01/22/2002
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
January 22, 2002
Present: Gerald Figurski Chair
Carlen A. Petersen Vice Chair
David Gildersleeve Board Member
Edward Mazur, Jr. Board Member
Shirley Moran Board Member
Alex Plisko Board Member
Ed Hooper Board Member
Frank Hibbard Alternate Board Member (non-voting)
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia Tarapani Planning Director
Lisa L. Fierce Assistant Planning Director
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
December 14, 2001
Member Hooper moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 14,
motion
2001, as submitted in written summation to each Board Member. The was duly seconded
carried
and unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
(Items 1-4). The following cases are not contested by the
applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the
beginning of the meeting.
Case: LUZ01-09-08 – 19034 US19 North
1. Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Long Bow Corporation
Representative: Todd Pressman
Location: 4.3 acres on the west side of US19 North, approximately 1,060 feet
north of Nursery Road and 320 feet east of Summerlin Drive and 440 feet south of
the Harn Boulevard intersection.
Atlas Page: 317B
Request: a) Land Use Plan amendment from CG, Commercial General Classification
to RM, Residential Medium Classification, and b) rezoning from C, Commercial
District to MDR, Medium Density Residential District.
Proposed Use: Multi-family residential
Presenter: Etim S. Udoh, Senior Planner
The property owner is requesting an amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from
Commercial General to Residential Medium and a rezoning from the Commercial (C) to the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district for the subject site is necessary to enable the
applicant to develop the vacant 187,308 square foot, 4.3 acre site with attached (townhouses)
mcd0102 1 01/22/02
residential dwellings. The neighborhood is surrounded by commercial and multi-family uses.
The proposed residential use will blend into the existing neighborhood and serve as a transition
between more intensive multi-family uses to the northwest and commercial uses to the south
and northeast.
The proposed Residential Medium Future Land Use classification and Medium Density
Residential zoning district are consistent with both the City and the Countywide Comprehensive
Plans, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not require nor affect the provision of
public services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with the
development regulations of the City.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the following actions on this
application: 1) Amend the Future Land Use Plan designation of 19034 U.S. Highway 19 (Lot 1,
Bradford Court Subdivision) from Commercial General to Residential Medium, and 2) amend
the Zoning District designation of 19034 U.S. Highway 19 North (Lot 1, Bradford Court
Subdivision) from Commercial (C) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
Case: FL01-11-35 – 1135 Marshall Street
2. Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Mr. Norris Gould and Mr. J. Frank Hancock
Location: 0.16 acres on the southwest corner of Marshall street and North Madison
Avenue
Atlas Page: 269A
Zoning: MDR, Medium Density residential District
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (north) setback along
Marshall Street from 25 to 16 feet to building, reduce the front (east) setback along North
Madison Avenue from 25 to 22.5 feet to building, and reduce the minimum lot size from
10,000 to 7,022.5 square feet, as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions
of Section 2-304.G.
Proposed Use: A 1,788 square foot addition (as part of a separate dwelling) attached to
an existing 760 square foot dwelling (2 units total).
Presenter: Wayne Wells, Senior Planner
The property owner is requesting Flexible Development approval to reduce the minimum
lot area from 10,000 to 7,022.5 square feet, reduce the front setback from 25 to 16 feet to
building along Marshall Street and reduce the front setback from 25 to 22.5 feet to building
along Madison Avenue, as a Residential Infill Project.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on December 13, 2001. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to expand an existing single-family detached dwelling to a duplex (two
attached dwelling units) with a reduction in the minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to
7,022.5 square feet, a reduction in the front setback from 25 to 16 feet to building along
Marshall Street and a reduction in the front setback from 25 feet to 22.5 feet to building along
Madison Avenue, as a Residential Infill Project, with the following bases and condition:
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as
a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-304G; 2) the proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code, including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; and 3) the development is compatible with the surrounding area and may
encourage redevelopment of the area.
mcd0102 2 01/22/02
Condition: That the garages be designed with a minimum 20-foot front setback along
Marshall Street, in order to provide a 20-foot long driveway.
