The URL can be used to link to this page

02/20/2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER February 20, 2001 Present: Gerald Figurski Chair – arrived 5:20 p.m. Edward Mazur, Jr. Vice Chair David Gildersleeve Board Member – departed 6:07 p.m. William Johnson Board Member Shirley Moran Board Member Carlen A. Petersen Board Member Alex Plisko Board Member Also Present: Pamela Akin City Attorney – departed 5:20 p.m. Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney – arrived 5:20 p.m. Ralph Stone Planning Director Cynthia Tarapani Assistant Planning Director Lisa L. Fierce Development Review Manager Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 1:04 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 CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERATION 3006 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Item #B2 – (Cont’d from 12/12/00) : Thanh Phuoc & Kimtruc Thi Nguyen – Owner/ Applicant. Request flexible development approval to permit a nightclub within the Commercial District with a reduction in required parking spaces from 20 spaces to 18 spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project with Comprehensive Landscape Program at Bay View City Sub, Blk 8, Lots 8, 9, 10 & 1/2 of vac alley on N less Rd. right-of-way on S. FL 00-08-33 Development Review Manager Lisa Fierce stated the applicant had requested a continuance. motion Member Johnson moved to continue Item #B2 to March 20, 2001. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. ITEM B - CONTINUED ITEMS 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304 Coronado Item #B1 – Drive : Al-Nayem International Inc. & Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam/ Clearwater Seashell Resort LLC – Owner/ Applicant. Request flexible development approval to: 1) increase height from 35 feet to 150 feet; 2) increase from 65 rooms to 250 rooms; 3) reduce front setback along S. Gulfview Boulevard from 10 feet to zero feet; 4) reduce front setback along Coronado Drive from 10 feet to zero feet; 5) reduce side north setback from 10 feet to zero feet; and 6) reduce side south setback from 10 feet to zero feet. Request review and recommendation to City Commission: 1) vacation of Third Street right-of-way mcd0201 1 02/20/01 from S. Gulfview Boulevard to Coronado Drive; 2) vacation of eastern 35 feet of S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way, from approximately 130 feet north of the Third Street centerline street to approximately 150 feet south of Third Street centerline, totaling approximately 250 linear feet of S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way); and 3) development agreement between Clearwater Seashell Resort LLC and City as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 57-59, 104-106 and part of Lots 56, 103 & 107. Member Mazur reported he had a conflict of interest and left the dais. Member Johnson moved to nominate Member Gildersleeve as alternate chair for motioncarried Item #B1. The was duly seconded and unanimously. Gordon Schiff, representative for A.P. Mar, Inc., (d.b.a. Port Vue), Antonios Markopoulos, (d.b.a. Days Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc., (d.b.a. Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.C.C., (d.b.a. SpyGlass), and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d.b.a. Golden Beach), requested this hearing be cancelled for the following reasons: 1) Notice of public hearings is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite; 2) the hearing has been improperly and deficiently noticed because the project concerns land not included in the application and not included in the notice and advertisement for the hearings; 3) the applicant and the City have not complied with all notice requirements under the Code, including, but not limited to, not including land which is part of the project area; 4) owners and other property owners will be prejudiced by the failure to strictly comply with all notice requirements, including but not limited to, having insufficient time to prepare and fully participate in the hearings; 5) if the board goes forward with the hearings, its actions will be void; and 6) owners expressly do not waive their objections to the notice by appearing at the hearing and participating in the event this motion is not granted. City Attorney Pam Akin stated she had reviewed Mr. Schiff’s motion/request to cancel the hearing and recommended the CDB (Community Development Board) move forward with the hearing. She said if there is a notice defect, Mr. Schiff can appeal to the courts. Planning Director Ralph Stone said this is a significant case, the first one following on the heels of the CDB’s review of the Beach by Design plan. The Commission approved the Beach by Design plan. It will now go to the PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) and the Board of County Commissioners for approval. This proposal takes advantage of some of the elements in Beach by Design, such as redevelopment of South Gulfview, the development of a public sector improvement known as the beachwalk, and the creation of a resort bonus pool of units. There are a number of conditions that must first be satisfied in conjunction with the site plan and the development agreement. The Comprehensive Plans addresses the need for flexibility in development regulations, the need for redevelopment at the beach and in downtown, and sensitivity to the tourism economy with regard to the City’s future overall health. Staff feels this application is timely. Development Review Manager Lisa Fierce reviewed the requests. This case was continued at the January 31, 2001 special meeting of the CDB (Community Development Board) due to irregularities in sending legal notice to surrounding properties. Notices have been sent regarding the new meeting date. mcd0201 2 02/20/01 The 1.63-acre site, fronting South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive, straddles Third Street and includes a portion of the east half of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way and Third Street right-of-way between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive. The site features the Glass House Motel and Beach Place Motel at 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard, and a single-family dwelling and outbuildings at 300 Coronado Drive. The motels, built between 1941 and 1956, have a total of 66 rooms. The redevelopment project will raze all onsite structures. The City has identified this site as a priority candidate for beach redevelopment and revitalization. This area has many old, modest hotels and motels and retail businesses in mid-rise buildings. Redevelopment requires the assembly of land sufficient to develop signature buildings with on-site amenities and adequate off-street parking. The site is in the Beach by Design Plan’s Beach Walk District, the primary beachfront destination on Clearwater beach. To stimulate redevelopment of area property and to position the beach as a first-rate tourist venue, the Plan recommends redevelopment, realigning S. Gulfview Boulevard into a beachfront promenade, and removing most surface parking west of the road. To assist in transforming the beach into a quality family resort, Beach by Design establishes a density pool of 600 additional hotel rooms in key locations, available for five years following designation of the beach as a Community Redevelopment District, pursuant to Countywide rules. The applicant wishes to use 183 rooms of the density pool. Beach by Design guidelines are addressed. Beach by Design was approved by the Commission on February 15, 2001. The proposal consolidates small parcels into a redevelopment site. The project is a 250-room, full-service, upscale hotel with a health club and pool, banquet facilities, restaurants, and retail uses. Rooms will range from standard to luxury suites with kitchenettes. Some rooms will have private lanais. The hotel will sit atop an 800-space parking garage. While Code requires 250 parking spaces, the garage will provide 150 additional spaces for hotel use. The remaining 400 spaces will be available for public use. As part of Beach by Design, a portion of the public parking lot west of South Gulfview Boulevard will be removed. The project’s design includes two towers separated by a 100-foot center span. The 14-floor building will measure 150 feet to the top of the principal roof structure from the base flood elevation and will include six levels of parking and seven levels of hotel rooms. The building will have two front doors: 1) a formal entrance front view on Coronado Drive and 2) beach entrance on S. Gulfview Boulevard to include colonnade elements with arches and canopies. Proposed materials will be stucco, polished stone, and a barrel-tile roof. The design steps back as the elevation increases, creating interesting elevations along the skyline. Balconies on the west elevation will overlook the Gulf of Mexico. The building’s design will camouflage the multiple levels of structured parking and hide it from beach-goers’ views. A pedestrian overpass will extend from hotel’s second story, across the promenade and relocated South Gulfview Boulevard, to the beach. The proposal implements beach walk improvements as outlined in Beach by Design, to include substantial landscaping, a circulation program that establishes a new design for S. Gulfview Boulevard, and specialized plantings in place of a portion of the mcd0201 3 02/20/01 public parking lot. In front of the project, a promenade will be established in the right-of- way of S. Gulfview Boulevard that incorporates pavers, street trees, lighting and other amenities to integrate activity with the building façade and enhance the pedestrian experience. Trees will be planted on S. Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive. The pool deck also will be landscaped with tree wells and planters. This application for Flexible Development approval is part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project and requests to increase the height from 35 feet to 150 feet, increase the number of rooms from 65 rooms to 250 rooms, reduce the front setback along South Gulfview Boulevard from 10 feet to zero feet, reduce the front setback along Coronado Drive from 10 feet to zero feet, reduce the north side setback from 10 feet to zero feet, and reduce the south side setback from 10 feet to zero feet. The height increase is consistent with Beach by Design recommendations because it provides for an increase in density, separate towers by 100 feet, and includes a floorplate higher than 45 feet for public parking. The reduction in side and front setbacks is needed for on-site circulation and includes the dedication of 10 feet of right- of-way along Coronado Avenue. The increase in density uses the density pool. The proposal meets the 14 criteria outlined by Beach by Design, including a minimum of 200 hotel rooms, full range of amenities, access to rooms via lobbies/corridors, a national marketing affiliation, trip generation management enforceable by covenant, mandatory hurricane evacuation, maximum of 25 percent of rooms with kitchen facilities, exceptional architectural design and finishes, frontage on the Gulf of Mexico, minimum lot size of one acre, existing property with obsolete structures, Tourist District zoning with eligibility to increase height to 150 feet, provision of benefits to the City, and obligation to participate in future assessment program. The site’s current structures are served by S. Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive. South Gulfview Boulevard, which will provide ingress and egress to the parking structure only, operates at a LOS (Level of Service) “D.” Full access will be provided along Coronado Drive. The traffic impact assessment performed by King Engineering Associates, anticipates project traffic will split between Coronado Drive and South Gulfview Boulevard at a 40:60 ratio. The traffic study concludes the project is not expected to degrade the LOS along South Gulfview Boulevard, Coronado Drive, or surrounding roads. The proposal anticipates vacation of the eastern portion of Gulfview Boulevard, beginning approximately 130 feet north of the centerline of Third Street and ending approximately 150 feet south of the centerline of Third Street, and the vacation of Third Street from Coronado Drive to South Gulfview Boulevard. As proposed in Beach by Design, South Gulfview Boulevard will be relocated west as part of a serpentine, beachwalk design that will include a two-way, two-lane road section, pedestrian way, and bicycle path. The proposal also includes the dedication of 10 feet of right-of-way along Coronado Drive. Staff recommends a condition of approval relate to these vacation actions. The proposal also requests recommendation to the City Commission of a development agreement that establishes public/private obligations. The City recognizes the economic and aesthetic benefits that will result from private development. The applicant also recognizes the benefit of public improvements that directly affect the marketability of the project and the character of the general area surrounding the project. mcd0201 4 02/20/01 The development agreement, in summary, requires the applicant to construct a minimum 250-room hotel and 800-space parking garage with 400 public spaces and to provide “up-front” financing for the Beachwalk project and relocated South Gulfview Boulevard, generally between the south beach concession structure and First Street. The City will process the vacation requests of both Third Street and South Gulfview Boulevard, between the Pier 60 parking lot and public parking lot north of the Adam’s Mark resort, provide units from the resort units bonus pool, and reimburse the applicant for public improvements from ad valorem revenue and other public revenues generated by the project beyond existing revenue levels. The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 19, 2001. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Mr. Stone summarized the key points of the development agreement. The developer is proposing a 250-room resort facility, with a minimum of no less than 750 parking spaces, 400 of which would be dedicated to public use, and the remainder dedicated for the developer’s use. The developer is proposing to provide 100% of their pro-rated costs of the overall costs of the Beachwalk and South Gulfview reconfiguration based on their frontage versus the linear total of the project. The applicant will provide up-front financing for the same improvements between the south beach concession structure and First Street to the south beach Pavilion. The applicant would be reimbursed over a period of time up to 25 years from sources limited to the incremental increase in their ad valorem and utility taxes. The extent of which those revenues could be applied would be no more than 50%. The City has the option of buying out both the parking garage public spaces in the first 5 years, or building a competing garage within a quarter mile. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said when South Gulfview is redesigned and moved west, Coronado would become 3 lanes and South Gulfview would become 2 lanes. He said staff will be challenged to determine the timing of improvements on South Gulfview and Coronado to accommodate parking at the beach. There is a conceptual footprint for the reconfiguration of South Gulfview and the Beachwalk, but no final designs. Now that the Commission has approved Beach by Design, staff can move forward with analyzing the detailed designs for South Gulfview and the Beachwalk. Mr. Schiff said if the CDB proceeds with this case, he would ask for party status, file objections, and request the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant’s representative. He also expressed concern that certain events such as road vacations, etc. have not occurred, and felt the process was out of order. City Attorney Pam Akin said the site plan approval and the CDB’s recommendation will be contingent upon the subsequent action required by the Commission. Bill Kimpton, applicant’s representative and principal, said this property has been under contract since 1999. This application was initially brought to the City as an alternative to “Pier 60 plus” incorporating some neighbors’ and some of the City’s property. Once presented to the City, it was felt the project was a viable alternative, and the applicant has been pursuing it since that time. A 6-month delay was realized due to downtown redevelopment proposals. He said this project would be completed in line mcd0201 5 02/20/01 with the City’s plan to redevelop the beach and within the timeframe of completion of the new bridge. Richard Gehring, consultant, said this is a catalytic project for the beach and the City overall. He presented a conceptual design of the resort hotel, conference center, parking system, and other amenities. He said the City would not be required to subsidize the parking garage. He felt this project would stimulate redevelopment, bring a quality design, create a great destination, and revitalize tourism. He said this project is sensitive to the 2 adjacent property owners that also are pursuing development. This plan would separate the Marriott Seashell and the Markopoulos project by a 60 to 70 foot right-of-way. He said the annual economic impact of the project is over $1.2 million with more than 250 to 300 additional job opportunities. The character and quality of this urban structure would rejuvenate South Gulfview. In response to a question, Mr. Gehring said the Marriott is in the process of reviewing designs and the approval process is underway. He said the Kimpton team is in an exclusive relationship with the Marriott. Specific issues and concerns are being addressed with City staff. John Nichols, architect, said the Marriott is excited about this proposal. His firm has been involved in many major hotel and oceanfront projects. He said this project takes the spirit of Beach by Design and incorporates it into a project that will greatly benefit the City. He referred to a conceptual design of the project and reviewed the design and amenities. The parking garage would be built behind the façade of the building. The roadway under the building includes a right-in, right-out access and will include proper signage. Concern was expressed that the front of the building will have a zero setback. Mr. Stone said the Beach by Design document anticipates zero setbacks in the downtown and tourist districts. Every flexible use has the option, absent the infill process, of zero setbacks on all four sides. Specific standards address those setbacks. Member Petersen moved to recognized Gordon Schiff as the representative for motion Mr. Markopoulos and grant him party status. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Gehring reviewed the economic impacts of the project and the project team. He said the key to this project is the quality of project than can be delivered. Staff is working with the Kimpton team to complete the development agreement. He thanked Clearwater for the opportunity to provide an outstanding project. In response to questions from Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nichols said he is not an appraiser or economist, and has not received training in marketing research. He said the building is proposed to be 85 feet high and meets the minimum flood criteria. He is aware of the Beach by Design standards regarding the design of building as it pertains to height and light, air, and view corridors. He said this building adheres to the light, view, and air guidelines. The project is broken into towers with the parking garage behind the façade. He said there would be a 30-foot wide open section from Coronado to Gulfview. The proposal provides for elimination of Third Street. Mr. Nichols said the proposed structure is residential in its architectural character and mid-rise residential in scale in terms of multifamily residential structure. In response to question from Mr. Schiff, Ms. Fierce said the staff report is a combination of the Planning Department staff and Development Review Committee members’ efforts. She said she was unsure of everyone’s qualifications regarding mcd0201 6 02/20/01 economic development matters. Staff historically looks at current property values and how the proposal will improve the value of surrounding properties. She is not a licensed appraiser or market analyst, and did not know if other staff had those qualifications. She said it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide information regarding their adherence to the standards in the Code. Ms. Fierce said she has met with Mr. Gehring on 2 occasions regarding whether his proposal met the requirements in Beach by Design. She did not know if he was a consultant to the City. In response to questions from Mr. Schiff, Planning Director Ralph Stone said he does not interpret that every criteria in the Code has to be met; it requires some balancing. He said if the Code states that all criteria had to be met, he would be required to follow it. The option regarding zero setbacks in the Community Development Code is not guaranteed. The Code states the applicant must address all criteria. Staff has anticipated common wall construction with respect to Mr. Schiff’s property. The Code accommodates common wall construction. Staff has reviewed some of Mr. Schiff’s client’s proposals. Mr. Schiff said none of those proposals are relevant in this hearing because no application is pending for any projects by his client. Mr. Stone said if he did not consider Mr. Schiff’s client’s plans, the Commission would express their concern. The plans being referred to today are the proposals that were submitted to the Commission. He said it is common to have discussion with contiguous property owners whether or not they submitted an application. Although they were not submitted in a formal application to the City, there have been discussions with the City regarding alternatives of development agreements based on those alternatives. The alternatives have been proposed to the City in public hearings regarding beach development. Those plans do not restrict Mr. Schiff’s client from applying for another project. Mr. Schiff said he felt the issue of presenting evidence regarding his client’s property is irrelevant. He said testimony has been heard on a project that has no status. He said all the evidence presented today is irrelevant to this proceeding. In response to questions from Mr. Schiff, Mr. Gehring said the Kimpton group has an agreement of exclusivity to pursue Marriott’s operating relationship. Details of operating agreements are in negotiations. Mr. Gehring said he is a community planner and developer with 25 years of experience in planning and delivering millions of dollars worth of product and projects but does not function as a professional appraiser or market analyst. He analyzes markets for projects with which he is involved. In response to a question, Mr. Gehring said the parking garage would be “screened” from beachgoers, not “camouflaged”. The conditions on the abutting sides have Code constraints that allow only certain materials to be used on an abutting edge. He referred to the north elevation of the project. Mr. Gehring said he is a participant in the project. His client has requested the vacation of Third Street and the request has been part of the numerous public hearings held on Beach by Design. He said the proposed parking garage configuration requires zero side setbacks. The intentions of Beach by Design which define in their structure an intent for an urban tourist district and provides for zero setbacks. In response to a question, Mr. Gehring said this property is under contract and is approximately 1.63 acres. The subject site with 280 feet of frontage on Gulfview, 305 feet of frontage on Coronado, 245 feet of depth between block face to block face with the vacation of 35 feet of Gulfview produces a 1.63 acre site, which in urban characteristics is developed as appropriate in character and scale to the urban intensity of the tourist district the City has defined in Beach by Design. The 150-foot height is used only on Coronado frontage. There is significant air and light on all occupiable portions of the structure. The parking deck would run lot line to lot line to accommodate mcd0201 7 02/20/01 the demands of both the City and the public. Mr. Gehring felt the proposal is an acceptable trade off in delivering a quality hotel with a quality parking facility on this site. He felt it is not an intensification unlike the characterization of the commercial quality of Clearwater beach defined in Beach by Design or in either of Mr. Schiff’s client’s informal applications. He said the parking deck is compatible with Mr. Schiff’s informal proposal for a parking deck. In response to questions, Mr. Gehring said he has been employed by the City numerous times in other capacities. He has not been employed by the City in any capacity regarding Beach by Design or regarding any beach standards. He has had no consulting contracts with the City during the past year. The meeting recessed from 3:35 to 3:48 p.m. Mr. Schiff said the CDB does not have the authority to grant a site plan on property that has not been part of an application. He said there is no existing Community Redevelopment District and that this project is being reviewed in the context of an assumption that a Community Redevelopment District would be established to allow for consideration of this project. He said this application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Plan. He submitted a list of due process concerns. Sufficient time for the public and his client has not been provided and violates his client’s due process and equal protection rights. Any materials that were submitted by staff or that are part of the application today did not provide sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard to his client. He said the applicant under Code has the burden to establish that every single criteria must be met by competent substantial evidence. He said the record is devoid of any competent evidence to grant the approvals requested, therefore the applicant has not carried his burden. When an applicant utilizes 55% of its project from public lands or variances, the project does not fit the property. Ethel