08/21/2001
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
August 21, 2001
Present: Gerald Figurski Chair
Carlen A. Petersen Vice Chair
Edward Mazur, Jr. Board Member
Shirley Moran Board Member
Alex Plisko Board Member
Ed Hooper Board Member
Absent: David Gildersleeve Board Member
Frank Hibbard Alternate Board Member
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia Tarapani Planning Director
Lisa L. Fierce Assistant Planning Director
Patricia O. Sullivan 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.
ITEM A – APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Petersen moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July
17, 2001, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The
motioncarried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
ITEM B – CONSENT AGENDA (Items #B1 – #B3)
less #B3
Consent Agenda items are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring
property owners, etc. and may be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting.
3011 Virginia Avenue
Item #B1 – : Taylor G. Bingham III - Owner/ Applicant. Request
annexation of 0.11 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan amendment to RU, Residential
Urban, and rezoning to LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District at BayView City,
Subdivision, Block 1, North 47 feet of Lots 5 and 6.
ANX 01-06-12
The property owner has requested this annexation of 0.11 acre to receive
sanitary sewer and water services from the City. The property will have a land use plan
designation of Residential Urban. Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning is
proposed. The site is vacant. The applicant intends to relocate a 1,188 square-foot,
single-family home to this site.
The property is non-conforming with regard to lot area and width. The parcel
does not meet the minimum lot area of 5,000 square-feet and 50-foot minimum width.
mcd0801 1 08/21/01
The applicant has applied for a Flexible Standard development to reduce the required lot
area to 4,700 square feet and the lot width to 47 feet as part of a Residential Infill
Project. On July 12, 2001, the DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the
application and supporting materials. The annexation is consistent with the Future Land
Use Map and goals and policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends
approval.
2652 McMullen-Booth Road
Item #B2 – : Countryside Joint Venture/City National Bank
of Florida, Trustee - Owner/ Applicant. Request flexible development approval to permit
a 6-foot high fence with gate in the required front setback along McMullen-Booth Road at
FL 01-05-22
The Vinings at Countryside, Lot 1.
The 16-acre site, on the southwest corner of Allen Avenue and McMullen-Booth
Road, is within a residential area on the McMullen-Booth Road corridor. The lot, with
680 feet of frontage on McMullen-Booth Road, is more than 1,000 feet deep and
contains 320 dwellings in 13, two- and three-story, masonry-block buildings, developed
in 1989 under a former Code. The buildings are 35 feet in height and at least 50 feet
from any property line. Parking spaces throughout the site are within five feet of any
side or rear property line.
The request is to install a six-foot fence within the east front setback along
McMullen-Booth Road to improve security as part of an overall site upgrade. The fence
will be similar in style and size to other area fences. Code permits fences within the
front setback in the MHDR District to a height of three feet. As part of a Level Two
(Flexible Development) application, brick walls, masonry walls, or walls with masonry
columns linked by substantial grill work may be permitted up to a height of six feet. The
proposed fence, with decorative iron posts linked by wrought-iron fencing, meets the
requirements of Code. Extensive landscaping exists throughout the site meets the intent
of the Code.
The fence will be 13 feet from the east property line and run along the north
property line approximately 170 feet east of the west rear property line and will extend
630 feet to the east. The fence will continue south across the northern drive aisle to the
main office. The proposal includes gates at the driveway on McMullen-Booth Road,
across the north drive aisle, and within the east parking lot north of Building One. Limits
to this request affect a portion of the fence and one gate along the east property line
along McMullen-Booth Road.
Emergency vehicles will be able to access the site using an approved entry
system. A private company currently provides solid waste management for the
development. Access will be maintained with this proposal.
On June 14, 2001, the DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials.
Staff recommends approval with three bases and one condition. Bases for approval: 1)
The proposal complies with the general applicability criteria and criteria for Flexible
Development approval; 2) The proposal will enhance the existing development; and 3)
The proposal is compatible with the existing established character along the McMullen
Booth Road corridor. Condition for approval: That a knox gate entry system be installed
for emergency equipment entry prior to the final inspection of the site.
Item #B3 – See Item #D1 below.
mcd0801 2 08/21/01
Member Petersen moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted, less
motioncarried
Item #B3. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
ITEM C – REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERATION
– None.
