05/16/2000
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
May 16, 2000
Present: Gerald Figurski Chair
Edward Mazur, Jr. Board Member
David Gildersleeve Board Member
William Johnson Board Member
Shirley Moran Board Member
Carlen A. Petersen Board Member
Alex Plisko Board Member
Also Present: John Carassas Assistant City Attorney – arrived 1:10 p.m.
Ralph Stone Planning Director
Cynthia Hardin Assistant Planning Director
Lisa Fierce Development Review Manager
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 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.
ITEM A – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES/RECONSIDERATION
– None.
ITEM B – CONTINUED ITEMS
Item B1 – 400 Jones Street – Osceola Bay Club. Owner/Applicant: Osceola Bay
Development, LLC.
Location: 3.24 acres on the east and west sides of Osceola Avenue,
between Georgia Street and Jones Street. Zoning: HDR, High Density Residential District.
Request: Flexible development approval of a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project with an
increase in height from 30 to 179 feet; increase in density to 45 dwelling units per acre; and
the partial vacation and relocation of Osceola Avenue right-of-way from Jones Street to
Case
Georgia Street. Proposed Use: 150 attached dwellings and within two 179-foot towers.
FL 00-01-03
The applicant requests Flexible Development approval to permit 150 attached dwellings
as a Residential Infill project with an increase in height from 30 to 179 feet; increase in density
to 45 dwelling units per acre; and the partial vacation and relocation of Osceola Avenue right-
of-way from Jones Street to Georgia Street. The property is zoned HDR, High Density
Residential District with a land use of Central Business District. Staff anticipates the property
will be rezoned to the Downtown zoning district within the next year. Development within the
Central Business District is governed by the 1993 redevelopment plan. Areas on the perimeter
of the redevelopment area are regulated by a supplementary Periphery Plan. This site is
within the northwest periphery area, is underutilized, and is appropriate for redevelopment.
The Periphery Plan encourages high-rise residential uses along Clearwater Harbor. The
mcd0500 1 05/16/00
project will have a Mediterranean-style architecture with a stucco exterior and clay tile roof,
include two levels of underground parking, will be accessible through a gated entrance and
exit off Osceola Avenue, and provide exits along George Street. The design incorporates a
100-foot view corridor between the two towers to preserve the view to the harbor. The
buildings will be 15 stories or 179 feet high as measured from the mean elevation of the
existing grade to the highest finished roof surface or midpoint of the peak/eave of pitched roof.
Staff is supportive of 164 feet in total height based on the 150-foot maximum height permitted
in the Downtown zoning District as well as a credit for the 14-foot mean elevation. The project
also will include a pool, spa, tennis courts, and a provision for docks within the harbor that will
need to be reviewed under a separate application. The landscape plan as submitted will need
to be further refined and detailed to meet the Code requirements. Staff is supportive of a
landscape plan that includes both private and public property. Cost for installation and
maintenance of the landscape will be borne by the developer. The proposal includes vacating
seven feet of the northern two-thirds of Osceola Avenue between Georgia and Jones Streets
and the realignment of the southern third of the road. It also includes vacation of the portion in
front of 300 Osceola Avenue. Through movement will be maintained with striping of a left-turn
lane on Jones Street. Final lane alignments and widths will need to be determined.
Pedestrian access to Clearwater Harbor along Georgia Street shall be maintained. Georgia
Street will need to be improved to meet current engineering standards. Osceola Avenue
currently provides access to the Belvedere Apartments at 300 Osceola Avenue. The
applicant’s proposal suggests that access be maintained through an easement. The vacation
of the road should not include the portion in front of 300 Osceola Avenue but will remain public
right-of-way with removal of asphalt north of the Belvedere curb cut. This eliminates the need
for the easement as suggested. Staff feels the applicant is providing an attractive, well-
designed development that will enhance the local area and the City as a whole. The
development will further the City’s goals of improving the character of the area and promoting
private sector investment in the downtown area. The proposal is in compliance with the
standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval and with all applicable standards of
the Community Development code. Staff recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application of the Osceola Bay Cub, subject to conditions: 1) Osceola Avenue right-of-way
north of Jones Street, adjacent to 300 Osceola Avenue (Belvedere apartments), be vacated
and dedicated to the owners of 300 Osceola (with a revised plan to be submitted); 2) the
balance of the Osceola Avenue right-of-way be vacated by the Commission and relocated by
the applicant, as shown on the site plan (with revised application to be submitted); 3) the
height of the proposed buildings not exceed 164 feet from the mean elevation; 4) the
landscape plan be further refined and detailed to meet and/or exceed the requirements of
Code, including a minimum 10-foot buffer along all street frontages, prior to the issuance of
any permits, including the Osceola Avenue frontage which will include both project and right-
of-way property to be approved by Planning and Engineering staff; 5) the required open space
and recreation land fees be paid to the City; 6) a sidewalk be provided on Georgia Street for
pedestrian access to Clearwater harbor; 7) Georgia Street be improved to meet current
engineering standards; and 8) conditions 1 - 5 be met, to the satisfaction of staff, prior to the
issuance of the Development Order. Staff also recommends approval of the request to vacate
a portion of Osceola Avenue, beginning north of the Belvedere apartments to Georgia Avenue.