Hammer, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, confirmed her credentials. She said the applicant’s proposal is incompatible with adjacent properties, negatively impacts the future development potential of adjacent properties whether existing or future, is to intensive for the size of the property, sets a negative precedent for future development proposals on Clearwater beach, and does not belong on a 1.6 acre parcel of land after vacations are completed. Mr. Schiff said the applicant has admitted the project cannot meet the standard required for the project with regard to the standard that no more than 60% of the theoretical maximum building envelope can be located above 42 feet and be occupied by a building. Michael McElveen, Urban Economics Incorporated, said he is a State general certified real estate appraiser. He said this project does not comply with standard #2 of the general applicability standards and the general standards of Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. The project is not to reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. He expressed concern regarding the height of this project, its effect on development, the zero setbacks, the lack of air, light, and view corridors, and lack of spacing of towers. He felt the project is impractical on the subject site as it requires deviations from the intensity and development standards. Adjoining properties will suffer a loss in values. He said adjoining property owners’ use would be diminished because of this project. Proper scales, heights, and setbacks would improve this subject site’s value. mcd0201 8 02/20/01 Mr. Schiff referred to graphics of his client’s property and the applicant’s property at various viewpoints. He said if only one criteria has not been met in the Code, the application should be denied. He felt the proposed project is too large for the parcel with too many towers. He said a similar request from a property owner that requested elimination of side setbacks was denied based upon the project being too intensive. He requested the CDB take judicial notice of the Comprehensive Plan, the Code, Beach by Design standards, the Countywide Plan, and other pertinent regulations. Concern was expressed that Mr. Schiff’s client had not expressed opposition at any of the approximately 11 public hearings held on Beach by Design and this proposal. Mr. Schiff said this is the first public hearing on this request for which the CDB is being asked to make a decision on this application. In response to a question, Mr. McElveen said if the applicant complied with setbacks and reduced the height of this project, there would be less of an impact on adjacent property owners. He said the issue is the marginal impact on value. In response to a question, Ms. Hammer said Mr. Markopoulos’ property is 3.5 acres and the subject property is much less. There is more opportunity to create some distance on the Markopoulos property with respect to towers, etc. Mr. Schiff said the point of Beach by Design is not to treat projects on an individual basis. This project did not consider compatibility with existing or with future developments. He felt his client also should have an opportunity to avail himself of Beach by Design standards. This project will hurt his client in its current design. In response to questions from Mr. Stone, Ms. Hammer confirmed her office is in Tampa. She said the general economic climate over the past decade in the Tampa Bay area has been very good. She said she is not an appraiser but is familiar with the general area. She said she has not had the opportunity to administer a redevelopment or special area plan. Ms. Hammer agreed that in the decade of the 1990’s during a period of the highest economic climate and the lowest interest rates, nothing of substance has occurred on Clearwater beach. Mr. Stone said a findings and assessment report done by Anne O’Neil of Anne O’Neil & Associates, concluded that Clearwater beach met the criteria for a slum and blighted area. In response to a question, Ms. Hammer said under that type of economic climate, frequently the solution to that condition is a new project. Ms. Hammer said she is not opposed to the project or the concept of a new hotel, but is suggesting the project as designed is not appropriate for this location. Ms. Hammer agreed that in a blighted area with an economic condition of no new investment, the normal planning response is some type of special area plan or technique to change that condition. Mr. Stone said the City has engaged Charlie Siemon of Siemon and Larsen to address those conditions. Ms. Hammer said she had the opportunity to review the special area plan and is aware of how Mr. Siemon defined the geographic areas and how the scale and development of each area is treated. She said Mr. Siemon proposes the area in the Gulfview corridor as an area proposed for more intensive scale development, but he also states it must be in scale and harmony with the surrounding area and most importantly states it should preserve the light, air, and view corridors. Mr. Stone said Mr. Siemon has defined some incentives in that area intended to change the climate particularly in the case of a special unit pool. The minimum site size permitted for the use of the pool is one acre. The subject site including the right-of-way is 1.63 acres. In response to a question, Ms. Hammer agreed mcd0201 9 02/20/01 the site exceeds the minimum size of density as prescribed by Mr. Siemon. Mr. Stone said a height of up to 150 feet is allowed in this area. Mr. Stone said the normal context of the application of the specific development regulations that have stacked up through a zoning code to a special area plan to a comprehensive plan normally result in a set of regulations that are in a sense customized. They are not the types of regulations that normally apply to a healthy environment, otherwise they would not be necessary. Ms. Hammer said none of those policies and goals are in conflict with anything she has stated. She said the Comprehensive Plan is to be considered as a total document therefore all policies must be considered. She said this project is inconsistent with policies dealing with compatibility with surrounding properties. Mr. Schiff continued to object to the relevancy of Mr. Stone’s statement regarding the City’s goals, as there is no existing Community Redevelopment District. In response to questions from Mr. Gehring, Ms. Hammer said as a comprehensive planner, she has not prepared any plans under the City’s new Code structure or under Beach by Design within the past 2 years. Mr. Gehring said the 250- room hotel with a quality flag and a public parking deck available to the public provides benefit. Ms. Hammer said she has no problem with that concept but her concern is with the specific design. Mr. Gehring said during his graphic analysis, he referred to the Markopoulos proposal as presented to the public and Mr. Schiff continuously objected, although Ms. Hammer presented a hypothetical condition, including a comparison of the two proposals. Ms. Hammer said her intent was to show the juxtaposition of the scale, bulk, and intensity of both projects should they both include zero setbacks. In response to a question, Ms. Hammer said the criteria in the Code does not speak to off-site improvements; it speaks to what takes place within the boundaries of the project and can be evaluated. She said the intent of open space and impervious surface ratios are meant to be within a project. She said mitigation done in the public right-of-way does not speak to the intensity of the site, but mitigates the existing conditions. In response to a question, she said she did not see the relevancy of the DRI maximum of 350 rooms as her client’s property is more than twice as large as the applicant’s property. Mr. Gehring said the density of this application is in the range of what has been shown by the Markopoulos group. Ms. Hammer said her client has proposed nothing in official records and the application is yet to be determined. In response to questions from Mr. Gehring, Mr. McElveen said he is not educated in the disciplines of planning, land use control mechanisms, setbacks, etc. Mr. McElveen said there is no question that a $65 million project is a benefit, but it would more of a benefit were it built within the existing Code. A reduction of air, light, and view is a reduction in value. He said he could not place a corresponding value on the proposed project if it were approved. Mr. Schiff said his client owns all the abutting properties to the north of the subject site, has assembled 4 different properties, and expects to develop them under the Beach by Design criteria at some point in the future. Mr. Gehring said the applicant’s first draft development agreement was prepared in March 2000 and was fully disclosed to the public regarding the scale and design of this project. He said Mr. Schiff’s client had prior substantive knowledge of the scale, character, and intensity of this project. Mr. Schiff objected to the relevancy of Mr. Gehring’s testimony. Four persons spoke regarding the application. mcd0201 10 02/20/01 Mr. Stone said development regulations have anticipated zero setbacks, etc. prior to Beach by Design. This project will ad value to the beach, adds public parking and removes it from dry sand, has been done in a sensitive manner, and meets the design guidelines, the criteria in Beach by Design, and the Comprehensive Plan regulations. Mr. Gehring said the area is in a blighted condition. He felt his client is providing a fair deal that balances development and benefits the public. Numerous public hearings have been held regarding this project. He requested the project move forward as the timing of some issues are critical. The Chair thanked everyone for their cooperativeness in the process. In response to a question, Ms. Akin said the proposed vacation does not violate the City Charter. She said that issue will be addressed by the City Commission. Member Johnson moved to approve the flexible development request to: 1) increase height from 35 feet to 150 feet; 2) increase from 65 rooms to 250 rooms; 3) reduce front setback along S. Gulfview Boulevard from 10 feet to zero feet; 4) reduce front setback along Coronado Drive from 10 feet to zero feet; 5) reduce side north setback from 10 feet to zero feet; 6) reduce side south setback from 10 feet to zero feet; AND recommend City Commission approval of: 1) vacation of Third Street right-of-way from S. Gulfview Boulevard to Coronado Drive and 2) vacation of eastern 35 feet of S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way, from approximately 130 feet north of the Third Street centerline street to approximately 150 feet south of Third Street centerline, totaling approximately 250 linear feet of S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way at Lloyd-White- Skinner Sub, Lots 57-59, 104-106 and part of Lots 56, 103 & 107 with conditions: 1) This application to be effective upon City Commission approval of development agreement; 2) City Commission approval required of vacation of Gulfview Boulevard and Third Street rights-of way; and 3) final design of building to be consistent with conceptual motion elevations as submitted to and/or modified by the CDB, The was duly seconded carried and unanimously. Member Johnson moved to recommend the City Commission approve the development agreement between Clearwater Seashell Resort LLC and City as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 57-59, motion carried 104-106 and part of Lots 56, 103 & 107. The was duly seconded and unanimously. The meeting recessed from 5:16 to 5:22 p.m. Chair Figurski thanked Member Johnson for his service on the CDB and presented him with a plaque. 