ITEM D – LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS
304-308 North Osceola Avenue
Item #D1 – : Malcolm & Beverley Croft / Bennett &
Harriett Weber (Osceola Bay Development, LLC) - Owner/ Applicant. Request flexible
development approval to increase the height of an attached dwelling development from
50 feet to 150 feet, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Sec. 09-
FL 01-05-22
29-15, M&B 43.06, and Clovis C. Lutz, Lots A & B.
Planner Mark Parry reviewed the request. The rectangular, 1.07-acre site, north
of Jones Street, is within the Old Clearwater Bay neighborhood, an older, residential
section abutting Clearwater Harbor. The site has 13 residential units in four attached
structures, which are between 1,000 and 2,800 square feet large and less than 24 feet
high. The heavily wooded site has a steep slope, which starts at sea level and rises to
27 feet at Osceola Avenue.
A previous application for a Residential Infill Project (FL 00-01-03) for this site
included additional parcels and totaled 3.24 acres. That application had proposed: 1)
150 attached dwellings for an increase in density to 45 dwelling units per acre; 2) a
height increase from 30 feet to 174 feet; 3) a six-foot fence within the front setbacks
along Osceola, Jones, and Georgia Street; and 4) the partial vacation and relocation of
Osceola Avenue right-of-way between Jones and Georgia streets. On June 20, 2000,
the CDB (Community Development Board) approved the application pending legal
acquisition of all subject parcels and the vacation and subsequent relocation of North
Osceola Avenue. The development has been reduced in scale and the previous
application has been withdrawn. The City Commission did not vacate Osceola Avenue.
At the time of the original application, the zoning district was HDR, High Density
Residential District. On April 19, 2001, the City Commission changed the zoning to D,
Downtown, and adopted the new Periphery Plan, which guides land use and densities.
The site, in the Northwest Periphery Area, is designated for multi-family residential reuse
with development oriented toward Clearwater Harbor and designed to incorporate those
views. The maximum permitted density is 25 dwelling units per acre. The Periphery
Plan encourages higher density, residential development, primarily west of Osceola
Avenue. Due to high traffic volume, narrow sidewalks, and a lack of landscape
buffering, current pedestrian activity is limited. New development will improve
pedestrian movement.
The applicant seeks to increase the permitted height from 50 feet to 150 feet for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Flexible Development provisions permit
multi-family structures to be 100 feet tall. Buildings between Drew, Myrtle, and Court
may reach 150 feet in height. The project proposes 25 dwelling units in one building.
Underground parking will be provided. The number of parking spaces will exceed Code.
Site access is planned at a gated entrance/exit on Osceola Avenue. The condominium
structure to the north is approximately 115-feet high and the condominium structure to
the south is approximately 80-feet high. Mediterranean architecture is planned. Roof
mcd0801 3 08/21/01
tiles are designed to minimize views of rooftop mechanical equipment. The design is
similar to the previously approved plan.
The landscape plan exceeds the requirements of Code. The site will be
enclosed by fencing: 1) six-foot wrought-iron style fence with masonry columns along
north and south property lines and 2) six-foot masonry wall with masonry columns along
east property line. The masonry portions of the fence and walls will match the structure.
Amenities include a waterfront swimming pool and a tennis court near Osceola Avenue.
Storage space for residents will be near underground parking. A wood dock exists and
the proposal does not request new docks. Dock requests must meet Code or be
approved by the CDB. A four-foot sidewalk along North Osceola Avenue will improve
area pedestrian access.
The plan refers to a retention pond on the site’s northwest corner but does not
include a sufficient grading plan nor percolation tests to indicate the pond will recover
within 24 hours of a storm event. This information must be provided to satisfy
stormwater management criteria, prior to issuance of any permits. Also, a fire hydrant
assembly and Fire Department connections must be installed on the north side of the
entry gate, on the street side of the six-foot wall, prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
On July 12, 2001, the DCC reviewed the application and supporting materials.
Staff recommends approval with five conditions.
Mr. Parry indicated the project’s 50 parking spaces will be on one level. In
response to a question, he said roof mechanicals are hidden behind architectural
features.