Final confirmation of the utility locations may require the retention of an easement over all or
part of the Osceola Avenue right-of-way. Staff will work with the Public Works Department to
resolve this issue prior to review of the vacation request by the Commission. In response to a
question, Development Review Manager Lisa Fierce said Osceola Avenue will remain a one-
mcd0500 2 05/16/00
way street northbound. It was remarked that staff is providing the applicant a greater
advantage by calculating the mean elevation from Osceola Avenue to the seawall instead of
measuring from the four corners of the building. Planning Director Ralph Stone said staff has
measured from the main point between Osceola Avenue and the water. The effect of the
additional height is no more than it would be at grade. Ms. Fierce said permitting the applicant
to vacate seven feet on the west side of the right-of-way on Osceola Avenue will enable the
applicant to provide the proposed design and accommodate utility placement. She said the
level of service on Alternate 19 will not be altered. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said
staff does not consider shadows cast on adjacent buildings. In response to a question, Ms.
Fierce said Condition #1 can be changed to “… vacated and conveyed…” rather than
“…vacated and dedicated…”. She said the Osceola Avenue portion being conveyed to the
Belvedere Apartments would not obstruct traffic.
Ken Roush, Northside Engineering Services, representing the applicant, expressed his
excitement about the project. He said the project will enhance the community base and is
consistent with downtown redevelopment plans. It provides maximum open space for views to
the water, is pedestrian and motorist friendly, is attractive, and provides adequate street
lighting and signage. He firm has met with neighbors and neighborhood associations
regarding the project. The applicant requests approval of two 15-story towers, including two-
story penthouses. He said the site is not in an airport restricted zone.
Richard Trela, developer, said the 15-story towers will have more units on lower levels.
The upper units are larger. He said if the requested 179 feet building height is denied, the
applicant would need to reduce the number of units.
Bob Heiser, architect, said if the project was redesigned because of staff’s
recommendation to reduce the building height to 164 feet, less units can be built, and the
square footage of the penthouses would be reduced. The buildings also would become
bulkier, encompass more open space on the site, and create more shadows on adjacent
buildings. The applicant’s proposal includes a decorative roof instead of a flat roof,
streamlines the design of the buildings, and results in a more attractive design. Ms. Fierce
said the plans submitted depict the design at a 179 foot building height including the
penthouse. She said as staff had informed the applicant a building height of only 164 feet is
permitted, the applicant would have to pursue the request for a 179-foot high building with the
CDB (Community Development Board). In response to a question, Mr. Heiser said no
alternative plans were drawn to depict the project at a reduced height. As Mr. Heiser reviewed
the details of the project, it was remarked that the design shown was different than the one
reviewed by staff.
Hoosh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, said the applicant is not ready to
design the project and wishes to maintain the flexibility to make minor changes.
Discussion ensued and it was suggested as staff did not have the benefit of reviewing
the modifications presented by the applicant’s representatives, that the case be continued to
the June 20, 2000, meeting.
Member Gildersleeve moved to continue Case FL-00-01-03 to the June 20, 2000, CDB
meeting. He questioned why staff was concerned about the 179-foot height requested as an
mcd0500 3 05/16/00
untrained eye could not distinguish the difference. Mr. Stone said staff follows the standards
and regulations specified in the Code. Staff has considered not only the 150 feet permitted in
the Downtown zoning district, but has added 14 additional feet for mean elevation. The
applicant’s request for a penthouse on each tower does not support their request for an
additional 15 foot height.
motioncarried
Upon the vote being taken, the was duly seconded and unanimously.