3006 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Item #B2 – (Cont’d from 12/12/00) : Thanh Phuoc & Kimtruc Thi Nguyen – Owner/ Applicant. Request flexible development approval to permit a nightclub within the Commercial District and to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 20 to 18, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project with Comprehensive Landscape Program at Bay View City Sub, Blk 8, Lots 8, 9, 10 & 1/2 of vac alley on N less Rd. right-of-way on S. mcd0201 11 02/20/01 FL 00-08-33 See Item A. 222 Palm Island SW Item #B3 – (Cont’d from 01/23/01) – : Karl N. & Ginny M. Juhl/Mark Maconi Homes of Tampa Bay, Inc. – Owner/Applicant. Request flexible development approval to reduce required north rear setback from 25 feet to 14 feet as part of FL 00-11-59 Residential Infill Project at Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 6-A, Lot 14. Planner Mark T. Parry reviewed the request. The 0.22-acre waterfront property, on the north side of Palm Island SW, is west of Island Way in the Island Estates subdivision. The site is being redeveloped with a 3,620 square foot, two-story, single- family dwelling. The proposed 390 square-foot, covered lanai meets all required setbacks and is not a part of this request. The applicants wish to install a swimming pool that is elevated six feet above grade and 14 feet from the north rear property line. On waterfront properties in the LMDR District, Code requires detached dwellings to be setback 25 feet from the rear property line unless properties on each side have been developed with structures 20 feet from the rear property line. In that case, the setback may be 20 feet. This case is unusual. While pools are considered accessory structures, normally requiring a 10-foot rear setback, this pool will be six feet above grade. According to Code, an accessory structure is separate from the principal structure. The lanai will connect the pool to the dwelling. The applicants request to reduce the north rear setback from 25 feet to 14 feet. The house’s FFE (finished floor elevation) will be six feet above grade to meet FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Act) requirements. The applicants want the pool at the same elevation as the house and lanai. The lot does not have adequate room to absorb a six-foot grade differential between the house’s FFE and a pool built at-grade. In accordance with Code, the pool will be built outside the required waterfront view triangle. Code prohibits within the view triangle any plant material or structure taller than 36 inches. The house to the west has a 6-foot FFE and is approximately 15 feet from the north rear setback. The house to the east is at-grade and approximately 25 feet from the north rear setback. Both side property lines of the subject site feature 4-foot high hedges, which extends to the rear setback. Both adjacent properties have several queen palms in their rear corners next to the subject site. Staff recommends additional plant material be installed along the east and west property lines to enhance screening. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on December 14, 2000. Staff recommends approval with one condition. Mr. Parry said the applicant has modified the pool design since the last CDB meeting. He said the only change is the “notch-out” of the pool deck that would provide a better view to the neighbor to the east of this property. Roger Larsen, applicant’s representative, said the applicant has agreed to remove a corner off the pool and remove trees so that the line of sight for the neighbor to the east would not be affected. mcd0201 12 02/20/01 Nathan Hightower, representative for the neighbor to the west of this property, stated his opposition to this application. He said although the applicant has taken measures to mitigate the line of sight issue, the setback from the rear property line remains unacceptable to his client. He expressed concern regarding the view from his client’s property as well as the relocation of two large air conditioning units adjacent to his client’s property on the west. This construction would devalue his client’s property. At the last CDB meeting, his client requested the applicant move the pool to the west. His client also is concerned about the height of the hedge between the two properties. In response to a question, Mr. Hightower said he felt the changes indicated by the applicant would still block his client’s view. Mr. Larsen said the home does not violate setback requirements. The adjacent homeowner’s home sits farther back on the lot. He said no line of sight situation exists. He said if the applicant removed the pool from the site plan, it would not improve the adjacent homeowner’s existing line of sight. He said although new platforms were built for them, the 2 air conditioning units have always been in their present location on the east side of the house. He said the applicant does not wish to move the pool further west because it would not be in alignment with the house. Robert Osborne, Freestyle Pools, provided a diagram of the proposed pool design. He said the pool cannot be shifted to the left unless the tree is removed. The deck area is being reduced but does not affect the line of sight. The pool design incorporates a disappearing edge and the northern edge of the pool is 2 feet lower than the main portion of the pool. The 2 wings on either end are 6 feet high. In response to a question, Mr. Larsen said the neighbor on the west side of this property has requested the pool not be moved in a westerly direction. Mr. Hightower said that neighbor does not have a line of sight issue as does his client. He said although the house that was constructed has already impeded the view of the adjacent homeowner, the pool would violate the setback requirements and affect the line of sight even more. In response to a question, Assistant Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the most exterior structure is required to be 10 feet from the seawall. Member Gildersleeve moved to defer Item #B3 until after the next case is heard, motion in an effort to permit the 2 parties to discuss the matter. The was duly seconded carried and unanimously. After discussion by the two parties, Mr. Larsen said they had reached an agreement: 1) There will be no birdcage unless required by law; 2) the applicant will move one of the air conditioning platforms as close to the street as is legal; 3) the north end of the pool will be moved in a southerly direction by 2 feet, and whatever else is in that sight line. Harry Cline, representative, said his client residing directly to the east, is agreeable to those changes. Member Gildersleeve moved for the CDB to approve the flexible development request to reduce required north rear setback from 25 feet to 14 feet as part of Residential Infill Project at Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 6-A, Lot 14 with the following conditions: 1) a buffer to be provided along east and west property lines, which honor the required view triangles, and are capable of reaching and being maintained at a height of at least six-feet. 2) there will be no birdcage unless required by law; 3) the applicant will move one of the air conditioning platforms as close to the street as is legal; mcd0201 13 02/20/01 and 4) the north end of the pool will be moved in a southerly direction by 2 feet, and motion carried whatever else is in that sight line. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 731 Bayway Boulevard Item #B4 – (Cont’d from 01/23/01) – : E & A, Inc./Louis Anastasopoulos – Owner/ Applicant. Request flexible development approval to permit a restaurant in the Tourist District, to reduce the front east setback from 10 feet to 1.6 feet along Clearwater Pass Avenue, and to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 105 to 74, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Bayside FL 00-11-49 Shores, Blk C, Lots 1 through 10. Planner Mark Parry reviewed the request. The CDB continued this application on January 23, 2001 at the request of the applicant to further address access and circulation issues. The 1.79 acre, roughly L-shaped site, on the southwest corner of Bayway and Gulf boulevards fronts South Gulfview, Gulf, and Bayway boulevards and Parkway Drive. A covered plaza, 22 feet wide at the north end and 39 feet wide at the south end separate the site’s two, one-story, masonry-block buildings: 1) east building - 8,552 square-feet and 2) west building - 8,184 square-feet. The buildings are 70 feet from the north, 50 feet from the south, 55 feet from the east, and 120 feet from the west property lines. The corner lot has 4 front setbacks: 1) north - Bayway Boulevard; 2) south - South Gulfview Boulevard; 3) east - Gulf Boulevard; and 4) west - Parkway Drive. Two side setbacks form the intersection of the “L.” One building is one foot from the east side property line and two feet from the west side property line. The 87-space parking lot is zero feet from the property line along Parkway Drive, two feet from the property line along Bayway Boulevard, three feet from the property line along South Gulfview Boulevard, two feet from the south side property line, and two feet from the property line along Gulf Boulevard. The site, a shopping center within a desirable commercial area at the north end of the Sand Key Bridge on Clearwater Beach, has operated continuously since its construction in the early 1970s. The site has undergone some deterioration and appears dated. An addition and complete renovation of the façade is proposed. Current uses include seven retail sales and service establishments, two restaurants and one office. The British Pub restaurant offers limited outdoor dining. One tenant space is vacant. The applicant plans to expand the shopping center by adding a one-story, 4,200 square foot restaurant. The total building area will increase from 16,736 square feet to 20,936 square feet. The project also removes 17 parking spaces. The addition will conform to front setback requirements. The project also will renovate the façade of the existing building with a “Bar Harbor” style. Extensive landscaping will be installed along all street frontages and interior landscaping will exceed the intent of the Code. Modifications needed to the landscape plan include a tiered effect along Gulf, South Gulfview and Bayway boulevards, which will provide a mix of foliage texture and color and reduce the use of sod. mcd0201 14 02/20/01 All signage will meet Code. The applicant plans to modify signage for all center tenants. Fencing and landscaping will enclose dumpsters and a clothing drop-off box will be removed. The proposal also removes the north access point along Parkway Drive leaving two access points along Gulf Boulevard, an ingress-only along Parkway Drive, and single access points on Bayway and South Gulfview boulevards. Three ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant handicap spaces will be provided. The new restaurant will primarily serve breakfast but also will serve lunch and dinner. The applicant requests to reduce the required east front setback along Gulf Boulevard from 10 feet to 1.6 feet and reduce the number of required parking spaces from 105 to 70 spaces. The parking requirement for the current shopping center is 84 spaces. In isolation, the restaurant addition would require 29 additional spaces. Jonnatti Architecture, Inc. has submitted a parking analysis, which used a methodology agreed to by staff and includes a parking accumulation study performed three times per day between August 26 and September 1, 2000. The parking analysis indicates that between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., a minimum of 58 parking spaces are available. At the proposed restaurant’s expected peak parking demand in the morning, parking lot demand is at its lowest, with 80 parking spaces available. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on December 14, 2000. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. Mark Jonnatti, representative, stated he agreed with the staff report and staff recommendations. In response to a question, he said he was unsure of the number of seats the restaurant would include. He said the number of parking spaces needed was determined by staff according to criteria regarding retail use in a commercial tourist district. Member Petersen moved for the CDB to approve the flexible development request to permit a restaurant in the Tourist District, to reduce the front east setback from 10 feet to 1.6 feet along Clearwater Pass Avenue, and to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 105 to 74, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Bayside Shores, Blk C, Lots 1 through 10 with conditions: 1) a final landscape plan which exceeds Code requirements to be submitted to and approved by staff prior to issuance of any permits and 2) all signage to be brought into compliance motion with Code prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The was duly carried seconded and unanimously. Text Amendment Item #B5 – (Cont’d from 01/23/01) – : City of Clearwater – Applicant. Request amendments to Community Development Code regarding residential infill projects, parking standards for self storage establishments, special area plans governing development potential in Tourist District, docks, newsracks, and an alternate member to TA 00-12-06 the Community Development Board. Senior Planner Gina Clayton presented the text amendments. After the passage of the expanded newsrack requirements in Ordinance No. 6526-00, representatives of the publishers requested relief for approximately 300 newsrack locations. Planning Department staff agreed to review the new requirements and revise them if and where appropriate. Staff is requesting the Board consider amending the newsrack provisions, as well as amendments addressing residential infill mcd0201 15 02/20/01 projects, revising parking requirements for self storage facilities, allowing approved special area plan provisions to supersede development potential enumerated for the Tourist District, revising and reorganizing docks requirements, and adding an alternate board member to the Community Development Board. All of these proposed amendments are considered to be important to operations and should not be delayed until the annual review of the code. Residential Infill Project Staff is proposing amendments to the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zoning District that make residential infill projects for single family detached dwellings a flexible standard use. Staff is also proposing to make residential infill projects