Ken Roush, representative, said the project was designed to meet Downtown
codes. In response to a question, he said the stormwater issue has been addressed
without substantial changes to the site plan. Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce said
the Engineering Department would have to approve the proposal. It was indicated the
CDB had approved a 100-foot high project nearby at Seminole Dock.
Matrix Lodging representative Jerry Ellenburg said his firm is completing its first
local project, a Starbucks, at the corner of Cleveland Street and Ft. Harrison Avenue.
He said the boutique project will be award-winning with single unit floors at the top. The
scaled down project will impact less on the neighborhood. In response to a question,
Mr. Ellenburg said downsizing the project was a corporate decision. He said he was
closing title on the subject property in two weeks.
Five residents opposed the project.
Concern was expressed nearby residents had not objected to the larger project
previously approved. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said the 15-story building
will have a 6,000 square-foot footprint. The project is 17 feet from the Belvedere
property. Ms. Tarapani said the Code limits construction hours. The decorative fencing
will not block street access from abutting properties.
Mr. Ellenburg said his firm will work to address neighbor’s special needs. He
said the proposed height is in harmony with downtown development. He said the
mcd0801 4 08/21/01
building’s shadow will scarcely affect abutting properties. He said limiting the project to
one lot will constrain the development potential of the abutting lot. In response to a
question, Ms. Fierce said the tall residential building to the north is at least 200 feet from
the project. Due to the property’s grade, the building will not appear as tall from the
street.
Concern was expressed approval would establish a negative precedent.
Member Hooper moved to approve flexible development to increase the height of
an attached dwelling development from 50 feet to 150 feet, as part of a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project at Sec. 09-29-15, M&B 43.06, and Clovis C. Lutz, Lots A &
with conditions:
B 1) final design of building to be consistent with conceptual elevations
submitted; 2) density of site to be limited to 25 dwellings units; 3) Stormwater
Management requirements to be met, prior to issuance of building permits; 4) a new fire
hydrant assembly/new Fire Department connections to be installed on exterior (street
side) of proposed six-foot wall, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and 5) all
signage to comply with Code and with four bases: 1) The proposal complies with the
Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; 2) The
proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the general
applicability criteria; 3) The application is consistent with the Northwest Periphery Area in
the Periphery Plan; and 4) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and
motion
will enhance other redevelopment efforts. The was duly seconded.
In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said the project must meet City stormwater
requirements. Language related to signage assures the applicant is aware of related
Code restrictions.
Upon the vote being taken, Members Petersen, Mazur, and Hooper and Chair
carried
Figurski voted “Aye”; Members Moran and Plisko voted “Nay.” Motion .
Amendments to Community Development Code
Item #D2 – : City of Clearwater -
Applicant. Request recommendation for approval of amendments to the Code: 1)
amend notice requirements for continuances; 2) add provisions requiring neighborhoods
to conduct a vote on each development standard proposed as part of a NCOD
(Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District); 3) add provisions specifying procedures
to amend or eliminate NCOD requirements; and 4) eliminate percentage of development
TA 01-07-03
rights that may be transferred from a site.
Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton reviewed the proposed
amendments to the Code. During discussion regarding initiating the Island Estates
NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District), the City Commission directed staff
to amend NCOD regulations regarding the final review of proposed zoning provisions.
The Commission also discussed the type and cost of such elections, voting eligibility,
and how to determine results. Staff also recommends addressing: 1) notice
requirements for continued public hearings and 2) transfer of development rights. The
proposed amendments are important and should not be delayed until the annual Code
review.
Staff proposes amendments to notice requirements related to continued public
hearings. In June 2000, provisions were added to public hearing requirements to require
advertising all continued public hearing in the newspaper and noticing all persons
mcd0801 5 08/21/01
previously noticed. Florida Statutes require notice be provided only if the public hearing
is not continued to a date certain. Due to high newspaper advertising costs and the
ineffectiveness of such notice, staff proposes to eliminate this requirement. However,
the Planning Department recommends second notices be mailed to property owners
who had received the original notice.
Staff proposes to revise NCOD provisions: 1) Section 4-608(D)(1) - require
NCOD petition to be filed with Community Development Coordinator instead of City
Clerk. All land development applications are filed with the Community Development
Coordinator. The Planning Department is responsible for processing NCOD designation
requests; 2) Section 4-608(D)(3) - permit up to four alternate members of study
committees; 3) Section 4-608(D)(4) - add requirement that property owners within
proposed NCOD vote on each development standard proposed for inclusion in NCOD.
Results of such vote, including total votes cast, to be presented to City Commission for
consideration. Community Development Coordinator to approve voting format and
method. Neighborhood petitioning for NCOD designation to pay election-related costs;
4) Section 4-608(D)(6) – recognizes a proposed NCOD involves amendments to Code
and requires that NCOD code amendments be considered in accordance with Section 4-
601, which governs text amendments; and 5) add subsection (7) to Section 4-608(D) –
establish procedures to amend provisions of an established NCOD or to eliminate a
NCOD. The procedure would be the same as required to initiate a NCOD, a petition
signed by owners of 60% of the property within the NCOD submitted to the Community
Development Coordinator, with an explanation of the amendments or reasons for
eliminating the NCOD. Within 30 days of receiving the petition and explanation, the City
Manager would recommend to the City Commission whether the amendment/elimination
process should begin. The City Commission would consider the request. The
amendment or deletion of the overlay district would follow the same process and notice
requirements as required for the original adoption.
Staff proposes to delete a provision of Code Section 4-1402 regarding the
amount of development rights, which can be transferred. In September 2000, the
Countywide Planning Authority approved an amendment to the Countywide Plan Rules
to allow the transfer of development rights within a designated redevelopment area.
This provision specifies that density/intensity may exceed the maximum density/intensity
of the Future Land Use Plan category for the receiving parcel by an amount not to
exceed 20% of the permitted maximum.
Staff proposes to delete limits on the amount of rights that can be transferred
from the “sending” site. Code would continue to limit transfers so that the “receiving” site
does not exceed 20% of the permitted maximum. The proposed amendment is
consistent with the Countywide Rules. The current provision related to development of
the sending site will remain. The CDB will review both sending and receiving sites. Staff
feels the current sending site rule could inhibit development alternatives that are
compatible with the area.
Concern was expressed problems could result from each NCOD deciding on a
voting format. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the size of a neighborhood will
determine if voting will be held at a site or by mail. It was felt changes should be permitted
if a majority of residents supports them. Ms. Tarapani said requiring 60% of property
owners to support a change is a stronger indication of support for a comprehensive plan
amendment. She suggested changes may spark controversy.
mcd0801 6 08/21/01
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the City Commission is not bound by
resident votes but will review voting information when drafting NCOD standards. The City
Commission had directed staff to obtain a straw vote for guidance. It was felt similar votes
should result in similar action. Ms. Tarapani said the City Commission had accepted
petitions as votes for the Coachman Ridge NCOD. Future NCOD applications are on hold
until staff can determine how the overlay districts work and what adjustments are
necessary.
Discussion ensued regarding the development and approval of NCOD standards.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the study committee develops a list of
rules based on neighborhood input during a series of meetings. Neighborhood attendance
is encouraged. A web site is available for information and input. Concern was expressed
a rule could be adopted with only 30% neighborhood support.
It was suggested a neighborhood could opt for a NCOD rather than hiring an
attorney and going to court to enforce deed restrictions. Concern was expressed
neighborhoods not use staff for deed enforcement. Ms. Tarapani said NCOD designation
recognizes the uniqueness of preservation and other neighborhoods. Its primary purpose
is not to enforce deed restrictions. It was stated that Coachman Ridge is a standard
subdivision and has no historical value. Concern was expressed the program uses City
staff to enforce deed restrictions. Ms. Tarapani said the value of the program will be
assessed in a year.
It was recommended neighborhoods be informed that resident straw votes on
guidelines do not obligate City Commission action. It was suggested a rule require at least
51% support by a straw poll before a guideline is presented to the City Commission for
adoption.
Sheila Cole and Phyllis Boksen, of Island Estates, expressed concern the process
frustrates residents who have spent time, effort, and money on achieving resident
consensus. They recommended firm rules be established.
It was suggested a rule require more than half of the residents vote on any NCOD
guideline. Ms. Tarapani said the neighborhood is responsible for voter turn out.
Member Hooper moved for the CDB to recommend Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District related restrictions be approved by a majority of NOCD residents. The
motion
was duly seconded.