3. Case: FL01-11-34 – 1641 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Level Two Application
Owner: Linco Auto Parts
Applicant: Mr. Mike Coleman (PLA Construction) for Buddy Bi-Rite
Representative: Ms. Chris Papandreas, AICP (King Engineering Associates, Inc.)
Location: 0.46 acres on the southeast corner of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and Keystone
Avenue
Atlas Page: 297B.
Zoning: C, Commercial District
Request: Flexible Development approval to reduce the front (west) setback along
Keystone Avenue from 25 to 20 feet to building, reduce the front (north) setback along
Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard from 25 to 20 feet to building and reduce the required number of
parking spaces from 21 to 13 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.
Proposed Use: A 4,200 square foot retail sales and service establishment
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, Planner
The property owner is requesting Flexible Development approval to reduce the front
(west) setback along Keystone Avenue from 25 to 20 feet to building, reduce the front (north)
setback along Gulf to Bay Boulevard from 25 to 20 feet to building and reduce the required
number of parking spaces from 21 to 13 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704 with a Comprehensive
Landscape Program per Section 3-1202.G and Comprehensive Sign Program.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on July 12, 2001. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application to reduce the front (west) setback along Keystone Avenue from 25 to 20 feet and to
reduce the front (north) setback along Gulf to Bay Boulevard from 25 to 20 feet and reduce the
required parking spaces from 21 to 13 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project (with a Comprehensive Landscape Program), under the provisions of Section 2-704 for
the site at 1641 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, with the following bases and conditions:
Basis for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704 B; 2) the proposal complies with
the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of Section 3-1202 G; 3) the proposal is in compliance with other standards in the
Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 4) the development is
compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
Conditions: 1) That the final design of the building be consistent with the conceptual
elevations submitted or as modified by the CDB, and 2) all signage comply with Code, be
architecturally coordinated with the building and limited to two attached signs and one
monument-style, freestanding sign, to the satisfaction of staff.
In response to a question, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said that Item 4
on the Consent Agenda, Case APP01-12-04, would remain on the Consent Agenda unless the
CDB (Community Development Board) pulls it.
mcd0102 3 01/22/02
Member Petersen moved to approve 3 of the 4 Consent Agenda Items: LUZ01-09-08,
motioncarried
FL01-11-35, and FL01-11-34 as submitted. The was duly seconded and
unanimously.
4. Case: APP01-12-04 – 141 Devon Drive
Owner: Chris Giotaskis
Applicant/Appellant: James A. Martin, Jr. (145 Devon Drive)
Location: 0.16 acres on the south side of Devon Drive, approximately 600 feet east of
Hamden Drive
Atlas Page: 276A.
Proposed Use: A 54-foot dock with boatlift
Request: Appeal of a Level 1 (Flexible Standard Development) decision by the
Community Development Coordinator who approved certain deviations to the dock
requirements for the property at 145 Devon Drive, under the appeal provisions of
Section 4-501 of the Community Development Code.
Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner
Assistant Planning Director Lisa Fierce, acting as the designee of the Community
Development Coordinator, presented an overview of the case.
This 0.18-acre site on the south side of Devon Drive, approximately 65 feet east of
Hamden Drive, fronts on a channel off of Clearwater Harbor and contains a 2,000 square foot,
one-story dwelling with a 346 square foot dock.
On October 22, 2001, Ms. Lisa Ryan, Advanced Marine Construction, filed an
application for Flexible Standard Development approval on behalf of Mr. Chris Giotakis
(property owner) for a dock. The application requested an increase in the permitted length of a
dock from 35 to 54 feet, due to low water depth and the proximity of sea grasses and other
aquatic plants and marine life. Section 3-601 (C)(1)(b) of the Code provides that the length of
docks and boatlifts that serve a single-family dwelling shall not exceed 25 percent of the
waterway or half of the width of the property measured at the waterfront property line, whichever
is less. In this case, the lot is 70 feet wide at the south, waterfront property line and the
waterway is approximately 500 feet wide. In this case, half of the lot width is used to determine
permitted length of the dock and is 35 feet.