for all permitted uses in the Low Medium Density Residential District (LMDR) a flexible standard use instead of a flexible development use. Since the new Community Development Code went into effect in 1999, the Board has reviewed twenty-one residential infill requests in the LDR and LMDR Districts and approved all twenty-one applications. Objection letters from neighboring property owners were received for two of those cases and one letter of support was received for one other request. Due to the fairly large number of requests and the relatively minor nature of most requests, staff is proposing this amendment. It should be noted that no changes are proposed to the development standards and flexibility criteria that currently apply to residential infill projects, except that in the LDR District, the only use eligible for flexible standard application is single family dwellings. Parking for Self Storage Facilities Staff is proposing to revise the parking requirements for self storage facilities. Upon site plan review of a proposed self storage facility, staff found that existing parking standards do not adequately reflect the parking demand generated by this use. The current requirements in the Commercial (C) and Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) Districts require parking to be based on land area. In actuality, parking demand is based on the number of storage units located within a facility; therefore, staff is proposing parking requirements to be based on the number units instead of the site area. In the C District staff is proposing to change the requirement from one to ten spaces per 1000 square feet of land area to one space per twenty units plus two for the manager’s office. In the IRT District, minimum standard development provisions for self storage facilities require two spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area. Staff is proposing to change this to one space per twenty units plus two for the manager’s office. Existing parking standards for flexible standard development self storage facilities in the IRT District are the same as the requirements for minimum development. Staff is proposing to revise these requirements to one space per fifteen to twenty units plus two for the manager’s office. Staff is also proposing the same standards for flexible development self storage facilities in the IRT District. Maximum Development Potential in the Tourist District Staff is proposing to add a provision to Code Section 2-801.1 that permits development potential for land governed by an approved special area plan within the Tourist (T) District to be governed by such approved plan. The purpose of the amendment is to permit the requirements of Beach by Design, if approved, to govern land use and development potential in the area of Clearwater Beach that is zoned T and included in the Plan. mcd0201 16 02/20/01 Docks Staff is proposing to amend the dock regulations found in Code Section 3-601. While several of the provisions are being revised, the amendments are primarily organizational in nature. Staff is proposing to remove the Harbormaster from the review process because Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority has final authority on navigational issues. The review performed by the Harbormaster is duplicative and can be modified or even denied by the Water and Navigation Control Authority. Currently the dock regulations make no provisions for commercial and multi- use docks. Staff is proposing to reorganize the existing regulations into sections specifying requirements for docks serving single-family dwellings and those requirements for commercial and multi-use docks. Staff is also adding a mechanism for property owners to obtain deviations from requirements for new docks by having a process whereby if neighbors agree to proposed deviations and the criteria is met, staff can approve the deviations. If neighbors cannot agree, an application can be made to the Community Development Board for a Level Two approval. Currently, the regulations only permit deviations for existing docks. Additionally, staff is proposing to eliminate the need for a Clearwater building permit because the Building Department has never inspected dock construction. The Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority has this authority. Staff is also proposing that docks only require approval from the Community Development Coordinator, prior to the issuance of approval by the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority. Newsracks Staff is proposing to amend to newsrack provisions in Code Section 3-909 by reorganizing the entire section into five subsections and revising some of the requirements. Staff is proposing to reduce the distance requirements between modular newsracks from 300 feet to 100 feet. The proposed amendments would permit two newsracks to locate side by side provided the racks are made of the same material and they are the same color. More than two newsracks together will require the use of a metal modular newsrack. Staff is also proposing to require all newsracks in the Tourist and Downtown Districts to be metal and the same color. Staff is proposing to amend Code Section 8-102 by including definitions of newsracks and modular newsracks. Alternate Community Development Board Member Staff is proposing amendments to Code Sections 5-202 and 5-203 that will add one alternate member to the Community Development Board. This proposal specifies that the alternate member is able to participate in meetings in order to establish a quorum, participate in the absence of a regular member or during an agenda item when a regular member cannot vote due to a conflict of interest. In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the 100 foot distance separation addresses the issue of proliferation of newsracks. Mr. Stone said the 100 foot separation was arrived by analyzing subdivision patterns. Staff is less concerned in the downtown and beach areas due to pedestrian activity. He said commercial businesses want newspaper stands in front of their businesses, therefore increasing the separation between multiple newsracks would not be viable. He said multi-publication racks can be found in approximately 20 – 25 locations throughout the City. They are permitted to be 8 mcd0201 17 02/20/01 feet wide, 55 inches tall, and a depth of no more than one rack with a maximum of 16 publications. In response to a question, Mr. Stone said due to the size of the CDB and the required quorum, staff felt the need for an alternate board member. Concern was expressed that the alternate member would be expected to attend all meetings although they may never serve on the board. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said an alternate also could break tie votes. Three persons spoke regarding the amendments. In response to a concern, Mr. Stone said staff is confident these amendments are enforceable. He said publishers have expressed their desire to comply with the regulations and are awaiting their approval. Member Petersen moved to recommend approval of the amendments to the Community Development Code, Ordinance #6680-01, to the City Commission. The motioncarried was duly seconded and unanimously. ITEM C – LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS 2408 Shelley Street Item #C1 – : Wilfred & Muriel Pina – Owner/Applicant. Request flexible development approval to reduce rear setback from 25 feet to zero feet as part of Residential Infill Project at Gulf to Bay Acres 1st Add, Blk E, Lot 13. FL 00-10-45 Planner Ryan Givens presented the proposal. The 0.21-acre site, in the Gulf to Bay Acres subdivision, is on the north side of Shelley Street, west of Kilmer Avenue. The two retail stores and restaurant across Shelley Street are oriented toward Gulf-to- Bay Boulevard. Most houses on the north side of the block back up to a small pond, which serves the subdivision’s drainage needs. The site features a 1,600 square-foot, single-story house and mature tree canopy. The rear of the property, which abuts the pond, has a six-foot tall wood fence. The rear lawn slopes from the house towards the retaining wall to the north. The City previously cited the property owners for constructing, without permits, a six-foot high fence and large deck, which encroaches three feet into a five-foot drainage easement along the west property line. The property owners have secured permits for the fence. They have indicated that they will remove the decking which encroaches on the west property line drainage easement, and hope to resolve the deck violation via this Flexible Development request. The deck covers most of the rear yard, wraps around an above- ground swimming pool, and extends to the retaining wall, resulting in a zero rear setback. The applicants have expressed safety concerns that honoring required setbacks would result in a steep drop-off at the deck's edge. To preserve water views, staff recommends prohibiting structures which exceed 36 inches on the subject property, including decking and fencing, within 10 feet of the retaining wall or within the waterfront sight triangle. Due to the six-foot fence that extends along most of the site’s side property lines, the deck is not readily seen from adjacent properties. The deck, constructed at varying elevations, almost covers the rear lawn. The portion of deck, adjacent to the house, is more than four feet above grade mcd0201 18 02/20/01 while the portion, adjacent to the retaining wall, is approximately one foot above grade. The deck, constructed over soil, allows rainwater to percolate into the ground. The deck will comply with Code, except for the request for a reduced rear setback. To meet all Code requirements, the applicants will replace the portion of fence that encroaches on the waterfront sight visibility triangle with a non-opaque fence, no more than 36-inches high. On December 14, 2000, the DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials. Staff recommends approval with six conditions. In response to a question, Wilfred Pina, applicant, said he did not realize he was in violation of Code and has taken steps to resolve the violation. He said staff’s recommended conditions are acceptable. Member Petersen moved for the CDB to approve the flexible development request to reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to zero feet as part of Residential Infill motion Project at Gulf to Bay Acres 1st Add, Blk E, Lot 13. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 333 South Gulfview Boulevard Item #C2 – : David R. Little (Barry Barringer, d.b.a. Key Largo Bar & Grill) – Owner/Applicant. Request flexible development approval to reduce east rear setback from 10 feet to zero feet and the north side setback from 10 feet to zero feet as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Lloyd-White- FL 00-12-62 Skinner Sub, Lot 67. Planner Ryan Givens reviewed the request. The 0.15-acre site, on the east side of South Gulfview Boulevard, north of Fifth Street, features a Caribbean-style, two-story, 4,566 square foot mixed-use building. An ice cream parlor and retail shop occupy the ground floor, with a restaurant and apartment unit on the second story. The building’s front porch and upper balcony overlook the Gulf of Mexico. A brick patio along South Gulfview Boulevard has outside tables and benches. The structure has had many additions and, along with asphalt, almost covers the entire site. To the rear, a smaller building with an office and apartment was built approximately two feet from the rear property line and is legally nonconforming. A six- foot, wood fence, which extends along the rear property line, is in poor condition and requires panel replacement. Trash and debris along the east property line are between the building and a short retaining wall. To the center of the property, immediately under the primary building, several items, stored outside, are partially visible from adjacent properties. The area features a variety of land uses associated with the tourist-oriented district. The parking lot, of the six-story Americana Hotel to the north, wraps the site to the east. A McDonald’s restaurant is to the south and public parking and the beach are west, across South Gulfview Boulevard. The Americana Hotel, a relatively modern structure, has few architectural details and windows on the elevation abutting the subject site. The hotel’s south property line is not landscaped. A trash enclosure is approximately five feet from the subject property line. The parking lot has minimal landscaping. mcd0201 19 02/20/01 The applicant requests to reduce the east rear setback from 10 feet to zero to accommodate a 96 square-foot walk-in refrigeration unit to store beverages for the restaurant and bar on the main building’s second floor. Underground pipes provide direct access from the refrigeration unit to the restaurant. The current unit was installed without a required building permit. The applicant wishes to resolve existing violations via this Flexible Development request. The site limits options for placement of the refrigeration unit. Areas under the primary building need to remain open for pedestrian access, trash collection, and parking for the second-story apartment. The applicant also seeks to reduce the north side setback from 10 feet to zero feet for the deck, which abuts the north property line, to improve pedestrian access to storage rooms and the property’s rear. The deck was constructed without site plan approval or a building permit. Although this request could be reviewed as a Flexible Standard development, it has been included in this application. The applicant intends to replace the wood fence along the rear property line, which will improve the site’s appearance from the Americana Hotel parking lot and partially screen the 8-foot high refrigeration unit. Staff recommends buffering the unit with an enclosure that resembles the site’s architectural style and color. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 18, 2001. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Harry Cline, representative, said the applicant has no objection to the staff report except to the extent that the decking extends across the property line. He said the applicant has ordered a new survey and if the results reveal an encroachment, the decking would be removed within 75 days. Member Plisko moved for the CDB to approve the Flexible Development application to reduce the east rear setback from 10 feet to zero feet and reduce the north side setback from 10 feet to zero feet, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lot 67 with conditions: 1) The refrigeration unit is to be screened with an enclosure that is architecturally-integrated with the style of the existing building, with final materials and design to be approved by the planning department; 2) the existing fence along the east (rear) property line be replaced with a new, six-foot wood fence prior to issuance of a building permit (other than a fence permit); 3) all proper permits and inspections for the refrigeration unit and the deck be secured within one month of the community development board approval of this application; 4) all outdoor storage be discontinued and removed prior to the issuance of any building permits or within one month of the community development board approval of this application, whichever is less; 5) all trash/debris be removed along the east property line prior to the issuance of any building permits or within one month of Community Development Board approval of this application, whichever occurs first; and 6) the property be resurveyed and if it is determined that the existing deck encroaches the Boldog property to the north, the encroachment must be removed within 75 days of the Community Development Board approval. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. 623 Drew Street Item #C3 – : Robert Schoeller – Owner/Applicant. Request flexible development approval to increase the height of a tower from 50 to 66 feet and to reduce mcd0201 20 02/20/01 the number of required parking spaces from 91 to 21 as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Jone's Sub of Nicholson's Addition to Clearwater Harbor, FL 00-11-57 Blk7, Lots 1-3. Planner Ryan Givens reviewed this request. The 1.51-acre site, on Drew Street’s north side, is between the Pinellas Trail CSX Railroad tracks near the Downtown District’s northern boundary and the Periphery Plan’s Northwest Expansion Area. The area has a mix of land uses, including office, the City’s gas company, warehouse, retail, and vacant land. Nearby Drew Street properties are not well integrated and feature varying levels of maintenance and redevelopment. The area’s land use pattern is similar to suburban industrial rather than a central business district. While the future land use map designates the site as CBD, Central Business District, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan designates the property as Heavy Commercial where encouraged uses include light assembly, office/warehousing and distribution. Generally, less intensive uses are permitted. The site, which needs repairs, previously was used for ice storage. Its industrial character includes a loading dock on Drew Street, large blank masonry walls, and an interior parking lot full of debris. The site features two 24-foot tall buildings: 1) west building - brick façade has new decorative window frames and 2) east building - façade on Drew Street resembles an office with blank masonry walls on other elevations. The site is almost covered with asphalt and has almost no landscaping. It has been the focus of significant discussion due to its neglect and resulting blight on the area. The owner uses the site for his artist’s studio and intends to redevelop it as his personal residence, a home for his son, and an art studio with a gallery and office. The project would transform the warehouse buildings into a Renaissance-type villa, which the applicant compares to the Ringling Museum in Sarasota. The design will incorporate the buildings into a mixed-use development. Exterior walls will remain masonry. Much of the brickwork will be preserved and incorporated into the design. All structures will have flat roofs with etchings atop. The two buildings will be joined by a two-story addition: 1) enclosed upper floor - part of studio and 2) lower floor - breezeway & covered parking. The Drew Street elevations will include a large arched window, a gated entry to the parking lot, and a medallion. Statues will top columns along the gated entry’s drive. The north Jones Street elevation will be the most ornate, with windows, moldings, arches, and brickwork. On the north property line, the project will construct a 2,120 square-foot, 45-foot tall tower resembling a gatehouse as a home for the applicant’s son. A six-foot metal grill fence will enclose an interior courtyard, which will features gardens, statues, a pond, and reflecting pool. East and west elevations will remain relatively bare, except for moldings. Adding windows overlooking the railroad tracks or Pinellas Trail is impractical due to security and noise concerns. A 66-foot tower in the center of the site will balance the development’s design and reinforce the Renaissance style theme. Code permits a maximum height of 100 feet as part of a Flexible Development application. Landscaping, appropriate for a downtown area, will accent the building’s exterior. The interior courtyard will be heavily landscaped. The applicant’s residence will be 15,330 square-feet. Space for the studio, photography, frame making, paint mixing, painting, and storage will take up 22, 033 square-feet. In the future, the applicant plans to convert approximately 2,500 square feet of his personal residence as flex space to expand his gallery for private showings. mcd0201 21 02/20/01 A maximum of 6 people will operate the studio and gallery on any day. Workers will include the artist applicant, his son, 2 office staff, a part-time frame maker, and 1 possible future staff member. Generally, 1 or 2 customers at a time visit the site by invitation for specific events or appointments. Few people walk-in, due to the nature of the business. The artist intends to operate the studio from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and may open for weekends. The applicant requests reducing the required number of parking spaces from 91 spaces to 21. The applicant contends that 21 spaces will meet all site-parking needs. Routinely, staff attempts to limit on-site surface parking in the Downtown District. A large parking lot would degrade the project’s architectural style. The use will not generate the same parking need as traditional retail sales. By applying a parking standard based on need rather than size, the site should need only eight spaces. Parking spaces may be leased from adjacent properties when the artist hosts a gallery show, which normally is held at night when most nearby parking lots are vacant. With its unique design and its potential to influence similar redevelopment, the proposal meets the intent of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Design Guidelines, the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, and basic planning principles for a central business district. While this ambitious proposal would impact positively on downtown, staff is concerned the project be completed in a timely manner. Several vertical pieces of metal rebarr have been installed on the western building’s roof to support decorative roof elements included in the redevelopment proposal. A large concrete block pond has been constructed without a building permit. The loading dock on Drew Street is a safety concern due to its lack of a barrier or railing. Building Inspectors have not cited the property owner for these violations as redevelopment efforts are planned to commence immediately. Staff recommends attaching a time sensitive condition to the approval. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 18, 2001. Staff recommends approval with seven conditions. In response to a question, Planner Ryan Givens said the applicant must build the sidewalk. Ms. Tarapani said staff’s condition is clear regarding Code regulations and enforcement. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure all issues are resolved within the specified deadlines. It was felt that the rebarr should be covered and that any construction that already has begun should be completed. Ms. Tarapani said staff has been working with the applicant since last fall in an effort to encourage him to move forward with compliance. Thomas Coats, representative, said the applicant intends to first address the Drew Street façade. Mr. Schoeller agreed to complete it within a year. Mr. Givens said after consulting with his attorney, the applicant has requested that staff condition #4 be amended and staff agreed to amend that condition as follows: an application for a building permit be submitted for the drew street facade and that all outstanding code violations be resolved within four months of the Community Development Board decision. mcd0201 22 02/20/01 Member Plisko moved for the CDB to approve the Flexible Development application to increase the height of a tower as part of a mixed-use development from 50 to 66 feet and to reduce the number of required parking from 91 spaces to 21 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Jones Sub of Nicholson's Addition to Clearwater Harbor, Blk7, Lots 1-3, with conditions: Trash collection facilities are provided to the satisfaction of Solid Waste department and the design is coordinated with the Planning Department; 2) in the event square footage that is allocated for residential uses are converted into nonresidential uses the Planning Department shall recalculated the parking requirement for the converted square footage (the approximately 2,500 square feet of flex space to a gallery exempt) and Code requirements must be met; 3) in the event the artist studio portion of the building is converted into any other use (including other types of retail) the Planning Department shall recalculate the parking requirement for the converted square footage and the code requirements must be met; 4) an application for a building permit be submitted for the drew street facade and that all outstanding code violations be resolved within four months of the Community Development Board decision; 5) all outdoor storage and debris be removed prior to the issuance of any building permits or within two months, whichever is less; 6) outdoor storage of materials be prohibited; 7) all signage meet code and be architecturally integrated into the design of the building; and 8) a minimum of a five-foot sidewalk be provided on Jones street. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. 