Staff stated that the applicant will need to resubmit their modified plans no later than
Thursday. It was noted that two letters of opposition to the project were received.
ITEM C – LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS
Item C1 – Sunset Point Road and Soule Road. Owner: Benevolent Protective Order of
Elks of the USA, Clearwater Lodge #1525. Applicant: Cornerstone Communities, Inc.
Representative: Keith Zayac, P.E., Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan.
Location: 0.99
acres approximately 300 feet to the northwest of the intersection of Sunset Point Road and
Soule Road. Request: 1) Land Use Plan Amendment from Institutional to Residential/Office
Case LUZ 00-03-03
Limited; and 2) rezoning from I, Institutional District to O, Office District.
The property owner requests approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan’s Future
Land Use Map from Institutional (I) to Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) and to rezone from the
Institution (I) district to the Office (O) district for property 300 feet to the northwest of the
intersection of Sunset Point Road and Soule Road. The proposal is to rezone a portion of the
Elks Lodge property that is vacant and being used for overflow parking to allow the
construction of an office. The proposed office development will include cross access with the
office development to the east. Issues related to site design will be addressed in the
development review phase and may require CDB approval. The proposed Residential/Office
Limited Future Land Use and Office zoning district is consistent with the City and Countywide
Plans, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not require or affect the provision of
public services, is compatible with the natural environment, and is consistent with the
development regulations of the City. Staff recommends approval of: 1) amending the Future
Land Use Plan designation of the subject site from Institutional (I) to Residential/Office Limited
(R/OL), and 2) amending the zoning district designation of the subject site from Institutional (I)
to Office (O).
Keith Zayac, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, said the property is being sold by the
Elks Club to be developed as a one-story office building. He agreed with staff’s
recommendations and presentation. In response to a question, he said the office will be
similar to the one directly to the southeast. Access to the office building will be from Soule and
Sunset Point Roads.
Member Johnson moved based on the staff report and testimony at this public hearing,
motion
that the CDB recommend to the Commission approval of Case LUZ 00-03-03. The
carried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
mcd0500 4 05/16/00
Item C2 – Helistops
Request: Amendment to the Community Development Code to permit
helistops in the LDR, Low Density Residential District, as a Flexible Development application.
Case: Text Amendment TA 00-04-01 (Ordinance 6557-00)
Senior Planner Gina Clayton stated the property owner at 800 S. Druid Road is
proposing amendments to the Community Development Code to permit helipads in the Low
Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District. The applicant is proposing that helipads be
permitted as a flexible development use as no provision exists in the Code to permit this use.
This would require helipads to be reviewed by the CDB and a decision rendered only after a
public hearing. The applicant also proposes to add a definition of helipad to Section 8-102
Definitions. The proposed lot size is 40,000 square feet, required lot width 200 feet, and
setbacks 50 feet from front, side, and rear property lines. Staff will use the following criteria to
evaluate applications: 1) The use is accessory to the use of the principal building; 2) the use is
compatible with adjacent uses. Compatibility shall be evaluated by reviewing the location of
the helipad and its relationship to existing and approved principal residences; the nature of
adjacent uses and the proposed helipad operation schedule; 3) the use will not degrade the
properties within the vicinity of the property proposes for a helipad site; 4) proper dust control
measures shall be provided; 5) helipads shall be visually screened from abutting properties
with a fence and landscape materials no less than six feet in height; 6) any required approval
of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) shall be submitted prior to final approval of such helipad; 7) operations shall be
restricted to one departure and one landing a day; 8) operations shall only be permitted
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and 9) except for an emergency, the helicopter
shall not be stored on the property. In an emergency, the helicopter may remain on the site for
the shortest time reasonable given the weather and emergency conditions. Ms. Clayton said
the applicant’s representative has suggested changes to these conditions as follows: 1)
Change Condition #4 to reflect that a paved area with minimum dimension of 50 feet by 100
feet be provided; 2) change Condition #8 to reflect that no operations shall be permitted
between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; and 3) access to the helipad be over the Gulf of Mexico or
the intracoastal waterway, which shall adjoin the property upon which the helipad is located.
The former Code permitted helipads/helistops in the Urban Center District, not in the
Residential Zoning districts. The new Code has no provisions for this type of use. Ms. Clayton
said due to the beneficial rescue and business services helicopters can provide an urban area,
core communities are addressing the use of helipads, helistops, or heliports in their land
development codes. She said along with those beneficial services are safety concerns and
the negative impacts generated by helicopters such as noise and dust. Staff conducted a
survey of approximately thirteen communities that permit helistops, helipads, or heliports. The
majority of the ordinances only permit helipads in nonresidential zoning districts. Ms. Clayton
reviewed decibel levels for various types of equipment and activities. She suggested
consideration be given to these noise levels and the rattle and vibration produced by
helicopters. The City’s noise ordinance is based on the loud and raucous standard instead of
decibel levels. Pinellas County and other area communities have decibel limitations and
impose restrictions on noise levels. Based on the negative impacts of noise and dust, the
safety concerns associated with flight patterns, and the compatibility issues of helipads in a
predominantly built-out residential urban community, the proposed amendments to the Code
are not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan or the Community Development
Code. Staff recommends denial of Ordinance No. 6557-00. In response to a question, Ms.
Clayton said the intent of Condition #9 is that the helicopter be used for pick-ups or drop-offs
mcd0500 5 05/16/00
only, or for emergency use. She said a time limitation could be imposed. Although the
applicant’s property is close to a hospital, the application has nothing to do with the hospital.
The ordinance would apply to all LDR zoned property in the City.
Brian Johnson, representative, referred to a photograph of properties on Druid Road.
He said the applicant will ensure access to the helipad will be over the Gulf of Mexico or the
intracoastal waterway and the landing strip will be contiguous to the water. The area to be
used for a helipad is already walled and fenced. As BayFlight flies to and from the adjacent
hospital regularly, he feels this request will not cause additional disruption to the
neighborhood. The applicant anticipates no more than 52 flights per year. Mr. Johnson said
once the helicopter lands on the landing strip, the engine is cut down while unloading
passengers. The applicant has no intention to store or fuel the helicopter at the subject site.
Five persons spoke in opposition of the application.
Mr. Johnson said he wished he had known so many neighbors opposed the application.
The applicant wishes to be a good neighbor and citizen.
Member Petersen moved based on the staff report and testimony at this public hearing,
motion
that the CDB recommend to the Commission denial of this application. The was duly
carried
seconded and unanimously.
In response to a question, Mr. Stone said he was unsure if Code Enforcement or the
Police Department would enforce helipad landings.
The meeting recessed from 2:47 to 2:55 p.m.
Item C3 – 1721 Coachman Plaza Drive. Owner/Applicant: Superstar Tire Store of
Clearwater, Inc.
Location: 0.66 acres on the east side of Coachman Plaza Drive, 250 feet
north of SR 590. Request: 1) Annexation of 0.66 acres to the City; 2) Land use Plan
Amendment from Residential/Office Retail (County) to Residential/Office/retail (Clearwater);
and 3) rezoning from CP-2, Commercial Parkway District (County) to C, Commercial District
Case ANX 00-03-07
(Clearwater).
The property owner requests annexation of 1721 Coachman Plaza Drive to receive
sewer service. The applicant owns a lot that is already in the City and located immediately
adjacent to the south of the subject property. The applicant wants to bring all properties into
the City so that the site can be more conveniently developed under the City’s Commercial (C)
zoning district. The subject property will have a land use plan designation of
Residential/Office/Retail and is proposed to be zoned Commercial (C). Upon annexation, the
applicant plans to construct a 2,616 square foot vehicle service building on the site including a
parking lot with 13 spaces (pending Flexible Development Application Case #FL 00-01-02).
The annexation of the property will eliminate an existing enclave in this subdivision. The
applicant currently receives water from Pinellas County. The City will provide sewer service.
The applicant is responsible for all maintenance and physical connection fees to the sanitary
manhole on the upper northeast corner in close proximity to this property. The applicant also
mcd0500 6 05/16/00
is responsible for applicable impact fees, and utility deposits, and costs to extend the line to
the proposed structure. The proposed annexation and proposed use is consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, the Community Development Code, and
Florida law. Staff recommends approval of: 1) annexation of the property at 1721 Coachman
Plaza Drive; 2) approval of the Residential/Office/Retail plan category pursuant to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan; and 3) approval of the Commercial (C) zoning district pursuant to the
City’s Community Development Code.
Rich Matassa, representative, stated the applicant agrees with staff’s recommendation.
Member Johnson moved based on the staff report and testimony at this public hearing,
motion
that the CDB recommend to the Commission approval of Case ANX 00-03-07. The
carried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
ITEM D – LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS
Item D1 – 1717/1721 Coachman Plaza Drive. Owner/Applicant: Russel Burr.
Location:
1.15 acres on the east side of Coachman Plaza Drive, 250 feet north of SR590. Zoning: C,
Commercial District (pending annexation). Request: Flexible Development approval to
Case FL
terminate the status of nonconformity. Proposed Use: Existing vehicle repair shop.
00-01-02.
The applicant requests Flexible Development approval to terminate the status of a
nonconforming use at 1717/1721 Coachman Plaza Drive. The portion of the parcel in the City
and the portion being considered for annexation is being used for servicing recreational
vehicles, which is not a permitted use in the Commercial District. The proposal includes the
addition of a 2,616 square foot, two-bay garage on the north lot for recreational repair. Site
improvements will include upgraded landscaping which exceeds the intent of the Code,
reconfiguration of the north parking lot, replacement of existing signs and fencing, removal of
outside storage, and provision of a dumpster enclosure. The applicant is proposing to move
an existing use currently performed outside to an indoor location to reduce its impact on
adjacent neighbors. There is no proposed change in the business hours. The only method to
expand the use is to terminate the status of the site as a nonconformity. The proposal is in
compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval, with the
maximum development potential, and with all applicable standards of the Community
Development Code. Staff recommends approval of the application.
Rich Matassa, representative, concurred with staff’s report and recommendation.
Member Gildersleeve moved based on the staff report and testimony at this public
hearing, that the CDB recommend to the Commission approval of Case FL 00-01-02. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
Item D2 – 18524 US19 North. Owner: Brad Baldwin. Applicant: Parsley Baldwin Realty.
Representative: Bryan L. Zarlenga.
Location: 3.11 acres on the west side of US19 North
and the south side of Nursery Road. Zoning: C, Commercial District and O, Office District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required number of parking spaces
mcd0500 7 05/16/00
from 135 to 40 spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Proposed Use: A
Case FL 00-03-09
71,250 square foot mini-storage development.
The applicant requests Flexible Development approval to reduce the required number
of parking spaces from 135 to 40 spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at
18524 US19N. The site fronts both Nursery Road and US19N. Assistant Planning Director
Cynthia Hardin said a similar case previously went to the Commission but was withdrawn by
the applicant. The site is undeveloped except for a 24-foot asphalt driveway along the west
and south property lines that provides access to adjacent properties. A 12-foot access drive
also exists along a portion of the east property line in connection with the abutting commercial
businesses. That drive will be maintained with this development to provide access for adjacent
properties to Nursery Road. A stormwater retention basin along the Nursery Road frontage will
be modified with this proposal. The applicant is proposing to develop a self-storage
establishment. The proposal includes three, one-story buildings and two, two-story buildings
totalling 71,250 square feet. Approximately 6000 units will be constructed. The single-story
buildings will be 14 feet high and the two-story buildings will be 25 feet high. Both types of
buildings will have flat roofs. The single-story office building at the US19N entrance will
include a terra cotta colored tile roof with a 5/12 pitch. A covered drive-through canopy will
incorporate the same roof treatment. The predominant color of the buildings will be tan and
the accent color will be green. The proposal includes the use of a six-foot aluminum fence
along the southern portion of the site at the entrances and between buildings. The overall
development will be enclosed by buildings and fencing. The landscape plan proposed
generally meets the intent of the Code. Staff recommends some amendments including a
tiered effect along the road frontages and use of different property perimeter material
(podocarpus of no less than 30 inches in height) along the west and east property lines. The
applicant has not submitted an application for signage. The applicant’s request for reduced
parking from 135 to 40 spaces includes documentation that a self-storage business of this size
will have no more than 10 cars on site at any time. The parking spaces will parallel the
buildings. The applicant has developed similar mini-warehouse projects in the region. The
proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval for
a self-storage establishment, and with all applicable standards of the Community Development
Code. Staff recommends approval of the Flexible Development application with a reduction in
the required number of parking spaces from 135 to 40 spaces, subject to conditions: 1) Proof
of Unity of Title be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits; 2) a revised landscape plan
that meets or exceeds the requirements of Code be submitted, subject to staff approval, prior
to the issuance of any permits, and 3) signage comply with Code. In response to questions,
Planner Mark Parry said the applicant will address architectural details. Flat roofs will be
incorporated into the design of the buildings on the interior of the development. The only
building visible from US19N will be the office, which will incorporate a pitched roof design.