The proposal includes replacing the existing dock with a 401 square foot dock and a 152
square foot boatlift. The proposed dock will be 24 feet from the east property line and 30 feet
from the west property line. The proposed boatlift will be 14 feet from the west property line.
Section 3-601(C)(1)(g) of the Code provides for deviations from dock requirements for
single-family (and two-family) dwellings. The Community Development Coordinator may grant
deviations as part of a Level One, Minimum Standard review, provided signed and notarized
statements of no objection are secured from both adjacent waterfront property owners. In the
event such statements cannot be obtained, deviations are reviewed under Flexible Standard
Development applications, based on one of the following criteria: 1) The proposed dock will
result in no navigational conflicts and the length of the proposed dock will not exceed 25 percent
of the width of the waterway; or 2) the proposed dock location needs to be adjusted to protect
environmentally sensitive areas; or 3) the property configuration precludes the placement of a
dock in compliance with the required dimensional standards; however, the proposed dock will
be similar in dimensional characteristics as surrounding dock patterns.
mcd0102 4 01/22/02
The applicant was not able to provide statement of no objection from both adjacent
waterfront property owners and applied as part of a Level One, Flexible Standard Development
review. As part of his submission, the applicant provided documentation from the Pinellas
County Department of Environmental Management stating that there are no navigational
concerns associated with the proposed dock. It also was stated that the proposed structure is
more environmentally sensitive than the existing structure, reducing negative environmental
impacts to existing sea grasses. The DRC (Development Review Committee) reviewed the
application on November 8, 2001. There were no objections raised by the DRC whose
members include the Environmental Manager of the Public Works Administration and
Harbormaster.
The application was approved by the Community Development Coordinator (Planning
Director) on November 29, 2001, (refer to Development Order and staff report for Case FLS 01-
10-73,) with the following bases:
Bases for approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Standard Development
criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601(C)(1)(g)(i)(ii)(iii); 2) the proposal is in compliance
with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913;
and 3) the development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other
redevelopment efforts.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said this is the first case under the current
Land Development Code that involves an appeal of a Level One (staff level approval) flexible
standard approval from an abutting property owner.
Section 4-504 of the Code, Community Development Board Appeals, states that appeals
may be filed from a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) approval from an abutting
property owner. The abutting property owner filed this appeal on December 6, 2001 to the
south (James A. Martin, Jr. – 145 Devon Drive).
The Community Development Board has the authority to hear appeals from Level One
approval decisions, including Flexible Standard Development applications, in accordance with
Section 4-501 (A)(2) of Community Development Code. In this case, the decision by the
Community Development Coordinator was the November 29, 2001 Development Order to the
applicant’s representative, Lisa Ryan of Advanced Marine Construction, approving the
application for Flexible Standard Development.
Upon receipt of a notice of appeal/application from an abutting property owner, it shall be
placed on consent agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the Community Development
Board. The appeal may be removed from the consent agenda by a vote of at least four
members of the Board. If the appeal is removed from the consent agenda, the Community
Development Board shall review the application, the recommendation of the Community
Development Coordinator (Planning Director), conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the
application (per Section 4-206) and render a decision in accord with Section 4-206(D)(5). If the
appeal is not removed from the consent agenda, the Community Development Coordinator’s
decision of the approval shall be final.
Pursuant to Section 4-504 (C) of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an
appeal, overturning or modifying the decision appealed from, the Community Development
Board shall find that based on substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or
other party: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the
mcd0102 5 01/22/02
provisions of the Community Development Code; 2) the decision will be in harmony with the
general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety and general welfare.
Joshua Magidson, representative for James A. Martin, Jr., abutting property owner, said
the subject dock was to be built a year before the current application under the former Code.
The County approved that application but the City never issued a permit. This application has
been reviewed under the current Code. He felt that some statements that were made under
oath in the application are untrue. He said the application does not meet the 3 criteria in the
Code for docks. He said the Code specifics criteria for docks and states that City staff “may”
approve a deviation. He felt as there are objections by neighbors and a signed petition against
the length of this dock in this area, the CDB should consider removing this case from the
Consent Agenda in order to hear all the evidence.
Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the petition Mr. Magidson referred to simply
objects to the dock. The appellant who lives next door received notice of the DRC meeting and
did not participate in the process. Staff weighs petitions and all other input from the public as
well as technical expertise when making decisions. She said if Mr. Magidson wishes to present
any new evidence today, it would be difficult to review it during the meeting. She suggested
they present their materials in written form to staff for review.
Mr. Magidson said his client received notice of the DRC meeting in the mail after it took
place. The letter was dated November 5, 2001. The envelope was stamped November 7,
2001, and his client received it on November 8, 2001. The next day, staff was made aware of
the appellant’s objections to the dock.
It was remarked that Mr. Magidson’s client appears to object to the way the City
Ordinance reads, which is a City Commission matter. Mr. Magidson said his objection is
regarding the method by which the right to present evidence is permitted under a Level One
appeal. He felt that although the Code states that staff “may” grant deviations, the CDB should
review all the evidence at a quasi-judicial hearing. He expressed concern that only one person
has the power to make a Level One approval.
Ms. Tarapani said she also is the Community Development Coordinator. She consults
with all members of the DRC including the City’s Marine & Aviation Director and Environmental
Manager. She said although the DRC is not a public hearing, it is a fact-finding meeting, and
members of the public are welcome to attend. Staff meets with the applicant to ensure the
application is complete and that the applicant understands the applicable City standards. She
said one does have to attend a DRC meeting to become involved in the application process.
The meeting recessed from 2:28 to 2:36 p.m.
Ms. Tarapani said the DRC does not hear verbal public testimony at its meetings,
however, written input is accepted. Upon review of the application and any public input, the
DRC makes a recommendation to the Community Development Coordinator (Ms. Tarapani),
who makes a final determination regarding the application after review of all the facts and any
additional public input received. She said the DRC meeting was held November 8, 2001 and
Ms. Tarapani’s development order approving the application was issued on November 29, 2001.
Ms. Tarapani said although the applicant could not attend the DRC meeting, he had the
opportunity to participate in the process. In response to a question, she said the notice of DRC
meeting mailed to Mr. Martin did not include a deadline to respond. Concern was expressed
mcd0102 6 01/22/02
that the time period between the notice of DRC meeting and the date area residents received
notice was rather short. It was suggested that future meeting notices include the procedures for
an appeal and specify deadlines for responses to specific staff members.
Ms. Tarapani reiterated that no verbal public testimony would have been taken at the
November 8, 2001, DRC meeting as it was only a fact-finding meeting. She suggested Mr.
Magidson had opportunity to provide objections to the application during the 3-week timeframe
before the final decision was made. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said subsequent to
the DRC meeting, Mr. Magidson objected to the application but did not present any
environmental reports disputing the information staff received.
Mr. Magidson said he had provided staff with 3 letters specifically addressing the criteria
in the Code along with objections and that his client believes the application contains inaccurate
statements. In response to a question, he said he did not have the exact date that he filed an
appeal.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said staff received letters dated November 27
and November 28, 2001, from the appellant’s representative. She said Mr. Magidson objects to
the general applicability criteria. The application meets all 3 of the criteria, although it is only
necessary to meet one of them. Staff disagrees with Mr. Magidson’s opinion.
In response to a question, Mr. Magidson said he does not know how his client was
damaged by not being able to attend the DRC meeting, as he does not know what was
discussed. He said he did not know the DRC meetings were recorded and available to his client
for review.
It was remarked that Mr. Magidson’s objection regarding the number of docks that are
less than 35 feet is inaccurate.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the Land Development Code was designed to be flexible at the
Level One (staff approval) level, and to the extent the appellant has an objection to the
ordinance, it would be more appropriately discussed in another forum.
Mr. Magidson said he is not claiming that staff misconstrued or misunderstood the
deviation standards. He feels the deviation as addressed in Criteria #1 of the staff report could
apply to everyone in Clearwater. He felt he has evidence to prove that the environment would
be detrimentally affected and the dock would not be in compliance with the dimensional
characters of surrounding docks.