3070 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Item #C4 – : RB-3 Associates, Randall Benderson 1993-1 Trust, and WR-1 Associates – Owner/ Applicant. Request flexible development approval to provide direct access to a major arterial street for a proposed overnight accommodation establishment, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project FL 00-12-64 Sec. 16-29-16, M&B 23.02. Planner Mark Parry reviewed this request. A 69,625 square-foot, 127-room Fairfield Inn hotel is under construction on the 4.3-acre site, on the northwest corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and McMullen-Booth Road, east of Bay Street. The fifty-foot high building will have five stories and feature a shingle roof, stucco exterior, latticework, cornice lines, and detailed window treatments. The site has one 64-square foot, 20-foot high freestanding sign, 10 feet from the front south property line. The sign, which identifies a previous business, will be removed. On October 9, 2000, staff approved the project’s Flexible Standard Development application FLS 00-07-46, which included a request to increase the building’s height from 25 feet to 50 feet. The site also will be developed with two commercial outparcel uses. As a condition of approval, all site development will share access. A condition for approval of the height increase, prohibits the project from direct access to a major arterial street. The approved site plan indicates access to the site will be from Bay Street, a secondary street, and from the McMullen-Booth Road service road. The applicant seeks to amend the site plan to allow right-in/right-out access on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, a major arterial street. This change requires the applicant to request a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project use. Otherwise, the proposal remains the same as previously approved. The applicant proposes to remove the entrance on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, west of the mcd0201 23 02/20/01 McMullen Booth Road service road. The project includes extensive landscaping on the site’s interior and installation of landscaping along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, McMullen- Booth Road, and Bay Street, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the hotel. The City’s Traffic Operations Engineer’s analysis indicates the proposed access along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard may help prevent congestion on Bay Street and may encourage departing guests, headed east on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, to turn west and use the U-turn west of Bay Street. Staff was concerned accidents could result from the project’s use of the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard acceleration lane for McMullen Booth Road traffic as a deceleration lane for motorists entering the site. Field observations, however, indicate that motorists merge with Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard traffic prior to a point, 40 feet east of the proposed right-in/right-out access point. Staff and visitors from the office building across Bay Street from the hotel are the primary users of Bay Street. Observations indicate that southbound Bay Street traffic turns left onto Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. During heavy, eastbound traffic, this movement includes temporary stops in the medium’s striped safety island. However, as a condition for receiving a driveway permit, FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) will replace the striped area with a raised island. Staff recommends a certificate of occupancy not be issued prior to FDOT’s inspection and approval of the raised safety island and related traffic “uprights.” The safest method of heading eastbound on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from the site will be to travel approximately 300 feet west and make a U-turn from the two-way, left turn lane. By providing a right-in/right-out access point along Gulf to Bay Boulevard, hotel guests can exit onto Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and avoid potential problems on Bay Street. A right-out only exit onto Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard also may encourage departing guests to use the safer method to travel east on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. The proposed access also may help prevent congestion on Bay Street. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on January 18, 2001. Staff recommends approval with four conditions. Member Johnson moved for the CDB to approve the Flexible Development application to permit direct access to a Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, a major arterial street, for an overnight accommodation establishment as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Sec. 16-29-16, M&B 23.02 with conditions: 1) access to be limited to right-in/right-out on Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard with a raised island, per FDOT requirements; 2) FDOT’s inspection and approval of raised safety island and traffic “uprights” required prior to issuance of hotel’s Certificate of Occupancy; 3) any freestanding sign to be limited to six feet in height above finished grade of parcel’s front line unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, as required by Code; and 4) all future access to outparcels to be restricted to this single driveway. Requests for an additional driveway for one or both outparcels to require further review by the City and motion carried Community Development Board. The was duly seconded and unanimously. ITEM D - LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS 160 North Belcher Road Item #D1 – : H.G. Anderson/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.72 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to CG, Commercial General Classification and rezoning to C, Commercial mcd0201 24 02/20/01 District at a portion of Section 13, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, M & B 11.03. ANX 01-12-01 Professional Planner Brad Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.72 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to CG, Commercial General Classification and rezoning to C, Commercial District at a portion of Section 13, motion Township 29 South, Range 15 East, M & B 11.03. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 1305 Woodbine Street Item #D2 – : Rosemary Baker/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.18 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at Lot 8, Block C, Pine Ridge Subdivision. ANX 01-12-02 The applicant has withdrawn this request. 1734 Cardinal Drive Item #D3 – : Phyliss Daliendo/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.19 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential ANX 01-12-03 (LMDR) district at Lot 6, Pinellas Terrace First Addition. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.19 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at Lot 6, Pinellas Terrace motion carried First Addition. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 1492 Carolyn Lane Item #D4 – : Cleareather Gross/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.18 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential ANX 01-12-04 (LMDR) district at Lot 16, Terra-Alto Estates. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.18 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at Lot 16, Terra-Alto motion carried Estates. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 2827 St. John Drive Item #D5 – : Jeffrey Drury/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.15 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at Lot ANX 01-12-05 6, Block D, Virginia Groves Terrace, Fifth Addition. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. mcd0201 25 02/20/01 Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.15 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at Lot 6, Block D, Virginia motion carried Groves Terrace, Fifth Addition. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 1754 West Manor Avenue Item #D6 – : Timothy Heusinger/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.19 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential ANX 01-12-06 (LMDR) district at Lot 21, Clearwater Manor. The applicant has withdrawn this request. 1941 West Skyline Drive Item #D7 – : Gail LeBlanc/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.17 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential ANX 01-12-08 (LMDR) district at Lot 106, Skyline Groves. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.17 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at Lot 106, Skyline Groves. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. 1309 Woodbine Street Item #D8 – : James Morrow/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.18 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential ANX 01-12-09 (LMDR) district at Lot 7, block C, Pine Ridge. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.18 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at Lot 7, block C, Pine motion carried Ridge. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 108 K Street Item #D9 – : Michael Stifel/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.4 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for Lots 23 & 24, ANX 01-12-12 Crystal Heights Unit 1, including abutting K Street right-of-way. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.4 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for Lots 23 & 24, Crystal motion Heights Unit 1, including abutting K Street right-of-way. The was duly seconded carried and unanimously. mcd0201 26 02/20/01 1513 Owen Drive Item #D10 – : Jason Thacker/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.24 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for a ANX 01-12-13 portion of Section 8, Township 29, South Range 16 East, M&B 22.06. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.24 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for a portion of Section 8, motion Township 29, South Range 16 East, M&B 22.06. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2839 St. John Drive Item #D11 – : Whetsel Williamson/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.18 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential ANX 01-12- (LMDR) district for Lot 12, Block D, Virginia Groves Terrace Fifth Addition. 14 Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.18 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for Lot 12, Block D, Virginia motion carried Groves Terrace Fifth Addition. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 1234 Bell Drive Item #D12 – : Yvettes Lakis/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.34 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at ANX 01-12-15 Lot 13, Canterbury Heights. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.34 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at Lot 13, Canterbury motion carried Heights. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 2175 NE Coachman Road Item #D13 – : Suncoast Christian School/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.39 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential ANX 01-12-16 (LMDR) district at a portion of Lot 8 of Mosell Acres Subdivision. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.39 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district at a portion of Lot 8 of motion carried Mosell Acres Subdivision. The was duly seconded and unanimously. mcd0201 27 02/20/01 1919 Old Coachman Road Item #D14 – : Roger Spencer/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.21 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for Lot 14 and the north one-half of Lot 15, Block A, Sunset Point ANX 01-12-17 Estates. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.21 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Low and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for Lot 14 and the north motion one-half of Lot 15, Block A, Sunset Point Estates. The was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 22995 US 19N Item #D15 – : Sidney Savelle/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.61 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to CG, Commercial General Classification and rezoning to C, Commercial District at a portion of Section 8, Township 29 South, Range 16 East, M&B 22.05. ANX 01-12-18 Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.61 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to CG, Commercial General Classification and rezoning to C, Commercial District at a portion of Section 8, Township motion carried 29 South, Range 16 East, M&B 22.05. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 693 South Belcher Road Item #D16 – : Sci Funeral Service Florida/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.37 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Medium and rezoning to Medium Density Residential (MDR) ANX 01-12-19 district for a portion of Section 18, Township 29 South, Range 16 East. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.37 acre to the City Commission with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Medium and rezoning to Medium Density Residential (MDR) district for a portion of Section 18, motion carried Township 29 South, Range 16 East. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 2824 St. John Drive Item #D17 – : Mariam Johnson/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.16 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential ANX 01-12-20 (LMDR) district for Lot 2, Block B, Virginia Groves Terrace Fifth Addition. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.16 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low mcd0201 28 02/20/01 Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for Lot 2, Block B, Virginia Groves Terrace motion carried Fifth Addition. The was duly seconded and unanimously. 2841 SR 590 Item #D18 – : Helen Elliot/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.28 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for Lots 3 and ANX 01-12-21 3A, Spring Lake Estates. Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.28 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to Residential Urban and rezoning to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district for Lots 3 and 3A, Spring Lake Estates. motion carried The was duly seconded and unanimously. 