It was noted the City Commission had not requested an opinion on this issue.
carried
Upon the vote being taken, the motion unanimously.
Member Mazur moved for the CDB to recommend for approval amendments to the
Community Development Code: 1) amend notice requirements for continuances; 2) add
provisions requiring neighborhoods to conduct a vote on each development standard
proposed as part of a NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District); 3) add
provisions specifying procedures to amend or eliminate NCOD requirements; and 4)
eliminate percentage of development rights that may be transferred from a site. The
motion carried
was duly seconded and unanimously.
mcd0801 7 08/21/01
ITEM E - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS
217 Dolphin Point
Item #E1 – : Houle Industries, Inc. - Owner/Applicant. Request
flexible development approval: 1) reduce minimum lot width from 150 feet to 125 feet; 2)
reduce north front setback along Dolphin Point from 25 feet to 4 feet; 3) reduce south
rear setback from 15 feet to 0 feet; and 4) increase the height from 30 feet to 50 feet, as
part of a Residential Infill Project at Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 5-A, Lots 10-11.
FL 01-06-23
Mr. Mazur declared a conflict of interest and vacated the dais.
Mr. Parry reviewed the request. The rectangular, 0.37-acre site is on the south
side of Dolphin Point, west of Larboard Way. The site’s two lots, combined by a Unity of
Title, are vacant. The site is in a redeveloping, residential area of Island Estates,
abutting Clearwater Harbor. The area features several, similar developments on
similarly sized lots.
The project will construct a four-story building with 9 dwelling units. Due to
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) requirements, the first floor can be
used for parking only. The structure will be 16 feet from any other building. The 17
planned parking spaces exceed Code. Twelve spaces will be under the building.
Parking will not be visible from adjacent properties. Site access will be via a single curb
cut on Dolphin Point.
The architecture will be Mediterranean. Proposed landscaping exceeds the
intent of Code. All sight triangles will be honored. Signage must meet Code. Amenities
include a hot tub to the rear of the building. If the hot tub is below grade and within 18
feet of the seawall, a variance from the Board of Adjustment and Appeal for Building and
Flood is necessary.
The applicant seeks to: 1) reduce the minimum lot width from 150 feet to 125
feet; 2) reduce the north front setback from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement); 3) reduce
south rear setback from 15 feet to zero feet; and 4) increase the building’s height from
30 feet to 50 feet. While the application’s elevations illustrate a 44.5-foot high building,
the applicant now requests approval of a 50 foot high building. The zoning and land use
limit density to 11 dwelling units.
Although the lot exceeds the minimum size requirement of 15,000 square-feet, it
does not meet Code’s minimal lot width requirement. As surrounding lots are
developed, no opportunities exist to expand the site or increase its width. Surrounding
properties are developed with attached dwellings and have similar setbacks to these
proposals. The lot’s narrow width creates difficulty in designing a reasonably sized
building without reducing setbacks as requested.
While the plan features a retention pond on the site’s northwest corner, the
application, did not include percolation tests proving the pond will recover within 24
hours of a storm event. This information is required before the issuance of any permits.
A dumpster with chute planned for the northwest side of the building must be designed
to meet Solid Waste Department requirements. The application’s multi-use dock request
will be forwarded to the CDB at a future date.
mcd0801 8 08/21/01
On July 12, 2001, the DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials.
Staff recommends approval with five conditions.
In response to questions, Mr. Parry said the building at the end of the road is
approximately 110 feet tall. Buildings next to this site are between 30- and 35-feet tall.
The CDB must reconsider this project if the developer increases density. Concern was
expressed the application was amended to increase the height of the building from 44.5
feet to 50 feet without submission of an amended site plan. Mr. Parry said the applicant
has requested the additional height to increase ceiling heights or to add a floor with
additional units. A front setback reduction is requested for parking spaces.
Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce reported staff had received two letters of
opposition. One letter supports the application.
Robert Pergolizzi, representative, reviewed the request. He said the rear
setback is requested to install brick pavers and a hot tub. Most of the structure will
comply with Code. The landscape plan exceeds Code. He said density permits 11 units
on the site. He said the applicant will submit an amended application to add two
penthouse units. He said minimum Code requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit. He said
the building’s height would be measured from the FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Administration) elevation.
In response to a concern that the site plan was not updated, Mr. Pergolizzi said
the applicant needs to close on the property by the end of the month. It was stated the
closing could be delayed as the property has been on the market for many years. It was
suggested the application be withdrawn and resubmitted.
Roger Larson, representative, stated no parking is permitted on the street. He
said demographics indicate most buyers will have one car only. He said the applicant
will submit a multi-use dock permit in the future. He said plans for an additional floor are
not firm. The 50-foot height requested would provide flexibility to the development. He
said the abutting developments feature small two-story rentals, constructed two decades
previously. He said the subject building will be similar in height to nearby structures. He
said the Code requires a setback for the planned waterfront pavers.
Two residents opposed the project. Also Island Estates Civic Association
President Boksen said the board opposed the project.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the project meets Code Infill
requirements, except for a small corner of the building. She said proposed setbacks are
similar to nearby properties. The structure will be 18 feet from the seawall. In response
to a question, Mr. Parry said most properties would require flexible development
standards to rebuild following a calamitous event. Few properties meet current minimum
lot widths. Ms. Fierce said the only alternative for the property is home construction,
which is inconsistent with neighboring uses. Ms. Taraani said staff is encouraging
reasonable development of the parking.
It was felt the board should consider resident opposition to zero setbacks on
Island Estates. Mr. Larson said the building will be setback three feet farther from the
seawall than required by Code. The zero-foot setback is for pavers. The front setback
mcd0801 9 08/21/01
is for Code mandated parking. The lot is larger then required. The angle of the cul de
sac takes 20 feet from the lot where the requested setback is 23 feet where 25 feet is
required. He said the request is a minimum deviation from Code. It was suggested
landscaping could replace the pavers and hot tub in the rear setback.
Mr. Pergolizi said most nearby properties are 100% impervious. While the Code
now requires that 15% of the lot be impervious, he said this property will be only 63%
impervious. A professional landscape architect has designed buffering with sod, hedge
trees, crepe myrtles, etc. He said the rear will feature sod and a palm tree. Plans are to
install brick pavers perpendicular to the docks for access. Foot traffic would ruin sod.
He said only half of the rear of the property would feature pavers. The front will feature a
hedge and groupings of plants. The parking lot asphalt will not reach the sidewalk along
the entire property. In response to a question, Mr. Larson said deed restrictions require
15-foot front and rear setbacks. He said the mechanicals will be installed on the flat
roof.
Concern was expressed most flexible development applications request the
maximum flexibility permitted by Code. Concern for neighborhood regulations was
expressed. It was recommended the Code be reviewed regarding setback definitions. It
was suggested setbacks should refer to vertical development, not flat pavement. It was
agreed no other code requires setbacks for horizontal surfaces. Opposition to
developing every property to its maximum use was stated. It was suggested flexible
development require development issues be bartered to minimize Infill development
intrusion on neighborhoods. It was stated setbacks are large enough to prevent
shadows. Ms. Fierce said this would be a staff level application except for the rear and
side setback request. It was felt the applicant had supported their position with sufficient
evidence. It was suggested the board should follow Code regulations, even if members
disagree with them.
It was stated the applicant had not submitted the required site plan to amend the
height request. Discussion ensued regarding Infill requirements and voting rules.
Member Hooper moved to approve flexible development approval: 1) reduce
minimum lot width from 150 feet to 125 feet; 2) reduce north front setback along Dolphin
Point from 25 feet to 4 feet; 3) reduce south rear setback from 15 feet to 0 feet; and 4)
increase the height from 30 feet to 50 feet, as part of a Residential Infill Project at Island
Estates of Clearwater, Unit 5-A, Lots 10-11 with conditions. There was no second.
Member Plisko moved to approve flexible development approval: 1) reduce
minimum lot width from 150 feet to 125 feet; 2) reduce north front setback along Dolphin
Point from 25 feet to 4 feet; 3) reduce south rear setback from 15 feet to 0 feet; and 4)
increase the height from 30 feet to 44.5 feet, as part of a Residential Infill Project at
with conditions:
Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 5-A, Lots 10-11 1) final design of
buildings to be consistent with conceptual elevations submitted; 2) density to be limited
to nine dwellings units and building height to be limited to 44.5 feet; 3) Solid Waste &
Stormwater Management requirements to be met, prior to issuance of building permits;
4) setback reduction for hot tub along seawall to be secured through application to the
Board of Adjustment and Appeal for Building and Flood, prior to issuance of building
permits; and 5) all signage to comply with Code and with three bases: 1) The proposal
complies with Flexible Development and Residential Infill Project criteria; 2)The plan
complies with general applicability criteria; and 3)The proposed development is
mcd0801 10 08/21/01
motion
compatible with the surrounding area. The was duly seconded. Members
Petersen, Moran, Plisko, and Hooper and Chair Figurski voted “Aye”; Member Mazur
carried
abstained. Motion .
ITEM F – DIRECTORS ITEMS
Addition to expert witness list – Richard Kephart
Mr. Plisko moved to designate Senior Planner Richard Kehpart as a planning and
motion carried
development expert. The was duly seconded and unanimously.
Agenda - September 14, 2001 Workshop at Municipal Services Building
A copy of the agenda was distributed. Staff estimated the 12:30 p.m. workshop
would last two hours. CDB issues will be discussed and Code changes proposed.
Amscot
It was stated the CDB had approved the Amscot location on Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard with a condition that its signs not advertise its check cashing services after
the business’s owner had stated check cashing services would be less than one-third of
the location’s business. Concern was expressed Amscot’s marketing campaign
advertises its check cashing services. Mr. Parry said on-site signage does not advertise
check cashing services. It was questioned if a City mechanism could control national
advertising. Ms. Tarapani said staff can monitor the business if complaints are received.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said it is illegal to misrepresent the use of a building.
Promotions
CDB members congratulated Ms. Tarapani, Ms. Fierce, and Ms. Clayton
regarding their promotions.
ITEM G - ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:21 p.m.
mcd0801 11 08/21/01
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 21, 2001
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to all the
properties.
Taylor G. Bingham, 3011 Virgin~venue - ANX 01-06-12
yes no
City National Bank, 2652 McMullen Booth Rd. - FL 01-05-22
~ yes no
Houle IndusjFies, Inc., 211-217 Dolphin Point - FL 01-06-23
v' yes no
Osceola B~y Development, 304-308 N. Osceola Ave. - FL 01-06-25
v/ yes no
Sitf(}~
S-Z/-O/
Date
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 21,2001
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to all the
properties.
Taylor G. Bingham, 3011 Virgi~venue - ANX 01-06-12
yes no
City National Bank, 2652 McMullenJ300th Rd. - FL 01-05-22
yes ~ no
Houle Industries, Inc., 211-217 Do~n Point - FL 01-06-23
yes no
Osceola Bay Development, 304-30~ceola Ave. - FL 01-06-25
yes no
b
Da
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 21, 2001
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to all the
properties.
Taylor G. Bingham, 3011 Virginia Avenue - ANX 01-06-12
---- yes no
City National Bank, 2652 McMullen Booth Rd. - FL 01-05-22
....--- yes no
Houle Industries, Inc., 211-217 Dolphin Point - FL 01-06-23
~ yes no
Osceola Bay Development, 304-308 N. Osceola Ave. - FL 01-06-25
c..---- yes no
~~
D:e\~\~\
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 21, 2001
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to all the
properties.
Taylor G. Bingham, 3011 Virginia Avenue - ANX 01-06-12
yes ~ no
City National Bank, 2652 McMu~l:Jl Booth Rd. - FL 01-05-22
yes ~ no
Houle Industries, Inc., 211-217 Dolphin Point - FL 01-06-23
1--- yes no
Osceola Bay Deve]opment, 304-18 N. Osceola Ave. - FL 0]-06-25
yes no
;1
l II' 0/' \
~Jft~/k~
/ i SIgnature Dat
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: August 21, 2001
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to all the
properties.
Taylor G. Bingham, 3011 Virginia Avenue - ANX 01-06-12
yes K no
City National Bank, 2652 McMullen Booth Rd. - FL 01-05-22
yes ~ no
Houle Industries, Inc., 211-217 Dolphin Point - FL 01-06-23
yes no /l)dT Iff>PLlc4,()/-.?-
Osceola Bay Development, 304-308 N. Osceola Ave. - FL 01-06-25
yes ?--- no
~
[flu /p /
"
Date