Tim Johnson, representative for the applicant, said the appellant has no grounds for an
appeal. There are 3 separate reasons this deviation may be granted. The applicant has met all
3 criteria, whereas only 1 is required to be met. The appellant wishes it were otherwise, but that
is a matter for discussion with the City Commission. Mr. Johnson said an appellant must meet
all 3 reasons stated in the Code for an appeal to be granted and Mr. Magidson has not done so.
Mr. Magidson said he believes in order to overturn staff’s decision, all 3 criteria Mr.
Johnson referred to must be met. He said when that criteria is read in conjunction with the
authority of the CDB and staff’s authority to use the discretionary rule, his client is entitled to an
open and fair hearing. The discretionary rule states that a developmental officer “may” deviate
from the rules; not that he/she has the right to deviate from them.
mcd0102 7 01/22/02
In response to a remark regarding permitting the technical information being heard by
staff, Mr. Johnson objected. His client already has been issued a permit.
James A. Martin, Jr., appellant, said a meeting was set with staff but was cancelled and
his appeal was placed on today's CDB agenda. He and Mr. Magidson tried to follow up with
staff to determine when additional evidence could be presented. He said he received notice of
the application just before Thanksgiving and was unable to meet with the County. He presented
signatures on petitions from residents in the area to staff. He said that one of the property
owners owns 5 lots and did not receive a notice of hearing. He has an expert environmental
witness that can testify that the dock would be a detriment to the environment. In response to a
question, Mr. Martin said he believed the meeting with staff had been set on December 18,
2001, then was cancelled. He felt he has not been given the opportunity for a hearing.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said if Mr. Magidson feels his client has not received procedural due
process, he could file an allegation regarding same in the Circuit Court.
It was remarked that Mr. Magidson has indicated he agrees that no misinterpretation of
the Code was made by staff.
Mr. Johnson said Mr. Magidson’s grounds for appeal did not include a claim regarding a
lack of due process, a lack of notice, or any environmental issues. He had sufficient to become
involved in the process. Mr. Johnson said Mr. Magidson has admitted that the applicant meets
1 of the 3 requirements of the Code and that the appellant has failed to meet the 3 the
requirements required for an appeal. Mr. Johnson said the environmental issues were raised
after the Community Development Coordinator’s decision was made.
Ms. Tarapani said a meeting was set with Mr. Magidson in December 2001. She said
she personally cancelled the meeting upon the advice of the Assistant City Attorney as a final
decision had already been made regarding the application, and she felt it important not to hold
another meeting outside the DRC meeting. She said no technical information was presented to
staff to dispute the expert opinions that staff had received. It appears that new information is
being brought up now that was not presented to staff during the decision-making process.
Mr. Magidson said he disagrees with the processes staff has presented. He felt that
when he began discussions with staff, they had already made a decision regarding the
application. He felt staff did not afford the appellant due process.
Mr. Martin said the purpose of the Code is to have orderly development in Clearwater.
The Code sets forth the basis to do so. Docks are to be no greater than 50% of front footage of
seawall on the water, and docks should be placed in the center third of property seawall. The
docks on Devon Drive are 50% of the front footage of the seawalls. The other 2 docks that are
longer are on one and a half lots. The concept is to have uniformity and a basis in the
community to count on standards that are upheld. He requested the opportunity for due
process in order to present the information he has compiled. He felt he has responded in a
timely fashion to staff over a short period of time with short notice and over a major holiday
weekend.
Discussion ensued by the CDB and consensus was that the appellant has not presented
any evidence that the Code was misconstrued or that the Community Development
Coordinator’s decision should be overturned. It was remarked that the CDB’s role is to make
mcd0102 8 01/22/02
determinations based on the Code. It is the City Commission’s responsibility to change the
Code whenever they deem it necessary.
Member Hooper moved to adopt Item 4, Case APP01-12-04, of the Consent Agenda
motion
and that the decision of the Community Development Coordinator be approved. The
carrie
was duly seconded and d unanimously.