2060 Calumet Street Item #D19 – : Florida Graphics Supply & James Reynolds/City of Clearwater – Owner/Applicant. Request annexation of 0.18 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to IL, Industrial Limited Classification and rezoning to IRT, Industrial, Research & Technology District for the South 235 feet of the East 152 feet of the West 465.88 feet of Lot 9, Clearwater Industrial Park. ANX 01-12-22 Mr. Cornelius presented the annexation request. Member Johnson moved to recommend approval of the annexation of 0.18 acre to the City with a Land Use Plan Amendment to IL, Industrial Limited Classification and rezoning to IRT, Industrial, Research & Technology District for the South 235 feet of the motion East 152 feet of the West 465.88 feet of Lot 9, Clearwater Industrial Park. The carried was duly seconded and unanimously. ITEM E – APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Member Petersen moved to approve the minutes of the January 23, 2001, as motion recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The was carried duly seconded and unanimously. ITEM F – DIRECTORS ITEMS – None. Member Johnson said it was a pleasure working with everyone. ITEM G - ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. mcd0201 29 02/20/01 . . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: February 20., 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Clearwater Seashell Resort, FL 01-01-01 & DA 01-01-01 - 229 & 301 S. Gulfview Blvd. and 230, 300 & 304 Coronado Drive X yes no Juhl, Karl & Ginny - FL 00-11-59 - 222 Palm Island SW )( yes no Anastasopoulos, Louis - FL 00-11-49 - 731 Bayway Blvd. X yes no Pina, Wilfred & Muriel - FL 00-10-45 - 2408 Shelley Street X yes no Little, David R. - FL 00-12-62 - 333 S. Gulfview Blvd. X yes no Schoeller, Robert - FL 00-11-57 - 632 Drew Street X yes no Benderson Development Company - FL 00-12-64 - 3070 Gulf to Bay Boulevard X yes no . . . Anderson, H.G.iCity of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-01 - 160 N. Belcher Rd. yes x no Baker, Rosemary/City of C1earwater- ENCL-ANX 01-12-02 -1305 Woodbine St ~ no yes Daliendo, Phyliss/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-03 - 1734 Cardinal Dr. yes /\ no C1eareather, Gross/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-04 - 1492 Carolyn Lane Lno yes Drury, Jeffrey/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-05 - 2827 St. John Drive yes -Lno Heusinger,Timothy/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-06 - 1754 West Manor Ave. yes I~ no LeBlanc, Gail/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-08 - 1941 West Skyline Dr. yes /t no Morrow, James/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-09 - 1309 Woodbine St /\ no yes Sti fel, Michael/City 0 f :~:arwater - \L-:NX 01-12-12 - 1 08 K Street 2 . . . Thacker, Jason/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-13 - 1513 Owen Drive yes f no Williamson, Whetsel/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-14 - 2839 S1. John Dr. yes x no Lakis, Yvettes/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-15 - 1234 Bell Dr. yes --A- no Suncoast Christian School/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-16 - 2175 NE Coachman Road. yes A no Spencer, Roger/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-17 - 1919 Old Coachman Road ,) yes no Savelle, Sidney/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-18 - 22995 U.S. 19 North yes ~' no Sci Funeral Service Florida/City of Clearwater - ENC1-ANX 01-12-19 - 693 South Belcher Rd. yes /~ no Johnson, Mariam/City of Clearwater - ENCI-ANX 01-12-20 - 2824 St. John Dr. yes ~. no 3 . . . Elliot, Helen/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-21 - 2841 State Road 590 yes > no Florida Graphics Supply & James Reynolds/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-22 - 2060 Calumet S1. ~ yes no J,/~o)o ) I D te S:\Planning DepartrnentlC D SICDS, property investigation check list.doc 4 ~ . . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: Februarv 20~ 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Clearwater Seashell Resort, FL 01-01-01 & DA 01-01-01 - 229 & 301 S. Gulfview Blvd. and 230, 300 & 304 Coronado Drive yes no Juhl, Karl & Ginny - FL 00-11-59 - t7alm Island SW yes no Anastasopoulos, Louis - FL 00-11-4:7BaywaYBlvd. yes no Pina, Wilfred & Muriel - FL 00-1O-~08 Shelley Street yes no Little, David R. - FL 00-12-62 - 333 S. ~~view Blvd. yes ~Ulno Schoeller, Robert -- FL 00-11-57 - 6/W Street yes no Benderson Development Company -712-64 - 3070 Gulflo Bay Boulevard yes ,no . Anderson, H.G.iCity of Clearwater '.1L.ANX 01.12.01 - 160 N. Belcher Rd. yes no Baker, Rosemary/City of Clearwater -1CL.ANX 01.12.02 - 1305 Woodbine St yes no Daliendo, Phyliss/City of ClearwaterfCL.ANX 01.12-03 - 1734 Cardinal Dr. yes no Cleareather, Gross/City of Clearwater fCL- ANX 01-12-04 - 1492 Carolyn Lane yes no . Drury, Jeffrey/City of ClcalWater . ENiL- ANX 01-12.05 - 2827 S t. Jolin Drive yes ~ no Hensinger, Timothy/City of clearwatejNCL-ANX 01-12-06 - 1754 West Manor Ave. yes no LeBlanc, Gail/City ofC1earwater - ENCl.kX 01-12-08 - 1941 West Skyline Dr. yes ~ -~~ Morrow , James/City of Clearwater - Er: 01-12.09 - 1309 Woodbine St yes no Stifel, Michael/City of Clearwater - E1ANX 01.12-12 - 108 K Street yes no . 2 . . Thacker, Jason/City of Clearwater - Ef- ANX 01-12-13 - 1513 Owen Drive yes no Williamson, WhetseVCity of Clearwater ~NCL- ANX 01-12-14 - 2839 St. John Dr. yes vi no Lakis, Y vettes/City 0 f Clearwater - EN fL- ANX 01-12-15 - 1234 Bell Dr. yes J> no I Suncoast Christian School/City OfC1ea ater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-16 - 2175 NE Coachman Road. yes no . Spencer, Roger/City of Clearwater - iL-ANX 01-12-17 - 1919 Old Coachman Road yes no Savelle, Sidney/City of Clearwater - EfL- ANX 01-12-18 - 22995 U. S. 19 North yes no Sci Funeral Service Florida/City of Clearwt - ENCI-ANX 01-12-19 - 693 South Belcher Rd. / yes no Johnson, Mariam/City of Clearwater f-ANX 01-12-20 .. 2824 S1. John Dr. yes no . 3 . . . . Elliot, Helen/City of Clearwater - ENC~NX 01-12-21 - 2841 State Road 590 yes ~ no I Florida Graphics Supply & James Re~s/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-22 - 2060 Calumet S1. J yes no 66 ) S:\Planning Department\C D mCDS, property investigation check list.doc 4 . . . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: Februarv 20~ 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Clearwater Seashell Resort, FL 01-01-01 & DA 01-01-01 - 229 & 301 S. Gulfview Blvd. and 230, 300 & 304 Coronado Drive y yes ~no fool, Karl & Ginny - FL 00-11-59 - 2\ahn Island SW yes no Anastasopoulos, Louis ~:~ 00-1 + n:ayway Blvd. Pina, Wilfred & Muriel- FL 00-1O-4~ 2408 Shelley Street yes no Little, David R. - FL 00-12-62 - 333 ~ Gulfview Blvd. yes no Schoe lIer , Rober! - FL 00-11-57 - 6\rew Street yes no Benderson Developmen:e:ompany - \ OO~: 2-64 - 3070 Gulf to Bay Boulevard . . . Anderson, H.G./City of Clearwater - ~CL-ANX 01-12-01 - 160 N. Belcher Rd. yes no Baker, Rosemary/City O:e:learw:rn~-ANX 01-12-02 - 1305 Woodbine 5t Daliendo, Phyliss/City O:e~learw*::- ANX 01-12-03 - 1734 Cardinal Dr. Cleareather, Gross/City ofclearwatez.-jCL-ANX 01-12-04 - 1492 Carolyn Lane yes ~no Drury, Jeffrey/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-05 - 2827 St. John Drive yes ~no Heusinger,Timothy/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-06 - 1754 West Manor Ave. -Xno yes LeBlanc, Gail/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-08 - 1941 West Skyline Dr. *no yes Morrow, James/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-09 - 1309 Woodbine St ~no yes Stifel, Michael/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-12 - 108 K Street yes _~_no 2 Thacker, JasoniCity ofCiearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-13 - 1513 Owen Drive . yes -+no Williamson, Whetsel/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-14 - 2839 St. John Dr. yes -*no Lakis, Yvettes/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-15 - 1234 Bell Dr. yes -*no Suncoast Christian School/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-16 - 2175 NE Coachman Road. yes +no Spencer, Roger/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-17 - 1919 Old Coachman Road . yes *no Savelle, Sidney/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-18 - 22995 U.S. 19 North yes +no Sci Funeral Service Florida/City of Clearwater - ENCI-ANX 01-12-19 - 693 South Belcher Rd. yes --X-no Johnson, Mariam/City of clearwate~~CI-ANX 01-12-20 - 2824 51. John Dr. yes no . 3 . Elliot, Helen/City 0 f Clearwater - EN~- ANX 01-12-21 - 2841 State Road 590 yes L' no Florida Graphics Supply & James Reynolds/City of Clearwater - ENCL-ANX 01-12-22 - 2060 Calumet St. ~ yes no ~it/P/ . , Date . S:\Planning Departrnent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc . 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: Auril17, 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Young, Paul & Carolyn & Coachman, J~dith/City of Clearwater - ANX 00-09-16 - 2301 Campbell Rd. yes vi no Dayton Andrews, Inc. - FL 01-01-031394 Gulfto Bay Blvd. yes no Thompson Executive Center partners; - FL 01-02-07 & LUZ 01-02-04 - 812 Pinellas Street yes no Winding Wood Condominium X - FL 0' '-06 - 2634 Barkdale Court yes yv:~ Kelley Investment & Mgmt. - FL 01-02-oi - 667 Bay Esplanade / yes II no v PACT, Inc./City of Clearwater- FL 0170 -10 - 1111 McMullen Booth Rd. yes no K.B. Investment Group, Inc. - FL 00-1/53 - 7 McMullen Booth Rd. yes no Hamrick, Charles & Dorthy, Kamensky, Richard & P1ecker, Elizabeth - FL 00-11-60, PLT 00-11-05 & ANX 01-12-03 - 1601 Druid Road E. I no yes Johnson, Craig M. & Lisa M. - ANX 01;02-05 - 1972 E. Skyline Drive 1/ yes V no /I ,~ // / S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB. property investigation check list.doc 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: April 17 'I 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Young, Paul & Carolyn & Coachman, Judith/City of Clearwater - ANX 00-09-16 - 2301 Campbell Rd. L.------ yes no Dayton Andrews, Inc. - FL 01-01-03 - 2394 Gulf to Bay Blvd. L--- - yes no Thompson Executive Center Partnership - FL 01-02-07 & LUZ 01-02-04 - 812 Pinellas Street ~ yes no Winding Wood Condominium X - FL 01-02-06 - 2634 Barkdale Court ~ yes no Kelley Investment & Mgmt. - FL 01-02-08 - 667 Bay Esplanade t ________- yes no PACT, Inc./City of Clearwater - FL 01-02-10 - 1111 McMullen Booth Rd. ~yes no K.B. Investment Group, Inc. - FL 00-11-53 - 7 McMullen Booth Rd. ~yes no Hamrick, Charles & Dorthy, Kamensky, Richard & Plecker, Elizabeth - FL 00-11-60, PLT 00-11-05 & ANX 01-12-03 - 1601 Druid Road E. \........../ yes no Johnson, Craig M. & Lisa M. - ANX 01-02-05 - 1972 E. Skyline Drive ....---. yes no ~~ Signature '\:~\\ Cl\ ate\ S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: April 17., 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Young, Paul & Carolyn & COaC~~ith/City of Clearwater - ANX 00-09-16 - 230 I Campbell Rd. yes no Dayton Andrews, Inc. - FL 0 1-01-03~4 Gulfto Bay Blvd. yes no Thompson Executive Center Partnership - FL 01-02-07 & LUZ 01-02-04 - 812 Pinellas Street yes /' no Winding Wood Condominium X - FL 01162-06 - 2634 Barkdale Court yes ~ no Kelley Investment & Mgmt. - FL Ol-~.- 667 Bay Esplanade yes no PACT, Inc./City of Clearwater - FL 01-02.,.10 - 1111 McMullen Booth Rd. yes / no K.B. Investment Group, Inc. - FL 073 - 7 McMullen Booth Rd. yes no Hamrick, Charles & Dorthy, Kamensky, Richard & Plecker, Elizabeth - FL 00-11-60, PL TOO-II-OS & ANX 01-12-03 - 1601 Druid Road E. /' yes ~ no Johnson, Craig M. & Lisa M. - ANX 01-'05 - 1972 E. Skyline Drive yes ~ no S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: April 17.. 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Young, Paul & Carolyn & Coachman, Judith/City of Clearwater - ANX 00-09-16 - 230 I Campbell Rd. yes y--. no Dayton Andrews, Inc. - FL 01-01-03 - 2394 Gulf to Bay Blvd. X yes no Thompson Executive Center Partnership - FL 01-02-07 & LUZ 01-02-04 - 812 Pinellas Street x.. yes no Winding Wood Condominium X - FL 01-02-06 - 2634 Barkdale Court yes )(. no Kelley Investment & Mgmt. - FL 01-02-08 - 667 Bay Esplanade yes ~ no PACT, Inc./City of Clearwater - FL 01-02-10 - 1111 McMullen Booth Rd. K no yes K.B. Investment Group, Inc. - FL 00-11-53 -7 McMullen Booth Rd. yes -A-no Hamrick, Charles & Dorthy, Kamensky, Richard & Plecker, Elizabeth - FL 00-11-60, PL T 00-11-05 & ANX 01-12-03 - 1601 Druid Road E. '0 yes no Johnson, Craig M. & Lisa M. - ANX 01-02-05 - 1972 E. Skyline Drive yes x no +-17-0 I Date S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: April 17 'I 2001 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Young, Paul & Carolyn & coaehmanKith/City of Clearwater - ANX 00-09-16 - 2301 Campbell Rd. yes no Dayton Andrews, lne. - FL 01-0 I-Or:394 Gulf to Bay Blvd. yes no Thompson Executive Center Partnership - FL 01-02-07 & LUZ 01-02-04 - 812 Pinellas Street yes -L-no Winding Wood Condominium X - ~1-02-06 - 2634 Barkdale Court yes no Kelley Investment & Mgmt. - FL 01-02-08 - 667 Bay Esplanade yes ~no PACT, Inc./City of Clearwater - FL 01-02-10 - 1111 McMullen Booth Rd. -Lno yes K.B. Investment Group, Inc. - FL 0*53 - 7 McMullen Booth Rd. yes no Hamrick, Charles & Dorthy, Kamensky, Richard & Plecker, Elizabeth - FL 00-11-60, PL T 00-11-05 & ANX 01-12-03 - 1601 Druid Road E. ~no yes Johnson, Craig M. & Lisa M. - ANX 01-02-05 - 1972 E. Skyline Drive yes Kno l/17fol / Date S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc 2