 -441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470).
Location: 2.57 acres located at the southeast corner of Sunnydale and Edgewater
Drives.
Atlas Page: 251A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10
feet to 5.85 feet (to pavement), and an increase of building height from 35 feet to 59 feet from
base flood elevation of 13 feet MSL (with height calculated to the midpoint of the roof slope) to
construct 62 multi-family residential (attached) units, under the provisions of Section 2-803.B.
Proposed Use: A 62-unit development of attached, multi-family units.
Neighborhood Associations: Edgewater Drive Homeowners Association (Chip Potts, 1150
Commodore St., Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-448-0093); Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-
3345; email: Diw~qte.net).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Acting Board Member Daniel Dennehy recused himself and left the dais.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
14
.
Planner Michael H. Reynolds reviewed the request. This 2.572-acre site, on the
southeast corner of Sunnydale and Edgewater drives, is north of Sunset Point Road.
Commercial and residential land uses dominate the immediate vicinity. At present, there are
two motels on the property proposed for redevelopment.
The allowable density for overnight accommodations on this site is 102 hotel/motel units.
The proposal is to completely raze the existing site, including the two motels, consisting
of 36 motel units, nine rental apartments, and ancillary structures, and construct 62 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. 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 feet to
5.85 feet (to pavement), an increase of building height from 50 feet FLS (Flexible Standard,
Level One) to 59 feet from base flood elevation (BFE) 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. Both a six-foot high decorative wall and heavy
landscaping are shown along the east property line where the setback reduction (to pavement)
is being sought.
.
In March and April 2004, the Community Development Board considered proposals to
develop this site with a taller building (75 feet above BFE) and a greater number of residential
units (77). The April 2004 review was of a building slightly tapered from the northeast corner of
the structure to the northwest. To mitigate the proposed side setback reduction and to better
integrate the development with the abutting predominantly single-family residential land use, the
proposed building was redesigned to incorporate a "stair stepping" effect with a section of the
building at the northeast side rising to 52.5 feet and transitioning to 75 feet to the west.
The plan has been further revised with a building height of 59 feet above BFE (no
tapering), and a decrease in the requested number of dwelling units to 62. The application is
still seeking a side (east) setback reduction from 10 feet to 5.85 feet (to pavement) and an
increase in building height from 50 feet (FLS level) to 59 feet above BFE. The number of
parking spaces has increased from 117 to 120 spaces (Code requires 1.5 spaces per unit or 93
spaces). Two specimen live oak trees, within close proximity of each other and located on the
south side of the site, will be saved. Along the eastern property line, 16 existing trees will
remain.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on January 29, 2004. Since the January DRC meeting, the Community Development Board has
reviewed two variations of proposed development at 1925 Edgewater Drive. The Planning
Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application to permit attached
dwellings, with a reduction of the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet (to pavement),
and an increase of building height, from 35 feet to 59 feet from base flood elevation of 13 feet
MSL (with height calculated to the midpoint of the roof slope) to construct 62 multi-family
residential (attached) units, under the provisions of Sections 2-803.B. and 2-303. with the
following bases and conditions: 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
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
15
.
.
.
development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment
efforts. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That the separate site plans be consolidated to one site
plan set with one site data table, stating the proposed number of residential units; 2) That the
site data table indicate both the maximum and proposed impervious surface ratio; 3) That the
site data table state the number of motel rooms existing on site; 4) That a 10-foot sidewalk,
drainage and utility easement along frontage of Edgewater Drive be granted; 5) That a revised
landscape plan be submitted satisfactory to Planning staff, prior to building permit issuance; 6)
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; 7) That a tree preservation plan
be provided prior to building permit issuance; 8) That Plan Sheets 2, 3,4, LA-2, and A-1 be
revised (to the satisfaction of Planning staff) to be consistent with Sheet LA-1 and the tree
preservation plan in showing trees on site, prior to building permit issuance; 9) That all Fire
Department requirements be addressed prior to building permit issuance; 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
a copy of the SWFWMD permit be provided prior to building permit; 13) That all right-of-way
permits be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit; 14) That a sediment and erosion
control prevention plan be submitted prior to any demolition and building permits; 15) That
Traffic Impact Fees be determined and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance; 16) That
a Condominium plat be recorded prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 17) 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; 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.
Mr. Reynolds reviewed the transition of the project's design, reporting the building's
height was reduced from 75 feet to 59 feet, the number of units was decreased from 77 to 62,
and the number of parking spaces was increased by three. Assistant City Attorney Leslie
Dougall-Sides said those afforded party status at a previous meeting, retain their status.
Dean Falk, who was granted party status at a previous meeting, questioned a typo in the
staff report. In response to a question, Development Review Manager Frank Gerlock said the
site is zoned tourist, which requires a 15-foot setback. The setback provided "meets this
requirement, therefore a setback request on Sunnydale Drive is not necessary. In response to
a question, Mr. Reynolds said details, such as the landscape plan, must be revised to make all
plans consistent. It was noted while the project proposes 120 parking spaces, Code only
requires 1.5 spaces per unit, or 93 parking spaces.
Harry Cline, representative, said the developer had taken previous CDB (Community
Development Board) member comments seriously and has reduced the project's size from six
levels of residences over parking to four levels over parking. He said the project fronts Alternate
U.S. 19 and Sunset Point Road, both busy roads, and also is contiguous to a gasoline station.
He said a hotel or condominium can be constructed on the site, which is zoned tourist. He said
the proposal will replace overnight accommodations with a residential use, which is more
compatible with the neighborhood.
Community Development 2004-07-20
16
.
In response to a question, Project Architect Robert Aude said the building's height is
proposed at 59 feet above base flood level. He said instead of spreading 77 units across the
entire property, the structure was designed to save the majestic trees on site and reduce the
permitted density by more than 20%. He said the project's design was determined by the
location of the trees. He said the project is similar to the Villa del Mar project, down the street.
Mr. Aude said the number of parking spaces was increased to address neighbor
concerns that project residents not park on City streets. The two disabled parking spaces now
are located under the garage. Mr. Cline said the mature trees will remain. Others will be
planted.
Five people spoke in support of the project and 21 people spoke in opposition.
Mr. Reynolds said staff has worked on this project since September 2003. Mr. Gerlock
said the City's arborist indicated the two largest trees on site are rated "2" and "4." Only trees
rated "5" are of specimen quality and must be saved. The two large trees in question could be
removed and replaced, based on an inch-for-inch formula.
.
Mr. Cline said traffic is not an issue. He said the property owner has the legal right to
use the land for its zoned usage. He said if the request were about money, the builder would
not have decreased the number of units by 20%. He said the structure has been moved
forward on the lot to increase its separation from rear neighbors. He said the separation only is
possible by constructing a taller building. He said the request is only 9 feet taller than the height
staff is able to approve without a public hearing. He said the builder has made concessions to
the City. He said those who live closest to the property, support this project.
Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed board and quasi-judicial rules, which are available for public
review.
Discussion ensued with comments that the proposed design addresses many previously
expressed public concerns, the structure will have two less stories than originally proposed, and
that this development and Villa Del Mar have the same zoning and land use district. Statements
were made that the applicant could have requested a building that is 41 feet taller, setbacks are
large, the development proposes to save many trees, the developer compromised to meet
neighbor desires and improved the site plan, and the project is good for the City and area. It
was stated that the applicant had redesigned the project in response to CDS recommendations.
It was suggested it might have been more effective had residents opposed this site's
zoning and Code's parking requirements before this development was proposed. It was noted
the only reduced setback is requested for a parking lot and only affects a small piece of the
property. The Code permits more than 100 motel units to be constructed on the subject site. It
was felt the proposal is a reasonable use of the property.
It was stated the bulk and height of the proposal are out of character with the
community. It was recommended staff continue negotiations with the developer and
community. Concern was expressed development of the Comfort Suites had determined the
character of the area, which previously featured one-story residential structures. It was felt the
proposed height is out of character with the neighborhood and the building should not be taller
than 50 feet.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
17
.
Member Moran moved to approve Item E 1, Case FLD2003-09050 for 1925 Edgewater
Drive, with Bases and Conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded.
Members Doran, Moran, Johnson, and Chair Hooper voted "Aye"; Members Gildersleeve and
Milam voted "Nay." Acting Member Daniel Dennehy abstained. Motion carried.
The CDB recessed from 4:39 to 4:47 p.m.
F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-4)
.
1. Case: FLD2004-04024 - 1550 McMullen-Booth Road, Unit F2
Owner: Goral Tov.
Applicant: Joseph Choueifati.
Representative: AIi Alchikh, PEl of Tampa, Inc. (1012 West Bearss Avenue, Tampa, FL
33612; phone: 813-264-9930; fax: 813-264-9929; email: axam@professionalenq.com).
Location: 19.038 acres located at the southwest corner of McMullen-Booth Road and SR
590.
Atlas Page: 274A.
Zoning Districts: Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit an alcoholic beverage sales establishment in
the IRT District, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-1304.C.
Proposed Use: Alcoholic beverage sales.
Neighborhood Associations: Mission Hills Condominium Association (Arlene Funkowski, Office
Manager, 1401 Mission Hills Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33759; phone: 727-797-6402); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. The 1 9.038-acre site is on the west side of
McMullen-Booth Road, at the intersection with SR 590. The proposed use (alcoholic beverage
sales) will occupy a 1,700 square-foot tenant space within the Bayside Bridge Plaza. This
highly developed retail shopping center features a Publix, Bealls Outlet, Walgreens, Bricktown
54 and many other retail uses. This shopping center is zoned Industrial, Technology and
Research District, where none of these existing uses is permitted, which requires this
application to be filed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The shopping center
can be accessed from McMullen-Booth Road and SR 590. To the west (the rear of the
shopping center) are attached dwellings in the Medium High Density Residential District, which
share a common drive.
.
This shopping center has approximately 176,740 square-feet of floor area. The
proposed use (sale of alcoholic beverages) will occupy approximately 1 % (1,700 square-feet) of
the total square footage of the Bayside Bridge Plaza. Given the scale of the proposed use in
relation to the size of the existing commercial shopping plaza, the use of alcoholic beverage
sales is subordinate in nature. The shopping center shares a common drive on the west side
with the attached dwellings to the west (Bayridge Apartments), as well as a retention pond on
the south side. The rear of the unit of the proposed use, as well as all other units on the west
side, face the attached dwellings. An existing six-to-eight foot tall masonry wall runs along the
apartment side of the drive, providing buffering from the shopping center.
Community Development 2004-07-20
18
.
The sale of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, and liquor) will provide a retail service that
presently is not available to the surrounding community. The Pinellas County Property
Appraiser records reveal the current assessed property value of the shopping center to be
$13,000,000. The proposed use should have no effect on existing neighboring property values.
The proposed hours of operation by the applicant are 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday
through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to midnight Friday and Saturday and 11 :00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on
Sunday. The hours of operation for the Publix Supermarket in the shopping center are from
7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. Bricktown 54, a nightclub that serves alcoholic
beverages for on-site consumption, operates generally from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. The
applicant proposes one attached, 20 square-foot sign with red channel letters above the store
frontage. This is characteristic of existing signage at Bayside Bridge Plaza.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on June 10, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development approval to permit an alcoholic beverage sales establishment in the IRT District,
as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1304.C,
with the following bases and condition: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the
Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Project per Section 2-1304.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 use is compatible with the shopping center and the
surrounding area. AND Condition of Approval: That attached signage meet the requirements of
Code, be channel letters and be compatible with similar style, color, material and other
characteristics as other attached signage to provide a sense of uniformity with the Bayside
Bridge Plaza.
Mr. Wells reported staff had received one letter in opposition to the request. Publix sells
only beer and wine. It was stated there is no difference between this request and Walgreen's
former package liquor store.
Representative Ali Alchikh said the applicant accepts the condition of approval. He said
other liquor licenses in the shopping center require consumption on the premises.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F1, Case FLD2004-04024 for 1550
McMullen-Booth Road, Unit F2, with Bases and a Condition of approval as listed. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Case: FLD2004-04021 - 140 - 144 Brightwater Drive
Owner/Applicant: Harborside Townhomes 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: 0.33 acre located on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 600
feet east of Hamden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development to permit a multi-use dock, under provisions of Section 3-601.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
19
.
.
.
Proposed Use: Multi-use dock for six slips totaling 540 square-feet, with each dock measuring
60 feet in length from the seawall, in conjunction with a six-unit town home development.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay
Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-5801; email: dmacnav@att.net); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The 0.33-acre site is on the north side of Brightwater
Drive, approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive. The site is within the Small Motel District
of Beach By Design, which is a distinctive area of overnight accommodation uses being
demolished and redeveloped with attached dwellings of either townhomes or condominiums.
On October 21,2003, the CDB (Community Development Board) approved Case FLD2003-
07034/PL T2003-00009 with 13 conditions to develop the upland portion of this site with six
attached dwellings (townhomes). There are two existing 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 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 540 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 15 feet wide. Code dock provisions limit the width of docks to a maximum of 75%
of the lot width, or 90 feet in this case. The proposed overall dock width is 63% of the lot width
(76 feet). Code provisions restrict dock length to a maximum of 75% of the lot width (90 feet).
The three docks are proposed to be 60 feet in length, each, from the seawall. While not
consistent with existing, older and shorter docks, the proposed docks are consistent with newer
docks required to meet today's Codes, wherein the length takes into account the water depth at
mean lot water and sea grasses (if any).
SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) requires a minimum three
feet water depth at mean low water for boats in the slips. The slip serving Unit 1 can
accommodate a boat 16 to 25 feet in length. The slip serving Unit 2 can accommodate a 29-
foot long boat. Slips serving Units 3, 5, and 6 can accommodate 24-foot long boats. The slip
serving Unit 4 can accommodate a 21-foot long boat. The width of the waterway at this location
is approximately 540 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 June 10, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Community Development 2004-07-20
20
.
.
.
Development to permit a multi-use dock, under the provisions of Section 3-601, for the site at
140-144 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; 2) That dock-supported signage be permanently
installed containing wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and
manatees in the vicinity; and 3) That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP (Florida Department
of Environmental Protection) Permit, Corps of Engineer's Permit and Submerged Land Lease
be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement of construction.
Mr. Wells reported the City had received one letter in opposition. The proposed dock is
consistent with new docks and meets new rules. The Harbormaster has no problem with
related navigation issues. In response to a question, he said dock requests generally follow
development requests by several months due to the large number of permits required. Concern
was expressed applications are not complete when dock requests are not included.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said residents who replace old docks must follow
new rules. Concern was expressed that some residents feel developers are given more breaks
than homeowners.
Representative Bill Woods said most docks on Clearwater beach could not be built today
in their current configuration, as many cover sea grasses. He said dock requests are delayed
as it takes 11 to 17 months to obtain required permits from nine to eleven agencies, including
the State, County, FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), SWFWMD, and
USACOE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). This site also required a land lease. In
response to a question, he reviewed depth requirements for docks.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item F2, Case FLD2004-04021 for 140-144
Brightwater Drive, with Bases and a Condition of approval as listed. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
3. Case: FLD2004-04030 - 517 Skyview Avenue
Owner/Applicant: Joann A. Palmeri.
Representative: Stephen Fowler (1421 Court St., Clearwater, FL 33756 phone: 727-449-
2021; fax: 727-447-5339; email: fowlerarch@aol.com).
Location: 0.59-acre located on the east side of Florida Avenue, approximately 200 feet
south of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 297 A.
Zoning District: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit the conversion of a single-family detached
dwelling into an attached dwelling (duplex) under the provisions of Section 2-204.E as a
Residentiallnfill Project.
Proposed Use: Duplex in association with an existing single-family home.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Bryan S. Berry, Planner II.
Community Development 2004-07-20
21
.
.
.
Planner Bryan Berry reviewed the request. The 0.589-acre site is on the east side of
Skyview Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The Future Land Use
Category for the property is Residential Urban, which permits 7.5 dwelling units per acre,
allowing up to four dwelling units. The property is developed with multiple buildings, including
two dwellings. There is a one-story, single-family home and two-car detached garage. The
home has a concrete stone exterior, with a grey-pitched shingle roof. Another detached
dwelling, similar in color and material, is in the northeast corner of the property. A one-story
masonry building is in the southeast portion of the property. That building is white with brown
doors and brown trim. A concrete drive leads to a two-car garage and a concrete apron in the
northwest corner of the property. Two crushed rock drive aisles in the abutting right-of-way to
the south of the property lead onto the property.
The request is to convert the one-story masonry building in the southeast corner of the
property into a duplex. Attached dwellings are a permitted use in the LMDR District as part of a
Flexible Standard Development request. The applicant cannot meet the first Flexibility Criterion
for Attached Dwellings, which states the parcel proposed for development is a corner lot and is
vacant on the date of adoption of the Community Development Code. Because the applicant
cannot meet this criterion, the application is being processed as a Residentiallnfill Project.
The applicant proposes to renovate the white masonry block with cement plaster. The
lower third of the building is proposed to be a light peach color. A brown banding will separate
the remaining upper two-thirds of the building, which will be painted smoke grey. The windows,
roofing, and doors are to remain with minor painting and maintenance.
City records indicate four other properties within a 1,OOO-foot radius of the site have
occupational rental licensure for multi-unit rental properties. These properties are at 1564
Turner Street, with two units, 1600 Turner Street, with two units, 509 Crest Avenue, with six
units, 605 Crest Avenue, with three units. The area is largely developed with single-family
homes, rather than attached dwelling units.
The subject building to be converted into a duplex, in the southeast corner of the
property, has a non-conforming rear (east) setback of 12 feet to the property line where Code
requires a minimum of 15 feet. The building also has a non-conforming side (south) setback, at
six feet to the property line where 10 feet is required by Code. The one-story detached dwelling
in the northeast corner of the parcel is non-conforming regarding the rear (east) setback, which
is six feet rather than 15 feet. The front of the primary single-family home is non-conforming to
the front (west) with a 21-foot setback to the building where 25 feet is required. All three
existing structures on the property are non-conforming with regards to setbacks.
The actual Lot 16 on the survey is 52.5 feet in width and 6,656 square feet in total area
by itself. The minimum standard development for a lot in LMDR district is 50 feet in lot width
and 5,000 square-feet in lot size. The intent and purpose of the Low Medium Density
Residential District is to protect and preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable,
residential neighborhoods of low to medium density, while allowing a careful and deliberate
redevelopment and revitalization of neighborhoods in need of revitalization or neighborhoods
with unique amenities which create unique opportunities to increase property values and the
overall attractiveness of the City. The subject lot could support a single-family dwelling based
on Code standards. It is unclear how the proposed application would help preserve the
established single-family residential character of the surrounding neighborhood or adjacent
Community Development 2004-07-20
22
.
property values by acquiring additional land that could support a single-family home and
developing it as a duplex.
The proposed conversion of the existing one-story masonry building into a duplex is
neither consistent nor compatible with adjacent land uses. This proposal does not add to the
existing form and function of an established single-family neighborhood. The potential impact of
a duplex on the fair market value of abutting property values could have more of a negative
impact than a single-family home.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on April 1, 2004. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development
approval to permit the conversion of a single-family detached dwelling into an attached dwelling
(duplex) under the provisions of Section 2-204.E as a Residentiallnfill Project, for the site at 517
Skyview Avenue, based on the following bases: Bases for Denial: 1) The proposal does not
comply with the Flexible Development criteria under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; 2) The
proposal does not comply with the other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The size and width of Lot 16 meets the minimum
standard development for a single-family home and should be developed accordingly with the
established detached single-family homes that dominate the surrounding area; and 4) An
attached dwelling is not characteristic of the established single-family neighborhood.
.
Mr. Berry said the request does not meet minimum standards for this zoning district.
The applicant had to apply for flexible development approval. Staff only located four licensed
multi-family properties within 1,000 feet of this property. The Code requires a larger property for
a duplex use. Staff has determined the request is not in character with the surrounding area, it
would jeopardize property values, and it does not comply with flexible development criteria as
the lot is only large enough for a single-family residence. In response to a question, Mr. Gerlock
said staff would correct a scrivener or map error related to Lot 511, which appears to be split by
a zoning line. Mr. Berry said the subject structure is listed as a work structure. It was felt the
project would improve the building's attractiveness. It was stated the structure is far from the
road and it would be difficult from there to determine if the lot is developed with a duplex or
single-family home.
Representative Stephen Fowler reviewed the property's history, reporting the stone
house was constructed in 1948. He said a previous owner had constructed the shop/storage
facility in approximately 1970. The current owner purchased the property in 1996, and the
adjacent property in 2002, with the intention of converting the structure into a duplex. He said
the neighborhood is in transition. He said nearby properties have had problems due to
absentee landlords and the owner plans to live on site and to eliminate those types of problems.
He said a market exists for 500 square-foot duplex units. He said nearby neighbors have sent
letters in support of this project, which will not change the building's current footprint. The
applicant will provide parking spaces. The duplex will provide an income for the property owner.
It was stated the owner cannot absolutely guarantee that she will remain living on the property.
One person spoke in support of the request.
.
Mr. Berry said staff is not denying redevelopment of the property. Code allows single-
family homes to be reconfigured as duplexes under certain circumstances, including the
requirement that the structure be on a corner lot, which is not the case. In response to a
Community Development 2004-07-20
23
.
question, Mr. Gerlock said the two lots have been issued a Unity of Title. It was requested that
staff develop a set of conditions for approval. It was felt the request would improve the property.
Mr. Fowler did not object to the item being continued for one month.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to continue Item F3, Case FLD2004-04030 for 517
Skyview Avenue, to August 17, 2004 and for staff to formulate conditions for approval. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
4. Case: FLD2004-03018 - 669 Bay Esplanade
Owner: Virginia Franks.
Applicant: Radcliffe Development Company, LLC.
Representative: Keith Zayak (101 Philippe Parkway, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 phone:
727-793-9888, e-mail: keith@keithzavak.com) and Robert Flynt.
Location: 0.148-acre located on the east side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 300 feet
south of Somerset Street.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development approval to develop four residential attached dwelling units on a
6,479 square-foot lot (10,000 square-feet is required), with a minimum lot width of 60 feet (100
feet is required), a reduction in the front setback from 15 feet to six feet to pavement, a
reduction in the side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet to wooden deck walkway, a
reduction of the side (north) setback from 10 feet to eight feet (to building), a reduction of the
rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to wooden deck, and a building height increase from 35 feet
to 51.83 feet from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) to roof midpoint under
the provisions of Section 2-803. B.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay
Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-5801; email: dmacnav@att.net); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Chair Hooper recused himself and left the dais.
Planner Michael Reynolds reviewed the request. This 0.148-acre site is on the east side
of Bay Esplanade, approximately 300 feet south of Somerset Street. Overnight
accommodations and attached dwellings dominate the immediate vicinity to the west, south,
and north. By Code, the allowable density on this site is five hotel units or four dwelling units.
The site contains a single-story, eight-unit apartment building, with back-out parking on
Bay Esplanade. An existing deck is on the east side of the site and a walkway from the front of
the site to the rear runs along the south property line. The existing building and its parking area
fit tightly onto the site. There is limited landscaping. One existing dock, at the east side of the
site, is proposed to remain by this redevelopment request.
The site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part
of the "Old Florida" District. This area has been designated for multi-family town homes and
condominiums of low to midrise. The immediate vicinity is almost entirely composed of attached
dwellings and small motels. Building styles generally resemble architecture from the 1950s and
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
24
.
appear to have been progressively expanded. Bay Esplanade, in this general vicinity, is a local
street, with no sidewalks, where many sites rely on the public right-of-way to accommodate
perpendicular, back-out parking. Generally, the streetscape is in need of redevelopment to
improve parking, pedestrian access, and its aesthetic appearance. Beach by Design
recognizes site constraints of parcels in the neighborhood and difficulties of redevelopment.
The proposal is to raze the existing apartments and construct four attached dwellir)gs
("La Risa II"). The application seeks approval of the use, lot size and width reductions, setback
reductions, plus an increase in height. The proposal shows six on-site parking spaces at
. ground level. The building is proposed to be four stories above parking and reach to 51.83 feet
from a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) building line to roof midpoint. This
site is located within a flood zone (Zone AE) with an elevation of 11 feet.
.
Building elevations illustrate four stories with a rooftop terrace over parking. An elevator
overrun tower extends over the roof terrace. The design of the building includes arched styling
with some of the doorways and windows. Large windows are shown on the east elevation, with
views of Clearwater Harbor. The plans show the buildings to have a beige color stucco finish
with a red-brown color roof. Windows are proposed to have aluminum framing with a precast
stone look trim. The roof is shown to have a clay tile mission shape. Wrought iron railings are
to be attached to walkways and platforms outside the building on five levels. The north and
west elevations show a decorative architectural medallion on the north and west sides of the
elevator tower. Exterior stairs are shown on the north elevation, from the ground level to the
roof. Windows and doors proposed on the north and south elevations do not meet Building
Code. The setbacks, as proposed, limit the use of windows and doors to 10% of the building's
fa<(ade.
Vehicular and pedestrian safety would be improved, as there will no longer be any back-
out parking onto Bay Esplanade. A wooden walkway is proposed along the south side of the
property for access to the rear deck and dock. Five cabanas and a rest room are shown on the
site plan at the rear of the site. The deck and dock amenity is proposed to be shared with
residents of a residential development across the street to the west, (La Risa I).
Trash collection is proposed to be made from a solid waste dumpster inside the building
at the front (west side) of the site. The dumpster is to be rolled out by complex maintenance to
a staging area.
While there is a landscape plan, the proposed setbacks reduce the opportunity for green
space. A six-foot high opaque fence is proposed along the south side of the property.
Preliminary stormwater design has been addressed. The design is essentially complete.
Beach by Design does not specifically suggest the development as proposed by this
application. Beach by Design reads in part, "... the scale and intensity of the area, with relatively
few exceptions, is substantially less than comparable areas to the south." The document
contemplates "limited new construction where renovation is not practical." What is proposed is
a substantial increase in scale to what exists within the "Old Florida" District. The development
is not visually interesting and the massing and scale do not comply with the intended character
of the "Old Florida" District and Beach by Design. The application proposes to maximize the
allowable density and is seeking seven variations from the Code to make this project work
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
25
.
(reductions in lot size, width, setbacks, and an increase in building height). The proposed use is
acceptable, but the overall scale is not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses.
The proposed reduction in lot area will result in a building, which is out of scale with
existing buildings in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The
proposed increase in height does not result in an improved site plan or improved design and
appearance. Proposed reductions in side setbacks do not result in an improved site plan, more
efficient parking, or improved design and appearance. Development of the land, as proposed,
will not be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent
properties. Design of the proposed development does not minimize visual adverse impacts on
adjacent properties.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 6, 2004 and June 10, 2004. The Planning Department recommends denial of the
Flexible Development application to develop four residential attached dwelling units on 1) A
6,479 square-foot lot (10,000 square-feet is required), with 2) A minimum lot width of 60 feet
(100 feet is required), seeking 3) A reduction in the front setback from 15 feet to six feet to
pavement, 4) A reduction in the side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet to wooden deck
walkway, 5) A reduction of the side (north) setback from 10 feet to eight feet (to building), 6) A
reduction of the rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to wooden deck, and 7) A building height
increase from 35 feet to 51.83 feet from FEMA to roof midpoint under the provisions of Section
2-803.B. Bases for Denial: 1) The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development
criteria per Section 2-803.B; 2) The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the
Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The development is not
compatible with the surrounding area and will not enhance other redevelopment efforts in the
vicinity of the site location; and 4) The proposed development is inconsistent with what is
proposed within Beach by Design for property within the "Old Florida" District.
Senior Plans Examiner Neil Legters said while he had not reviewed true construction
documents, the submitted renderings do not meet Table 600 requirements in the Code for a
Type 4 building. Proposed doors and windows exceed Code limitations, which permit a
maximum of 10% opening in a wall. In response to a question, Mr. Reynolds said staff had
determined the project is too massive for the lot, has minimal setbacks, and does not lend itself
to the scale of the neighborhood, which features predominantly one and two story buildings.
The site is close to a single-family home community. The small lot would result in a building that
is out of scale with the immediate vicinity. The increased height and reduced setbacks are not
improvements to the site design or project appearance and the proposed development is not
harmonious with adjacent properties. The applicant is seeking relief from seven areas of the
Code.
It was noted a project across the street is one story shorter than this proposal. Mr.
Gerlock said, in addition to height, staff determined the scale of the project is not in harmony
with the neighborhood. He said the developer has requested significant reductions to Code
requirements while offering nothing in return.
In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the applicant can request a
continuance, prior to the Public Hearing, as four of five possible votes are required to overcome
staff's recommendation for a denial.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
26
.
.
.
Troy Perdue, representative, did not request a continuance. He said the site is zoned
Tourist, not for single-family residences. He said the proposal is for a mid-rise building, as
intended by Beach by Design. He pointed out many taller nearby developments. He said the
current use, an 8-unit motel, almost fills the entire lot. He said the request will decrease the
FAR (Floor Area Ratio) and amount of impervious land by increasing landscaping from 10% of
the property to 43%. He said requirements to remove parking from the street dictate the
structure's width. He said the lot size is substandard. A walkway is planned for the front, where
no sidewalk exists. He said the project meets Beach by Design redevelopment requirements.
Architect Dennis O'Keefe said construction documents will be amended to meet Code
requirements regarding the permitted size of windows and doors. He said the applicant
requests 49.5 feet in height. He said the design of the building avoids a massive look by
featuring significant detail. He said the structure, and removal of parking from the right-of-way,
will improve the area.
Paul Kelley, owner of the property adjacent to the south, requested party status.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to grant party status to Paul Kelley. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Kelley expressed concern the developer intends the small 10-foot boardwalk to be
used by residents of La Risa II, plus residents of La Risa I, across the street. He expressed
concern residents from 36 units would attempt to use the small sliver of land at the same time.
In response to a question, Mr. Gerlock said joint access agreements are common to
allow egress to the waterfront. Mr. O'Keefe reported the applicant will request permits to
construct only a 2-boat dock. Other concerns were expressed regarding the number of units
with access to the small deck area. Mr. Perdue said no loud parties are planned for the deck,
which will be small and will hold six to eight people.
Two residents opposed the request.
Mr. Reynolds reviewed staff concerns that the project is too massive for the lot. He
suggested the applicant could reduce the number of units or redesign the project with
townhomes. Staff had met with the applicant at two DRC meetings and suggested alternatives
to the design. The applicant was unwilling to make any recommended changes and, instead,
chose to request approval from the CDB.
Mr. Perdue said a 6-foot wall will separate the sidewalk from the development. He
claimed the proposed structure's height is less than 50-feet, not 51-feet as claimed by staff. He
said removing units would not narrow the building's width, which is dictated by Code parking
requirements. He said the proposed development meets much of the criteria established in
Beach by Design.
Mr. O'Keefe said the applicant had revised the proposal four times and did everything
possible to address staff concerns.
Discussion ensued with a suggestion that the project could be tapered or stacked so it
does not resemble a box, and a concern that the proposed height, width, and depth, are issues.
Community Development 2004-07-20
27
.
.
.
The importance of assembling multiple properties for development was noted. It was
recommended the City clarify what development is permitted, to avoid confusion. It was felt the
applicant needs to work harder. Concern was expressed with denying the project outright.
It was stated the entire area needs improvements that meet Beach by Design and Code
requirements. The City wants this area to be rebuilt. It was felt the development needs further
tweaking. The applicant agreed to a continuance.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to approve Item F4, FLD2004-03018 - 669 Bay
Esplanade, with no conditions. The motion was duly seconded. Member Johnson and Acting
Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Members Moran, Doran, and Milan voted "Nay." Chair Hooper
abstained. Due to votes less than 4, Item F4, FLD2004-03018 was continued automatically to
August 17, 2004.
G. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS: (Items 1-2)
1. Case: ANX2003-12034 -3290 McMullen-Booth Road
Owner/Applicant: McMullen Booth Developers, 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: 0.35-acre located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately
500 feet north of Mease Drive.
Atlas Page: 190A.
Request: Annexation of 0.35-acre to the City of Clearwater (Site is included as part of the
pending land use plan amendment and rezoning request, LUZ2003-12014).
Proposed Use: Medical Office.
Neighborhood Association: Ashland Homeowners Association (Judy Blackwood, 3330
Waterford Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761).
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Consulting Planner.
The subject property is on the south side of Oakmount Road, approximately 200 feet
south of Sharkey Road. It is 0.187 -acre in area and currently vacant. The applicant requests
this annexation to receive City sewer and water service to construct a single-family detached
dwelling. The property is contiguous with the existing City boundary to the north; therefore, the
proposed annexation is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. It
is proposed that the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL)
and a zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The proposed annexation can be served by City of Clearwater services, including sewer,
solid waste, water, police, fire, and emergency medical services without any adverse effect on
the service level. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and Florida law regarding municipal annexation through its adjacency with existing City
boundaries.
Based on its analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of: 1) the
annexation of the property located at 404 Oakmount Road and the abutting Oakmount right-of-
way; 2) the Residential Low (RL) Category pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and 3)
Community Development 2004-07-20
28
.
the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district pursuant to the City's Community
Development Code.
Acting Member Dennehy moved to recommend approval of Item G1, Case: ANX2003-
12034 for 3290 McMullen-Booth Road. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
.
2. Case: LUZ2003-12014- 3280 and 3290 McMullen-Booth Road
Owner/Applicant: Azar J. & Simeline Vincent and McMullen Booth Developers, 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: 4.5-acres located on the west side of McMullen-Booth Road, approximately
500 feet north of Mease Drive.
Atlas Page: 190A.
Request: a) Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Suburban (RS) (City and County)
category to the Residential Urban (RU) (City) and Institutional (INS) (City) categories (pending
ANX2003-12034) and
b) Rezoning from the AE, Agricultural Estates District (County) and the Low Density Residential
(LOR) District (City) to the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City) and the
Institutional (I) District (City) (pending ANX2003-12034).
Proposed Use: Medical Office.
Neighborhood Association: Ashland Homeowners Association (Judy Blackwood, 3330
Waterford Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761).
Land Use Plan Amendment Category: Small Scale.
Presenter: Marc A. Mariano, Consulting Planner.
Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton reviewed the request. This Future Land
Use Plan amendment and rezoning application involves two parcels of land, approximately 4.5-
acres in area. These parcels are occupied by two structures housing a total of 14 attached
dwelling units and one abandoned single-family detached dwelling with several accessory
structures. One parcel, 3290 McMullen-Booth Road, currently is located in Pinellas County and
has a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Suburban (RS) and is zoned AE,
Agricultural Estates. A companion application to annex this parcel into the City is being
processed concurrently with this application (ANX2003-12034). The other parcel, 3280
McMullen-Booth Road, is in the City and has a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential
Suburban and a zoning category of Low Density Residential (LOR).
The applicant requests to amend the Future Land Use Plan designation of 2.93 acres of
this 4.5-acre site to the Institutional (INS) category and to rezone it to the Institutional (I) District.
The applicant also is proposing that the designation of the remaining 1.57 acres be amended to
the Residential Urban (RU) category and rezoned to the Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) District. If approved, the applicant plans to construct a 53,000 square-foot medical
office on the INS portion of the site and locate parking and stormwater retention facilities on the
RU designated area of the site.
.
In accordance with Countywide Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment is subject to
approval by the PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) and Board of County Commissioners acting as
the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the acreage and density involved in this plan
Community Development 2004-07-20
29
.
amendment, review and approval by the DCA (Florida Department of Community Affairs) is not
required.
An amendment to the Future Land Use Plan from the Residential Suburban (RS)
(County & City) category to the Institutional (INS) (City) and Residential Urban (RU) (City)
categories and a rezoning from the AE, Agricultural Estate District (County) and the Low Density
Residential (LOR) District (City) to the Institutional (I) and Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) Districts (City) (pending ANX2003-12034) for the subject property is requested in order
to develop a medical office on the 2.93-acre portion of the site zoned Institutional, with the
required parking and stormwater retention facilities located on the 1.57 -acre portion zoned Low
Medium Density Residential. The site is surrounded by single-family dwelling uses to the north
and west, an assisted living facility to the south, and medical offices to the east.
The proposed Institutional (INS) and Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan
categories and Institutional (I) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning districts are
consistent with the City and Countywide Comprehensive Plans, are compatible with the
surrounding area, do not require nor affect the provision of public services, is compatible with
the natural environment, and is consistent with the development regulations of the City.
.
The Planning Department recommends approval to: 1) Amend the Future Land Use Plan
designation for 3280 and 3290 McMullen-Booth Road from the Residential Suburban (County
and City) classification to the Institutional (INS) (City) and Residential Urban (RU) (City)
classifications (pending ANX2003-12034) and 2) Amend the zoning district designation for 3280
and 3290 McMullen Booth Road from the AE, Agriculture Estate District (County) and the Low
Density Residential (LOR) District (City) to the Institutional (I) District and the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District (City) (pending ANX2003-12034).
Ms. Clayton reported a site plan has not been submitted and staff has not seen any
conceptual plans. The site is surrounded by single-family residences to the north and west.
The east side of McMullen-Booth Road features institutional, some residential, and office
general uses. Abutting residential and institutional uses is well established in this corridor north
of the Chi Chi Rodriguez golf course. Staff required a traffic analysis with the application and
the Engineering Department approved the applicant's methodology. The analysis, which
indicated the development would not degrade the LOS (Level of Service) on McMullen-Booth
Road. The requested amendment is a small scale amendment.
Representative Housh Ghovaee said according to the applicant's studies, the change is
consistent with surrounding neighborhoods. The applicant is waiting to submit a site plan until
after approval of the zoning change and land use plan amendment. Mr. Ghovaee said he is
cognizant of neighbor concerns and plans to schedule a meeting with neighbors to address the
site plan. No building will occur beyond the line to the west, except for a retention pond. The
structure will be separated from nearby residences as much as possible. As planned, the
structure will be two stories over parking. He said the site plan will meet all criteria.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the maximum allowable height is 30 feet.
The Code requires that a medical office be compatible with the surrounding area.
.
Mr. Ghovaee said the area is in poor condition and features 14 units of low income
residences. He said this new project will enhance the neighborhood.
Community Development 2004-07-20
30
. Ed Armstrong, representative for the Ashland Heights Homeowners Association,
requested party status.
Member Doran moved to grant party status to Ed Armstrong, as representative for the
Ashland Heights Homeowners Association. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Elise Lynn, Crum Staffing, representing an adjacent property owner, requested party
status.
Member Doran moved to grant party status to Elise Lynn, Crum staffing, as
representative for an adjacent property owner. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Mr. Armstrong said this request to change the land use plan is a big deal. He opposed
the request, as nothing limits the size of the applicant's development.
Two people spoke in support of the request.
Ms. Clayton suggested residential urban is the most appropriate as that land use
designation is nearby, on Landmark.
.
Nine people spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Armstrong reported PPC (Pinellas
Planning Council) Executive Director Healy had indicated his staff will recommend denial of this
request.
Mr. Ghovaee said he wants to work in harmony with the neighbors regarding his plans
for a building, not larger than 50,000 square feet. He said the character of McMullen-Booth
Road determines the neighborhood. He said the subject property is totally separated from
residential neighborhoods and does not share access. The site will have ingress/egress on
McMullen-Booth Road. He said staff will require him to construct a wall to buffer neighboring
residences from noise. He said the current low-income housing depresses nearby home
values. He said all neighbors will be happy with the final design. He suggested the request be
approved, subject to a developer's agreement.
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said residential development is not permitted on
land zoned institution.
Discussion ensued with comments that the developer has an excellent reputation, the
proposed height of the development may be too massive, the property is surrounded on three
sides by residential uses, the request is significantly different than what is currently allowed, the
request is not compatible with the neighborhood, no compelling reason for the change has been
given, and once zoning is changed, the City would have to allow any approved use for that
property. Concern was expressed the request would cause the institutional property line to jog,
for no good reason. It was recommended that developers work with neighbors early in the
process.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
31
.
Discussion ensued regarding the effect of a denial on Item G1. Ms. Clayton reported
site development would require sanitary sewer connection, and annexation into Clearwater.
The applicant could withdraw the entire package. It was noted the site features land left over
between two developments. It was stated without a site plan, it is difficult to move forward with
the request.
Member Doran moved to deny Item G2, Case: LUZ2003-12014 for 3280 and 3290
McMullen-Booth Road. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
H. CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL 1 APPEAL (Item 1):
.
1. Case: APP2004-00004 - 2271 Springrain Drive
Owners: Allison Thompson and Eric Held.
Representative: Stephen Watts (606 Druid Road East, Clearwater, FL 33756 phone: 727-
461-3232).
Location: 0.11-acre located on the east side of Springrain Drive, approximately 200 feet
south of Virginia Street.
Atlas Page: 242A.
Zoning District Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Proposed Use: Existing wooden deck to remain.
Request Appeal of Flexible Standard Development application denying a reduction to the rear
(east) accessory setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to decking) for an existing wooden deck as a
Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-203.C.
Neighborhood Association: Spring Lake of Clearwater, Inc. (Sean Sommerfield, 1871 Springwood
Circle North, Clearwater, FL 33763, phone 727-734-1262).
Presenter: Bryan S. Berry, Planner II.
Mr. Berry reviewed the background of the appeal. The 0.118-acre site is on the east
side of Springrain Drive, approximately 200 feet south of Virginia Street. The parcel is located
in the LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential Zoning District.
This case is an appeal of a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) that denied an
application to reduce the rear (east) accessory setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to decking) for
an existing wooden deck as a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of Section 2-203.C.,
Case FLS2003-12070. The Development Review Committee considered the application on
January 29, 2004, and the applicant was provided a 90-day timeframe to gather homeowner
support to go before the City Council and amend the plat dedication requiring a five-foot
easement between adjacent dwelling units and common area. Upon expiration of the 90-day
extension a Development Order was issued denying the request on May 05, 2004.
The appellants filed this appeal on May 19, 2004. Section 4-501.A.3 of the Community
Development Code states that the CDB has the authority to hear appeals from Level One
decisions. Section 4-502.A provides that an 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.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
32
.
.
.
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 Community Development Coordinator's recommendation, 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 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, .ill! of the following criteria are met: 1) The decision appealed, 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.
Mr. Berry said the rear accessory setback requirement of 10 feet is intended to stabilize
the bank and allow property stormwater runoff. The subject, large wooden deck extends over
the lake, seven feet beyond the southeast property line and two feet beyond the northeast
property line. The deck does not comply with the Spring lake plan dedication. A City permit to
construct the deck never was issued. Staff does not know when the property's current owner
constructed the deck. After the deck was cited for a code violation, Code Enforcement brought
this issue to Planning staff's attention. The property owner was required to go through the
flexible development process to obtain a permit. Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce
reviewed criteria that must be met before the COB can grant an appeal.
Representative Stephen Watts said the applicant had been told a permit was not needed
to construct the deck. He said the deck was built in the easement at the high water mark to
stabilize the bank and address a 7 -foot drop in the back yard after the homeowners association
quit maintaining the property. He said the development has severe erosion problems along the
lake front.
Two residents spoke in support of the appeal and one resident spoke against the
request.