Mr. Magidson requested submission of additional documentation into evidence. Mr.
Johnson objected, as there was no official hearing of the case today, but only an appeal
hearing. Ms. Dougall-Sides suggested Mr. Magidson submitted the evidence in written form to
staff for filing.
The meeting recessed from 3:26 to 3:28 p.m.
C. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
TDR Annual Report
Richard Kephart, Senior Planner, presented the TDR (Transfer Development Rights)
Annual Report. Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-1403(H), a record of
transfer of development rights must be maintained and reported annually to the City
Commission and the Pinellas Planning Council.
The City has approved two transfers since the adopting the new Code in 1999.
On December 14, 1999, the Community Development Board approved TDR 99-10-01
for the transfer of nine (9) development rights from the sending site at 423 Mandalay Avenue to
the receiving site located at 468 Mandalay Avenue. On March 17, 2000, the required Special
Warranty Deed was filed with Pinellas County and is part of the Pinellas County Property
Records. The sending site was the City parking lot on Mandalay Avenue and the receiving site
was the JMC Multifamily residential project. This project is under construction.
On December 14, 1999, the Community Development Board approved TDR 99-10-02
for the transfer of thirteen (13) development rights from the sending site at 349 South Gulfview
Boulevard to the receiving site located at 325 South Gulfview Boulevard. On February 12, 2000,
the required Special Warranty Deed was filed with Pinellas County and is part of the Pinellas
County Property Records. The sending site was the McDonalds and the receiving site was the
Americana Resort. The transferred units have not been used
to date.
Both sending sites have no excess development potential remaining. In addition, TDR
99-10-01 requires that the sending site (423 Mandalay Avenue) remain a parking lot or
recreation / open space use as agreed upon in the agreement between the City of Clearwater
and Pinellas County Countywide Planning Authority.
Density Pool Report
Mr. Kephart presented the density pool report. In July 2001, in order to stimulate
catalytic resort development, the City Commission approved Beach by Design: A Preliminary
Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. This special area plan established a
limited pool of 600 additional hotel rooms to be used within 3 specific areas of Clearwater Beach
mcd0102 9 01/22/02
for a period of 5 years from the date the Community Redevelopment District (CRD) was
approved by Pinellas County. At the request of the County for approval of the CRD, the City
amended its Comprehensive Plan on July 12, 2001 to formally designate the CRD.
On March 1, 2001, the City approved the use of 184 hotel rooms from the 600-hotel
room density pool for a resort hotel at 229/301 South Gulfview Boulevard. This project is known
as the Marriott Seashell Resort. No construction is underway on this site.
A total of 416 hotel rooms are still available from the density pool that can be used within
the priority redevelopment sites. The pool use provision will expire in July 2006.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the development order with the Marriott
Seashell Resort remains in effect for another month. The City has the ability to extend it, but
has received no request to do so. The density pool units would be null and void with the
expiration of the development order. They run with the property when sold. Ms. Tarapani said
she did not know if the entity seeking to purchase the property north of the proposed Marriott
Seashell Resort. Ms. Tarapani said density pool units must be used within a year of an
application for a building permit and a certificate of occupancy.
Brief presentation of Guideway Concept Proposal – Ken Sides, Public Works
Administration
Member Gildersleeve stated that although no action is being taken, the Guideway
Concept Proposal is one that Wade-Trim and its subconsultant, Jakes Associates, Inc.
contracted to do, therefore he has a conflict of interest.
Ken Sides, Public Works Administration, gave a brief presentation of the Guideway
Concept Proposal. Clearwater’s mobility goal is redevelop downtown Clearwater with an
efficient, high quality, multi-modal movement system with supportive and visually positive
terminal and transition facilities for all modes. He distributed an executive summary done by
Wade-Trim in Tampa, Florida and Jakes Associates, Inc., in San Jose, California regarding a
Clearwater Guideway System. The summary was funded entirely by a State grant. The
summary indicates that an alternative transportation system for residents and tourists will attract
and retain income-producing industries and enhance the economic growth and competitiveness
of the City, Tampa Bay region, and the State. Mr. Sides said the City has identified no funds for
the guideway system at this time. In response to questions regarding the specific location of the
guideway system, Mr. Sides said the City Commission has made no decisions.