Randy Kranjec and Brian Zarlenga, Tampa Bay Engineering, concurred with the staff
report. Mr. Kranjec was surprised at the number of required parking spaces for a mini-
warehouse. He felt 40 spaces is more appropriate. The applicant adheres to the 20-foot
setback requirement and the 40-foot easement on US19N. The property on the north has no
dedicated easement; the property on the south has a 20-foot easement. The applicant will
adhere to the design elements suggested by staff. It was remarked that a blank wall effect
without landscaping is not aesthetically pleasing to neighbors. It was suggested that although
it is not a requirement, the applicant consider incorporating false windows or landscaping
mcd0500 8 05/16/00
elements along the wall on the west side of the development. Mr. Zarlenga said the applicant
is willing to work with staff to find a solution to the proposed architecture on the western portion
of the development.
One person spoke in opposition to the project.
Frank C. Kunnen, Jr., said he was the original developer and owner of the LeCher
development. He stated that a maintenance agreement included with the original site plan
when this property was originally development included a requirement for 12 parking spaces
along US19N and 4 parking space on Nursery Road. If the 16 spaces are eliminated, the
applicant would not meet the required number of parking spaces at the development. In
response to a question, Mr. Kunnen said he was unsure if the maintenance agreement was
recorded with the County. It was remarked that when the property was sold, the parking
spaces must have been sold as part of this parcel. Mr. Stone said staff has no record of a
previously approved site plan through another jurisdiction.
Member Johnson moved to continue Case FL 00-03-09 to the June 20, 2000, CDB
motioncarried
meeting. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Item D3 – 860 Harbor Island. Owner/Applicant: Arthur and Jeanne Abbo. Representative:
Gerhard Boerner.
Location: 0.25 acres on the west side of Harbor Island, approximately
3,000 feet north of Harbor Passage. Zoning: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the required rear yard from 25 to 21 feet
for a waterfront lot as a Residential Infill Project. Proposed Use: An existing single-family
Case FL 00-03-10.
house with a bedroom/study addition.
The applicants request Flexible Development approval to reduce the required rear yard
setback from 25 to 21 feet for a waterfront lot as a Residential Infill Project at 860 Harbor
Island. The lot has frontage on a watercourse that connects to the intracostal waterway. The
site contains a 2,971 square foot, one-story, single-family dwelling built in 1971. Most lots
within this neighborhood have water frontage. The house is approximately 40 feet from the
rear property line. The pool enclosure is 25 feet from the rear property line. The applicants
propose to add a 495 square foot master bedroom/study to the rear of the dwelling that will
extend into the required rear setback by four feet. The applicants will make other
improvements including an addition to the front of the house, new roofing, new French doors
to the rear of the house, and new exterior façade treatment. Code requires that waterfront
properties within the LMDR District maintain a 25-foot rear setback except where the properties
on either side have a 20-foot setback to preserve water views. Properties in the area have
varying rear setbacks ranging from 15 to 40 feet. The adjacent properties to the north and
south maintain a minimum of a 25-foot rear setback. An eight-foot tall, ligustrum (evergreen)
hedge extends almost the entire length of both sides of the subject property to the seawall.
Views to the water have been minimized because of existing landscaping and other amenities
on adjacent sites including pools and decks/patios. The proposal is in compliance with the
standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval, with the maximum development
potential required of Residential Infill projects, and with all applicable standards of the
Community Development Code. Staff recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application for expansion of a single-family house with a reduction in rear setback from 25 to
mcd0500 9 05/16/00
21 feet, as a Residential Infill Project, for property at 860 Harbor Island. In response to a
question, Mr. Parry said the neighbors’ properties include a hedge and trees and they will not
be able to see the proposed addition. He was unsure of the number of similar applications that
had been submitted over the last five years. It was remarked that the former Code permitted
construction with a 10-foot waterfront setback. The new Code sets the rear setback at 25 feet.
Adjacent neighbors have pools, decks, and patios within 5 feet of the seawall.
Gerhard Boerner, representative, concurred with the staff report. He said numerous
homes in the area are closer to the waterfront than this proposed project. The property values
in the area require larger houses to be constructed in the area. The additional four feet
requested by applicant is required to increase the living space of the home.
Two letters of opposition to the application were received.
Member Gildersleeve moved based on the staff report and testimony at this public
hearing, that the CDB recommend to the Commission approval of Case FL 00-03-10. The
motion
was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Chair Figurski and Members Mazur,
Gildersleeve, Johnson, Moran, and Petersen voted “aye”; Member Plisko voted “nay”. Motion
carried
.
ITEM 3 – APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: April 18, 2000
Member Petersen moved approval of the minutes of regular meeting of April 18, 2000,
motion
as submitted in written summation to each Board member. The was duly seconded
carried
and unanimously.
ITEM F – DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
Item F1 – Ordinance No 6548-00 – Schedule of Application Fees, Rates, and Charges.
Request: An amendment to the schedule of fees, rates, and charges for Level One, Level
Two, and Level Three applications.
When the new Community Development Code was adopted, flexible standard
development and flexible development replaced several development applications including
certified site plans, variances, and conditional uses. Since it was uncertain how staff- intensive
the review of these new types of development applications would be, no adjustments were
made to the application review fees. Fees charged over the last year have been based on the
most similar application in the existing schedule of fees. As part of the six-month Code
update, staff has performed a fee study. The purpose of the study was to determine fees for
the new development applications, evaluate the existing fee schedule to determine if it
adequately represents development review costs, and determine how the schedule relates to
fees charged by area communities.
Ms. Clayton reviewed existing and proposed development review fees for flexible
standard, flexible development, annexations, land use plan amendments, and rezonings. The
proposed amendment to Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances proposes to restructure the
existing schedule of fees by eliminating the existing fees and replacing them with fees for
mcd0500 10 05/16/00
Level One, Level Two, and Level Three development applications. Based on the findings of
the fee study, the majority of fees do not adequately reflect the amount of staff time required to
review development applications. Staff is recommending approval of Ordinance No. 6548-00
creating a new development review fee structure reflecting the proposed fees. In response to
a question, Mr. Stone said no fees are proposed for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District as the costs would be prohibitive. He said if a person makes a suggestion that benefits
the entire community, they must submit an application to the City for the requested use, or the
Commission could direct staff to incorporate the suggested amendment to the Code.
Discussion ensued regarding the fees related to appeals to a hearing officer, Flexible Standard
– Single Family/Two Family Developments, and Flexible Development – Single/Two Family
Developments. It was suggested the fees for those areas were too high. Assistant City
Attorney John Carassas said there is a concern about how to collect costs after the fact from
an applicant who wins an appeal. It was suggested incorporating a provision in the Code to
add a section permitting an automatic annual increase of fees subject to Commission approval.
Member Gildersleeve moved to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 6548-00 as
presented by staff to the Commission with the following changes: 1) the prevailing party in an
appeal case would not pay costs; 2) Flexible Standard – Single Family/Two Family
Development fees be changed to $200; and 3) Flexible Development Single/Two Family
motioncarried
Development fees remain at $450. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Item F2 – Update of annexation, land use plan amendment, and rezoning cases.
Ms. Hardin referred to an updated sheet of annexations, land use plan amendments,
and rezoning cases prepared by staff. She said staff will group plan amendments six times a
year beginning in July 2000 in order to improve their review and to send them to the PPC
(Pinellas Planning Council) and (CPA (Countywide Planning Authority).
Item F3 – Countywide Plan Evaluation
Larry Pflueger, Principal Planner with Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) said the PPC is
undertaking an update of the Countywide Plan and is seeking input from all Pinellas County
local governments. The Plan is a document designed to guide the planning efforts of twenty-
four local municipalities and the unincorporated County and was developed by the PPC in
1979. The Plan has not been substantively updated since that time. Mr. Pflueger requested
the CDB’s input regarding improvements to the Plan, specifically regarding major land uses for
Pinellas County. Concern was expressed the timeframe for commercial land use plans for
major corridors is insufficient for the redevelopment/development taking place in the County. It
was suggested the County focus on becoming more redevelopment-friendly. It was remarked
there is insufficient higher density residential uses in certain areas of the County. It was
commented the best direction for a planning council may be to focus on issues and develop
macro solutions as opposed to a regulatory framework for Countywide zoning. Mr. Pflueger
said he has received feedback from various neighborhood groups indicating they prefer not to
have more higher density units. He said the County is focusing on redevelopment. One
concern is whether mobile home parks are viable land uses for the future. In response to a
question, Mr. Pflueger said he is unsure what can be done about enclaves.
mcd0500 11 05/16/00
Other Business
Discussion ensued regarding the CDB’s position regarding the downtown
redevelopment plan. Staff will invite the deGuardiola team to the next CDB meeting.
It was suggested that staff develop a checklist to ensure that all required elements of
an application is submitted to the Planning Department staff prior to bringing cases before the
CDB. Ms. Fierce said staff provides applicants a checklist.
ITEM G – ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:49 p.m.
mcd0500 12 05/16/00
.
.
.
"
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 16~ 2000
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site
visit to the following properties.
Osceola Bay Club, 400 Jones Str~LOO-OI-03)
yes no
SuperStar Tire, 1721 coachma~za Drive (ANX 00-03-07)
yes no
Cornerstone Communities, Inc., Sunset Point Road and Soule Road
(L UZ 00-03-03)
yes
--X- no
Burr, 1717/1721 Coachman Plaz~rive. (FL 00-01-02)
yes no
Parsley Baldwin Realty, 18524 USJ> North (FL 00-03-09)
yes ~no
Abbo, 860 Harbor Island, (FL OJ\" 18)
yes no
I-
-
-
r'
Caruso, 3006 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (~ 00-02-04)
yes ~no
~/i"/(l~
Date
.
.
.
(
"
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 16.. 2000
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site
visit to the following properties.
Osceola Bay Club, 400 Jones Str~LOO-OI-03)
yes no
SuperStar Tire, 1721 Coachman fa Drive (ANX 00-03-07)
yes no
Cornerstone Communities, Inc., siet Point Road and Soule Road
(L UZ 00-03-03)
yes no
Burr, 1717/1721 Coachman Pia/rive. (FL 00-01-02)
yes no
Parsley Baldwin Realty, 18524 US ~ North (FL 00-03-09)
yes ~l~ no
Abbo, 860 Harbor Island, (FL Of-18)
yes no
.
.
.
~"
~
Caruso, 3006 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (FLS
yes no
-
I-
-
c
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 16.. 2000
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site
visit to the following properties.
Osceola Bay Club, 400 Jones Street (FLOO-OI-03)
~es no
SuperStar Tire, 1721 Coachman Plaza Drive (ANX 00-03-07)
\I yes no
Cornerstone Communities, Inc., Sunset Point Road and Soule Road
(LUZ 00-03-03) J'
yes no
Burr, 1717/1721 Coachman Plaza Drive. (FL 00-01-02)
~es no
Parsley Baldwin Realty, 18524 US 19 North (FL 00-03-09)
V yes no
Abbo, 860 Harb,.hand, (FL 00-03-18)
yes no
.
.
.
t"
1.
s/;t/rlP
/ Date
~
-
I-
.
'1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 16.. 2000
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site
visit to the following properties.
Osceola Bay Club, 400 Jones Street (FLOO-01-03)
c.../ yes no
SuperStar Tire, 1721 Coachman Plaza Drive (ANX 00-03-07)
'-'r.../ yes no
Cornerstone Communities, Inc., Sunset Point Road and Soule Road
(LUZ 00-03-03)
/ yes no
Burr, 1717/1721 Coachman Plaza Drive. (FL 00-01-02)
~ yes no
Parsley Baldwin Realty, 18524 US 19 North (FL 00-03-09)
~ yes no
Abbo, 860 Harbor Island, (FL 00-03-18)
yes no
,
'"
.
Caruso, 3006 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (FLS 00-02-04)
yes no
~--'J~ G ~~
Signature
5 - /(. - co
Date
.
.
f
.
.
.
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: May 16~ 2000
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site
visit to the following properties.
Osceola Bay Club, 400 Jones Street ~00-01-03)
yes . no
SuperStar Tire, 1721 Coachman P7a Drive (ANX 00-03-07)
yes no
Cornerstone Communities, Inc., Sunset Point Road and Soule Road
(LUZ 00-03-03) I
yes no
Burr, 1717/1721 Coachman Plaza Drive. (FL 00-01-02)
yes vi no
Parsley Baldwin Realty, 18524 US 1North (FL 00-03-09)
yes no
Abbo, 860 Harbor Island, (FL 00j-18)
yes no
f
.
Caruso, 3006 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (F~ 00-02-04)
yes ~no
Signatu e
.
.
1R(2-d( ~
.
Date