Engineering Manager Scott Rice said the DRC review had determined the property
owner had built the deck beyond his property line. Also, construction of a deck in a wetland
requires a FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) permit. Based on City
review, staff had no choice but to deny the request for a permit. In response to a question, Mr.
Rice said staff had recommended the applicant approach his neighbors regarding the steep
banks and erosion problems. A broad solution to the problem is needed, rather than an
individual one.
Mr. Watts said under a flexible development request, the required 10 foot setback can
be reduced to 0 feet. He said the easement condition only requires that someone be able to
traverse the easement. Property owner Eric Held reviewed his efforts to address erosion
problems. He said he carried the dirt and wood to the rear of his property, as no heavy equipment
can access it. He said the lake is 23 feet from the back of his house. He said lining the shoreline
with bales of hay and covering them with dirt would wash away over time.
Community Development 2004-07-20
33
. In response to a question, Mr. Gerlock said the deck is considered an accessory structure.
It was indicated all factors must be met before the board can grant an appeal. It was indicated the
property owner needs help with erosion issues and it was questioned if the situation could be
alleviated without destroying the dock. It was stated the board cannot consider the merits of the
deck when determining if staff's decision should be overturned.
Member Doran moved to deny Item G2, Case: APP2004-00004 for 2271 Springrain
Drive. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Director Comments
Ms. Fierce welcomed Member J. B. Johnson to the board.
It was requested that packets be delivered to members earlier and that members be
provided with a copy of the final agenda before arrival at the meeting.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said staff cannot control the number of items that
appear on an agenda.
The August 17, 2004, COB meeting is scheduled to begin at 1 :00 p.m.
I. ADJOURNMENT
.
The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
.
Community Development 2004-07-20
34
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST..l':!.AME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
\.J e N~ \GV'\ \J ~ ~ , t\... C- \:) (:,
MILlNG ADDRESS I"'- THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
Cj 1- ~ ED e (,JlS0: (. , U fL\ ~ W ICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY 0 COUNTY
A E OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
COUNTY
\ NC'L\....~<:.:.
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY
o ELECTIVE
APPOINTIVE
MY POSITION IS:
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a 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-
ure 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
parent 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 influence 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 r.e~ordjng 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 contlict in the measure before participating.
· You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of thl
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
1.\'Jl\N\ e'L Qet--Wt=u'-(
, hereby disclose that on
, )VL-'!
1.0
.2004
(a) 7measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
~ inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
, by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special' gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
\Oj2S etJ~~KlQ... (J1\..\Ve \,~c- C~Se: # fL.tJ 1Co~ - CYX;S-O
,which
.
) \10\04
~,~
Signature - _ \
Date Filed
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: IMPEACHM.,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, ~
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 . EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR I
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS I
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, R COMMITIEE
\)
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
o ELECTIVE
LQ.-APPOINTIVE
. WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of governme.nt 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 votin~
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 ()fficer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
ure 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
parent 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 speci'1' private gain or loss ~f a business asso~iate. C;;ommiss,ion.ers' of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.35~ 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. .
. . ',," ,. '.. oJ" .
j' .
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 e~gaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officeor 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 inforporate 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 influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by 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.
, ,
. .1 .
. ,
.
0'
J
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:.
1 ." ...... .... .
· You must disclose orally the nature of your contlict in the measure before participating.
. -t . t
· You must complete the form ancHile it within 15' days after the vote occurs witli the person responsible for ':eco~ding the minutes of thl
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediat~lyto the o,ther, 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
I, ~~\.~ \). ~~QE.(t
, hereby disclose that on
~~~
\
,,20~
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
L...--~inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
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.
,which
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
~~~ ~~\,~ ~~
~ ~,~~ \~ ~wx.
\1:11> ~ ~ ~~ (I..€. -t\\ '<_
~'Q.~
~ ~\)~~~~-(
~~ ~~ ~Q~~~
~~ 0\ I,;:)~\~ :r.
.
\l~~tt D ~
~~b ~wt\tJ,-~~
~~~~..
I ~~\~~
, Date Filed \ \.
~~~
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: IMPEACHM.' .
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, '-' ...
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
,
II
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 20" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1315 South Ft Harrison Avenue
....---- yes
FLD2004-02006
Corbett Development, Inc.
no
1925 Edgewater Drive
FLD2003-09050
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
~ yes
no
1455 & 1459 Court Street
FLD2004-02009
Linda S. Griffin
~ yes
no
140 - 144 Brightwater Drive
FLD2004-04021
Harborside Townhomes LLC.
yes .....------ no
1550 McMullen Booth Road
FLD2004-04024
Goral T ov.
~ yes
no
517 Skyview Avenue
FLD2004-04030
Joann A. Palmeri
....---- yes
no
1009 Ls Salle Street
FLD2003-09052
Mt. Carmel CDC and City of Clearwater
yes &..----- no
107 McMullen Booth Road
----
yes
669 Bay Esplanade
.........--
yes
1627 Sherwood Street
yes
~
1616 North Betty Lane
__ yes
404 Oakmount Road
yes ~ no
3290 McMullen Booth Road
...-----
yes
FLD2004-04028
no
FLD2004-03018
no
ANX2004-04006
no
ANX2004-04007
no
ANX2004-03005
ANX2003-12034
no
3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth RD LUZ2003-12014
~ yes
2271 Springrain Drive
---- no
Signature:
S: \Planning Department\C
no
APP2004-00004
~
Thomas Kelly
Virginia Franks
Susanne Roessler
Eugene Fields
Central Realty
McMullen Booth Road
Azar J & Simeline Vincent and McMullen
Booth Developers
Allison Thompson & Eric Held
, property investigation check list. doc
2
Date: \\ ~\ ()i
,
- ~
~
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 20" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1315 South Ft Harri~n Avenue
../ yes
FLD2004-02006
no
1925 Edgewater Drive
/ yes
FLD2003-09050
no
1455 & 1459 Court Street
FLD2004-02009
/yes
no
140 - 144 Brightwater Drive
~s
FLD2004-04021
no
1550 McMullen Booth Road
FLD2004-04024
\ / yes
no
517 Skyview Avenue
~yes
FLD2004-04030
no
1 009 Ls Salle Sire./'
yes
FLD2003-09052
no
Corbett Development, Inc.
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
Linda S. Griffin
Harborside Townhomes LLC.
Goral Tov.
Joann A. Palmeri
Mt. Carmel CDC and City of Clearwater
,
..
.
107 McMullen Booth Road
/ yes
669 Bay Esplanade
/
yes
1627 Sherwood Street
yes
1616 North Betty Lane
yes
404 Oakmount Road
yes
3290 McMullen Booth Road
/' yes
FLD2004-04028
no
FLD2004-03018
no
ANX2004-04006
~o
ANX2004-04007
/no
7X2004-03005
~no
ANX2003-12034
no
3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth RD LUZ2003-12014
~es no
2271 Springrain Drive
APP2004-00004
/no
Signature:
S:\Planning
Thomas Kelly
Virginia Franks
Susanne Roessler
Eugene Fields
Central Realty
McMullen Booth Road
Azar J & Simeline Vincent and McMullen
Booth Developers
Allison Thompson & Eric Held
, property investigation check list.doc
2
Date: ~/1B/O'f
I .
~ .
. ~
~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 20.. 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties. \:)1::: l'-\N S-L.--\"
1315 SouthFt Ha~Avenue
yes
FLD2004-02006
Corbett Development, Inc.
no
1925 Edgewater Drive
FLD2003-09050
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
COtJ~l-' vI
yes
no
1455 & 1459 Court Street
FLD2004-02009
Linda S. Griffin
-X-yes
no
140 - 144 Brightwater Drive
FLD2004-04021
Harborside Townhomes LLC.
+yes
no
1550 McMullen Booth Road FLD2004-04024 Goral Tov.
yes +no
517 Skyview Avenue FLD2004-04030 Joann A. Palmeri
yes -*-no
1009 Ls Salle Street FLD2003-09052 Mt. Carmel CDC and City of Clearwater
yes -+-no
,
,
..
107 McMullen Booth Road
FLD2004-04028
Thomas Kelly
yes
--i-no
669 Ba:ryes FLD2004-030 18 Virginia Franks
no
1627 Sherwood Street ANX2004-04006 Susanne Roessler
yes $-no
1616 North Betty Lane ANX2004-04007 Eugene Fields
~yes no
404 Oakrnount Road ANX2004-03005 Central Realty
yes -Lno
3290 McMullen Booth Road ANX2003-l2034 McMullen Booth Road
yes +no
3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth RD LUZ2003-l20l4
Azar J & Simeline Vincent and McMullen
-i-yes
no
Booth Developers
2271 Springrain Drive
APP2004-00004
Allison Thompson & Eric Held
yes ~no
Signatur~ ~
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, :Pfoperty investigation check list.doc
Date:
2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 20'1 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
~
~ 1315 South Ft H~r9'son Avenue
V yes
FLD2004-02006
no
1925 Edgewater Drive
FLD2003-09050
/ no
yes
~ 1455 & 1459 Court Sret
J yes
FLD2004-02009
no
(j) t 140 - 144 Brightw,7rive
yes
FLD2004-04021
no
1550 McMullen Booth Road
F704-04024
no
yes
W 517 Skyview A venuej'
J yes
FLD2004-04030
no
ckJ 1009 Ls Salle Street
~03-09052
no
yes
Corbett Development, Inc.
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
Linda S. Griffin
Harborside Townhomes LLC.
Goral Tov.
Joann A. Palmeri
Mt. Carmel CDC and City of Clearwater
,
, ;t;:.'
· U 107 MCMU!700th Road
yes
FLD2004-04028
no
(!) 669 Bay ES1de
yes
FLD2004-030 18
no
1627 Sherwood Street
/NX2004-04006
no
yes
1616 North Betty Lane
/ANX2004-04007
no
yes
404 Oakmount Road
fNX2004-03005
/ no
yes
3290 McMullen Booth Road
/NX2003-12034
V no
yes
3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth RD fUZ2003-12014
yes ~ no
2271 Springrain Drive 7APP2004-00004
no
Signature:
S:\Planning
Thomas Kelly
Virginia Franks
Susanne Roessler
Eugene Fields
Central Realty
McMullen Booth Road
Azar J & Simeline Vincent and McMullen
Booth Developers
Allison Thompson & Eric Held
Date:
2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: J DIv 20.. 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1315 South Ft ~LY Avenue
es
FLD2004-02006
no
1925 Edgewater D/
T-yes
FLD2003-09050
no
1455 & 1459 Court Street
FLD2004-02009
~es
140 - 144 Brightwater D .
no
FLD2004-04021
no
1550 McMullen Booth R
FLD2004-04024
no
yes
517 Skyview Avenue
FLD2004-04030
no
FLD2003-09052
yes
no
Corbett Development, Inc.
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
Linda S. Griffin
Harborside Townhomes LLC.
Goral Tov.
Joann A. Palmeri
Mt. Carmel CDC and City of Clearwater
/Road FLD2004-04028 Thomas Kelly
yes no
669 BaY~ FLD2004-03018 Virginia Franks
yes no
1627 sherw7et ANX2004-04006 Susanne Roessler
no
yes
1616 N07Lane ANX2004-04007 Eugene Fields
yes no
404 OakmO~ ANX2004-03005 Central Realty
yes no
ANX2003-12034 McMullen Booth Road
no
LUZ2003-120 14 Azar J & Simeline Vincent and McMullen
no Booth Developers
APP2004-00004 Allison Thompson & Eric Held
Date: 1f JPj
2
,
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 20.. 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1315 South Ft Harri~ Avenue
V yes
FLD2004-02006
Corbett Development, Inc.
no
1925 Edgewater Drive
Lyes
FLD2003-09050
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
no
1455 & 1459 Court Street
/yes
FLD2004-02009
Linda S. Griffin
no
140 - 144 Brightwater Drive
/' yes
FLD2004-04021
Harborside Townhomes LLC.
no
1550 McMullen Booth Road
1yes
FLD2004-04024
Goral Tov.
no
517 Skyview A V7
yes
FLD2004-04030
Joann A. Palmeri
no
1009 Ls Salle Street /
/ yes
FLD2003-09052
Mt. Carmel CDC and City of Clearwater
no
..
.
t
107 MCMU701h Road
yes
FLD2004-04028
Thomas Kelly
no
669 Bay Esplanade
/ yes
FLD2004-03018
Virginia Franks
no
1627 Sherwood Street ANX2004-04006 Susanne Roessler
yes no
1616 North Betty Lane ANX2004-04007 Eugene Fields
~yes no
4040akm7:ad ANX2004-03005 Central Realty
es no
3290 McMullen Booth Road ANX2003-12034 McMullen Booth Road
/ yes no
3280 & 3290 McMullen Booth RD LUZ2003-120 14 Azar J & Simeline Vincent and McMullen
Lyes no Booth Developers
2271 sp~ve APP2004-00004 Allison Thompson & Eric Held
yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning
Date: 7 -/~ -t/'f
ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
..
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Julv 20" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1315 South Ft HaITi {Avenue
~ny~S .
FLD2004-02006
Corbett Development, Inc.
no
1925 Edgewater Driv:/'"
,/ yes
FLD2003-09050
Top Flight Enterprises, Inc.
no
1455 & 1459 CO,Uft 7t
;~/f yes
FLD2004-02009
Linda S. Griffin
no
140 - 144 Brigh::;:ve
yes
FLD2004-04021
Harborside Townhomes LLC.
no
1550 McMullen Boo.~Road
t. '. ;,
~- .,,'
-,,,' yes
FLD2004-04024
Goral Tov.
no
517 Skyview A ven~y-
()" yes
FLD2004-04030
Joann A. Palmeri
no
1009 Ls Salle Street
FLD2003-09052
Mt. Carmel CDC and City of Clearwater
yes
no
yes
3280 & 32~n Booth RD
yes ~I""',/ no
,.,..
."".'"
2271 Springrai~y~'t!jve
-l6es
fll/
669 Bay Esp1anay
V yes
t
1627 sherw..7et
, yes
1616 North Be~e...
V yes,..
I,J
,/
404 oakm7unt oad
l yes
FLD2004-04028
Thomas Kelly
no
FLD2004-030 18
Virginia Franks
no
ANX2004-04006
Susanne Roessler
no
ANX2004-04007
Eugene Fields
no
ANX2004-03005
Central Realty
no
ANX2003-12034
McMullen Booth Road
no
LUZ2003-12014
Azar J & Simeline Vincent and McMullen
Booth Developers
APP2004-00004
Allison Thompson & Eric Held
Signature:
S:\Planning
Date:
2