Other
Member Moran said the CDB Christmas luncheon donations to the Homeless
Emergency Project were very much appreciated. Barbara Green of the Homeless Emergency
Project, thanked the CDB for their support. Ms. Moran distributed a copy of the letter.
Ms. Tarapani distributed a list of meeting dates for Code Amendments. Ms. Fierce
reviewed a list of anticipated cases for the February 19, 2002, CDB meeting.
Ms. Tarapani reported that Chair Figurski does not wish to be considered for re-election
as Chair of the CDB. Consensus was to schedule a luncheon in his honor on February 19,
2002, before the CDB meeting. Staff will coordinate the effort.
mcd0102 10 01/22/02
Election of officers will take place at the March 19, 2002, CDB meeting.
Member Mazur said the Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a
program similar to the one County Commissioner John Morroni and local area business owners
have coordinated to honor local police and firefighters. The Chamber is honoring rescue
workers who were at the World Trade Center site. Member Mazur thanked all the sponsors who
are participating.
D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m.
mcd0102 11 01/22/02
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: January 22, 2002
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CHRIS GIOTAKIS, APP 01-12-04,141 DEVON DRIVE
../' yes no
LONG BOW CORP. LUZ 01-09-08, 19034 U.S. HWY 19 NORTH
............-- yes no
NORRIS GOULD AND MR. J. FRANK HANCOCK, FL 01-11-35,1135 MARSHALL STREET.
~ yes no
LINCOAUTOPARTS, FLOl-11-34, 1641 GULF TO BAY BLVD.
~ yes no
\\ Q.:z\~\
\ Dat~ '
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: January 22, 2002
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CHRIS GIOTAKIS, APP 01-12-04, ~DEVON DRIVE
yes no
LONG BOW CORP. LUZ 01-09-08, ~034 U.S. HWY 19 NORTH
yes no
NORRIS GOULD AND MR. J. FR~ HANCOCK, FL 01-11-35,1135 MARSHALL STREET.
yes ~no
UNCO AUTO PARTS, FL 01-U-3X:41 GULF TO BAY BLVD.
yes no
02~ Z-
. ,
Date
S:\Planning Deparlment\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: Januarv 22, 2002
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CHRIS GIOTAKlS, APP 01-12-04,141 DEVON DRIVE
yes )( no
LONG BOW CORP. LUZ 01-09-08, 19034 U.S. HWY 19 NORTH
yes )<C no
NORRIS GOULD AND MR. J. FRANK HANCOCK, FLOI-II-35, 1135 MARSHALL STREET.
yes .^ no
/
LINCO AUTO PARTS, FL 01-11-34, 1641 GULF TO BAY BLVD.
yes x. no
~cr~~
Signature
I ' 2 L- u"L
Date
S:\Planning Department\C 0 B\CDB, property investigation check listdoc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: January 22, 2002
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CHRIS GIOTAKlS, APP 01-12-04, 141 DEVON DRIVE
yes ~ no
LONG BOW CORP. LUZ 01-09-08,;:'034 U.S. HWY 19 NORTH
yes < no
NORRIS GOULD AND MR. J. FR)(K HANCOCK, FL 01-11-35, 1135 MARSHALL STREET.
yes no
LINea AUTO PARTS, FLOl.11.3-11641 GULF TO BAY BLVD.
yes no
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check Jist.doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: January 22, 2002
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
CHRIS GIOTAKIS, APP 01-12-04,141 DEVON DRIVE
X yes no
LONG BOW CORP. LUZ 01-09-08, 19034 U.S. HWY 19 NORTH
yes X no
NORRIS GOULD AND MR. J. FRANK HANCOCK, FL 01-11-35,1135 MARSHALL STREET.
yes )< no
LINCO AUTO PARTS, FLOl-11-34X641 GULF TO BAY BLVD.
yes , no
i!!9~f
J - 'J,.,1- 0'1-
Date
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc