09/21/2004
.
.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
September 21,2004
Present: Ed Hooper
John Doran
David Gildersleeve
Shirley Moran
Alex Plisko
Kathy Milam
J. B. Johnson
Daniel Dennehy
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member - departed 5:51 p.m.
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
Cyndi Tarapani
Frank Gerlock
Patricia O. Sullivan
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director
Development Review Manager
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: August 17,2004
Member Moran moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 17,
2004, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
D. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
1. Expert Witness List Additions
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve additions to the City Expert Witness List: 1)
Planner Keyl Groff as an expert witness in zoning, site plan analysis and planning in general; 2)
Land Development Engineering Manager Scott Rice as an expert witness in civil engineering,
land development, environmental engineering and hydraulic; and 3) Traffic Operations Analyst
Bennett Elbo as an expert witness in traffic operations (traffic volume counts/classifications, speed
studies, crash analysis, and signs & markings), transportation planning, traffic impact fees, and
parking lot permits. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Daniel Dennehy did not vote.
E. RECONSIDERATION REQUEST: (Item 1)
Community Development 2004-09-21
1
.
.
.
1. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2004-02013 -100 Coronado Drive and 201, 215 and 219 South Gulfview
Boulevard (Related to DV A2004-00001)
Requester: City of Clearwater.
Request: Reconsider case at October 19, 2004 CDB (Community Development Board)
meeting only for the purpose of attaching conditions of approval.
Owners: Antonios Markopoulos, T. M. Megas and Kolossos Inn, Inc.
Applicant: Antonios Markopoulos.
Representative: M. Lisa Shasteen, Esq. (2920 Harbor View Avenue, Tampa, FL 33611;
phone: 813-220-3000; fax: 813-831-8140).
Location: 2.739 acres located to the south of and between South Gulfview Boulevard
and Coronado Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Proposed Use: Hotel of 350 rooms (127.78 rooms/acre on total site), 75 attached dwellings
(27.38 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 37,000 square-feet (0.31 FAR on total site) of
amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck) with an additional five feet
for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 33 feet for elevator, stair, mechanical
rooms/architectural embellishments (from roof deck).
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay
Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-5801; email: dmacnav@att.net); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@ate.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Chair Hooper declared a conflict of interest and left the dais.
On August 17, 2004, the CDB (Community Development Board) approved the Flexible
Development application, without any conditions. The Planning Department believes the Board
made a mistake in its decision to approve the case without conditions since the site plan alone
does not allow development of the property. The City requests that the Board reconsider this
case on October 19, 2004, in order to attach conditions necessary to implement the project.
The City Council must approve these three items for the project to go forward. The additional
items necessary to complete the project include: 1) Approval of the Development Agreement; 2)
Approval of the vacation of certain rights-of-way; and 3) approval of a land swap.
The suggested conditions to be attached to this case are: 1) That approval of this
Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development Agreement with the City
(Case DVA2004-00001); 2) That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the
vacation of rights-of-way by the City and the dedication of certain rights-of-way by the owners
prior to the issuance of any permits; and 3) That approval of this request be subject to the City
Council approval of the declaration of surplus right-of-way and trade with the developer.
Reconsideration or rehearing of cases is regulated under Section 4-206. H of the
Community Development Code. That section states that after a final decision, reconsideration
or rehearing may be granted only upon a determination by the Community Development Board
or the Hearing Officer, as the case may be, that the decision was based upon mistake, fraud or
misrepresentation. The decision to reconsider/rehear a case must be made at the next
regularly scheduled meeting of the Community Development Board or within ten days of a
Community Development 2004-09-21
2
.
.
.
Hearing Officer's decision. If reconsideration or rehearing is granted, notice shall be provided in
the same manner as the original proceeding.
Staff has discussed these conditions with the applicant's representative, who does not
object to adding them. If the Board decides to reconsider this case, it will be scheduled for the
October 19, 2004 CDB meeting. A letter, dated August 26, 2004, from the developer's attorney,
states her agreement to add the condition requested by the Planning Department and no
objection to the rest of the conditions.
Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani reported Applicant Antonios Markopoulos had sold the
subject property to Kiran Patel, who has requested the reconsideration move forward. The City
is not requesting a rehearing of the merits of the case. The approval lacks conditions and does
not indicate that approval is subject to future City Council actions. Assistant City Attorney Leslie
Dougall-Sides said the City Attorney Office concurred the three recommended conditions are
the minimum required for the project to proceed. Ms. Tarapani said the City wished to preserve
its right for appeal and has appealed the board's decision to a Hearing Officer to add the three
conditions. Ms. Dougall-Sides recommended if the CDB votes to reconsider their August 17,
2004, decision, then the board can direct staff to move to stay the appeal.
Pat O'Connor, representative for Kiran C. Patel, manager of K & P Clearwater Estate,
LLC, said Mr. Patel, now the applicant, concurred with staff's recommendation and encouraged
the approval process to move forward.
Member J. B. Johnson moved to schedule on October 19, 2004, a reconsideration of the
CDB's August 17, 2004, decision related to Case: FLD2004-02013 for 100 Coronado Drive and
201, 215, and 219 South Gulfview Boulevard for the purpose of attaching conditions of approval.
The motion was duly seconded. Members Doran, Gildersleeve, Moran, Plisko, Milam, and
Johnson and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye." Chair Hooper abstained. Motion
carried unanimously.
Consensus was to direct Ms. Dougall-Sides to move to stay the City's appeal of this case.
F. CONTINUED ITEMS: (Items 1-2)
Community Development 2004-09-21
3
.
.
.
1. Level Three Application
Case: DVA2004-00001 -100 Coronado Drive and 201, 215 and 219 South Gulfview
Boulevard (Related to FLD2004-02013)
Owners: Antonios Markopoulos, T. M. Megas and Kolossos Inn, Inc.
Applicant: Antonios Markopoulos.
Representative: M. Lisa Shasteen, Esq. (2920 Harbor View Avenue, Tampa, FL 33611;
phone: 813-220-3000; fax: 813-831-8140).
Location: 2.739 acres located to the south of and between South Gulfview Boulevard
and Coronado Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between Antonios Markopoulos, T. M. Megas and Kolossos Inn, Inc. (the property owners) and
the City of Clearwater.
Proposed Use: Hotel of 350 rooms (127.78 rooms/acre on total site), 75 attached dwellings
(27.38 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 37,000 square-feet (0.31 FAR on total site) of
amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to roof deck) with an additional five feet
for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 33 feet for elevator, stair, mechanical
rooms/architectural embellishments (from roof deck).
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay
Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-5801; email: dmacnav@att.net); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Chair Hooper declared a conflict of interest and remained off the dais.
The properties total 2.427 acres and are to the south of and between South Gulfview
Boulevard and Coronado Drive. The properties are developed with motels (Days Inn, Beach
Towers Motel, Spyglass Motel, and Golden Beach Motel) and numerous retail sales and
restaurant uses. The surrounding area is intensely developed with predominantly commercial
uses, including restaurants, motels, hotels and retail sales and services. A City-owned parking
lot is across Gulfview Boulevard to the west. All existing structures (buildings and pavement)
within the site area will be razed for construction of the proposed improvements. The site also
includes a portion of the eastern and northern half of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way
and the First Street right-of-way, between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive
(proposed to be vacated for a new acreage of 2.739 acres). The site is located within the Beach
Walk District of the Beach by Design Plan.
The proposal includes a companion Flexible Development request for a hotel of 350
rooms (127.78 rooms/acre on total site), 75 attached dwellings (27.38 units/acre on total site)
and a maximum of 37,000 square-feet (0.31 FAR) of amenities accessory to the hotel (case
FLD2004-02013). As part of the development proposal, the applicant will be providing 15
parking spaces available to the public.
The proposal anticipates vacation of the eastern portion of Gulfview Boulevard and
vacation of First Street, from Coronado Drive to South Gulfview Boulevard. As proposed in
Beach by Design, South Gulfview Boulevard will be relocated farther west as part of a
serpentine, Beach Walk design. Its new configuration will include a two-way, two-lane road
Community Development 2004-09-21
4
.
.
.
section and pedestrian way and bicycle path. The proposal also includes the dedication of 18
feet of right-of-way along Coronado Drive and a 60-foot right-of-way for proposed Second
Street. On July 15, 2004, the City Council approved the declaration of surplus right-of-way and
trade with the developer of land vacated on South Gulfview Boulevard for this project, subject to
approval of this Development Agreement and Ordinance #7289-04, vacating this portion of the
right-of-way.
The vacation requests are a component of the overall project in advance of the final
vacation. Clearly, the vacations of First Street and South Gulfview Boulevard and the relocation
of South Gulfview Boulevard are critical to this project and the Beach Walk project.
The proposed Development Agreement sets forth public/private obligations. The City
recognizes the economic and aesthetic benefits that will result from private development. The
applicant recognizes the benefit of public improvements that directly affect the marketability of
the project and the character of the general area surrounding the project.
The DVA (Development Agreement) sets forth main provisions: 1) The proposed DVA
requires the applicant to construct a hotel with a minimum of 350 rooms and a maximum of 450
rooms (DVA Section 2.03.1.c). The companion Flexible Development application (FLD2004-
02013) is for a 350-room hotel and 75 attached dwellings (condominiums). The DVA provides
that additional Flexible Development review will be necessary should the developer elect to
deviate from the site plan as currently proposed (DVA Section 2.03.1.d). It is noted that to
derive the proposed 450 rooms for the hotel and attached dwelling calculation, the companion
Flexible Development application includes a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for the
existing 200 hotel rooms and the allocation of 250 rooms from the density pool for the hotel,
established by the City pursuant to Beach by Design (DVA Section 3.01.3). Length of
stay/occupancy of the hotel rooms will not exceed 30 days (DVA Section 2.03.4). Rentals of the
attached dwellings (condominiums) will meet Code provisions limiting short-term rentals (DVA
Section 2.03.4). The allocation of the additional hotel units from the density pool expires three
years from the effective date of the agreement, whereby these additional hotel units return to
the density pool, unless construction has commenced on the project or the developer makes
payment of the developer's pro-rata share of the construction of the Beach Walk improvements
(DVA Section 3.01.3). Transportation Impact Fee credits may be applied to the developer's pro-
rata share of the construction costs for the Beach Walk improvements (DVA Section 3.02.4).
Commencement of construction is not solely the demolition of the existing site improvements,
but actual construction of at least the foundation or other structural elements of the proposed
structure (DVA Section 1.01.5); 2) As a condition of the allocation of hotel units from the density
pool, minimum quality standards for the hotel are set forth in the agreement. These require, as
a minimum, four-diamond rating from membership in AAA or the Mobile Travel Guide, OR a
minimum three-diamond rating from the same organizations, with the inclusion of hotel
upgraded improvements and facilities set forth in the agreement (see also DVA Section 2.03.5);
3) In conjunction with the vacation of the rights-of-way of First Street and a portion of South
Gulfview Boulevard, the developer will dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for proposed Second
Street on the south side of the project and 18 feet for Coronado Drive (DVA Sections 1.01.35
and 5.03.1). The agreement provides for the Land Exchange Agreement, with regard to the
declaration of surplus land (see also DVA Section 5.03.6). The vacation of rights-of-way is
conditioned upon the commencement of construction of the hotel. The developer, at his cost,
will construct the proposed Second Street (DVA Section 5.05.3); 4) The City will construct
Beach Walk and the developer will pay a Pro Rata Share of this improvement. The developer is
Community Development 2004-09-21
5
.
.
.
responsible for funding the costs associated with his front footage in relation to the total frontage
of the Beach Walk project (DVA Section 5.05.8); 5) The developer may elect to construct an
elevated pedestrian access bridge over South Gulfview Boulevard, which will be publicly owned,
but with a license agreement for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the bridge and
bridge landing (DVA Section 1.01.24). The specific location of the landing needs to be
determined and acceptable to the City. It must be located and designed to accommodate
appropriate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements and cannot
interfere with existing City structures. The Developer is requesting a license agreement for 50
years with a 50-year renewal (DVA Section 5.03.7); 6) The developer is requesting to be
granted the right to operate concessions from the concession facilities for an initial term of 50
years with a 50-year renewal (DVA Section 5.03.7). Concession facilities may include
provisions for towels, showers and lockers, chairs, umbrellas, cabanas and other beach gear,
minimal beach sundries, and sale of packaged snacks and non-alcoholic beverages, required to
operate a first-class beach hotel; 7) Outdoor cafe seating will be provided in conjunction with the
hotel and restaurants within the right-of-way of South Gulfview Boulevard (shown on the
companion site plan application FLD2004-02013), as part of the Beach Walk (DV A Section
5.03.4); 8) Within the proposed hotel parking garage, 15 parking spaces will be available for
public use (DVA Sections 1.01.29, 2.03.1 and 5.05.4). These will be accessible from the
proposed Second Street on the south side of the site. They will be managed by the developer,
who may impose a market based fee rate to the customer/public; 8) Prior to the issuance of the
final Certificate of Occupancy, the developer will implement a transportation system
management plan, including guest shuttles to the airport and activities, employee shuttles and
other measures to minimize vehicular trips associated with the hotel (DVA Section 2.03.5.d); 9)
Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, the developer will submit a hurricane
evacuation plan to the City, establishing the practices and procedures to be implemented
leading to the evacuation of the hotel in the event of the declaration of a hurricane watch (DV A
Section 2.03.5.e); 10) The City will coordinate the design and construction of the relocated
South Gulfview Boulevard and Beach Walk improvements (DVA Section 5.03.2); 11) Article 16
of the Development Agreement sets out the abilities of the developer to sell, convey, assign,
transfer or otherwise dispose of the project and the Development Agreement, setting out the
provisions prior to and after the payment of the developer's pro-rata share; and 12) The
Development Agreement expires ten years following the effective date (date approved by City
Council) (DV A Sections 1.01.13 and 16.18.1).
The CDB has been provided the most recently negotiated Development Agreement,
submitted and date stamped July 15, 2004. Further negotiations may amend some business
provisions in the agreement prior to consideration by the City Council.
The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger
commitment on comprehensive and capital facilities planning, ensure the provision of adequate
public facilities for development, encourage the efficient use of resources, and reduce the
economic cost of development. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development
Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Although the City and developer are in agreement with regard to the major business
points of the Development Agreement, the outstanding issue is the allocation of the hotel units
from the density pool. Based on the analysis in the companion site plan application (FLD2004-
02013), the number of units requested from the pool creates a design inconsistent with Beach
by Design. If the requested number of units were reduced, the size of the building also would
Community Development 2004-09-21
6
.
be reduced and it would be feasible to meet the design requirements of Beach by Design. Staff
also is not in agreement to a license agreement with a term exceeding 50 years. Therefore, due
to the excessive number of hotel pool units requested, the Planning Department recommends
denial of the Development Agreement. Should the project be reduced in size and scale and
redesigned in accordance with the Beach by Design, the City Council could reconsider the
Development Agreement since the Planning Department and Administration agree with the
major provisions.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on April 1 and July 8, 2004. The Planning Department recommends denial of, and
recommendation to the City Council on, a Development Agreement between Antonios
Markopoulos, T. M. Megas and Kolossos Inn, Inc. (the property owners) and the City of
Clearwater for the sites at 100 Coronado Drive and 201, 215 and 219 South Gulfview
Boulevard, with the following bases: Bases for Denial: 1) The number of pool units requested is
excessive and creates a design that does not meet the Design Guidelines within Beach by
Design.
Ms. Tarapani said the developer declined the City's request to increase the number of
reserved public parking spaces above 15 spaces but to allow additional public parking when the
resort's parking garage is not at full capacity. All public parking would be at a fee, In response
to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the size of the development requires 452 parking spaces and
620 are planned. Public use of spaces not reserved for the public is a resort operational issue.
.
Ms. Tarapani reported the City also opposes the proposal to construct a pedestrian
bridge from the resort, across Gulfview Boulevard, to the beach. The City's position is that the
proposed bridge would impact open space, block views, and establish a precedent, allowing
additional pedestrian bridges along Gulfview Boulevard. The pedestrian bridge remained part of
the site plan until City comment. After consideration, the City determined it did not support the
bridge, which would require a license to cross public right-of-way and land on the public beach.
Ms. Tarapani said the City had approved the Seashell Resort pedestrian bridge due to
that development's proposal to include 400 public parking spaces in its project. The City had
determined the pedestrian bridge would facilitate beachgoers parking at the resort.
Ms. Tarapani said the City remains opposed to the development agreement, which
proposes use of pool units to create a design that is contrary to Beach by Design guidelines.
Ms. Tarapani said Mr. Patel is a new property owner and a new applicant.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said Beach by Design is a special area plan
adopted to guide redevelopment of the beach. Ms. Dougall-Sides said Beach by Design,
approved by City Ordinance, has the affect of law. Concern was expressed the CDB had acted
improperly in approving this project. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the project also must meet a
second threshold, City Council approval of the Development Agreement.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the City Attorney had opined that the
maximum lease for a beachfront concession stand is 25 years. Ms. Dougall-Sides said while
the Development Agreement references licenses necessary for a pedestrian bridge and the
applicant's proposed land swap with the City, those items have not been approved by the City
Council and are not attached.
.
Community Development 2004-09-21
7
.
Mr. O'Connor requested the item be continued. He said the pedestrian bridge is an
important feature for attracting a hotel flag and he wished to discuss the issue further with staff.
Member Moran moved to continue to October 19, 2004, Item F1, Case: DVA2004-00001
for 100 Coronado Drive and 201,215, and 219 South Gulfview Boulevard. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Doran, Gildersleeve, Moran, Plisko, Milam, and Johnson and Alternate
Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye." Chair Hooper abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
.
2. Case: FLD2004-03018 - 669 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner: Virginia Franks.
Applicant: Radcliffe Development Company, LLC.
Representative: Keith Zayak (101 Philippe Parkway, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 phone:
727-793-9888, e-mail: keith@keithzavak.com) and Robert Flynt.
Location: 0.148-acres located on the east side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 300 feet
south of Somerset Street.
Atlas Page: 258A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development approval to develop four residential attached dwelling units on a
6,479 square-foot lot (10,000 square-feet is required), with a minimum lot width of 60 feet (100
feet is required), a reduction in the front setback from 15 feet to 5.69 feet to pavement, a
reduction in the side (south) setback from 10 feet to four feet (to exterior stairs) a reduction of
the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 6.72 feet (to building), a reduction of the rear setback
from 20 feet to 10 feet to wooden deck, and a building height increase from 35 feet to 51.83 feet
from FEMA to roof midpoint under the provisions of Section 2-803. B.
Proposed Use: Attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay
Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-5801; email: dmacnav@att.net); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@Qte.net).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Chair Hooper declared a conflict of interest and remained off the dais.
At the July 20, 2004 CDB meeting, a motion to approve this case failed by a vote of 2:3
and the case was continued automatically to August 2004. On August 17, 2004, the CDB
continued this case because the applicant had submitted new plans. The staff report has been
updated.
Planner Michael Reynolds reviewed the request, and changes to the proposal.
Revisions include: 1) reduction in front setback changed from six feet (to pavement) to 5.69 feet
(to pavement); 2) reduction in side (south) setback changed from zero feet (to wooden walkway)
to four feet (to exterior stairs); 3) reduction in side (north) setback changed from eight feet (to
building) to 6.72 feet (to building) (section of building housing dumpster now opens to outside);
and 4) impervious surface ratio reduced from 0.75 to 0.70.
This 0.148-acre site, on the east side of Bay Esplanade, is approximately 300 feet south
of Somerset Street. Overnight accommodations and attached dwellings dominate the
.
Community Development 2004-09-21
8
.
.
.
immediate vicinity to the west, south, and north. By Code, the allowable density on this site is
five hotel units or four dwelling units.
The site contains a single-story, eight-unit apartment building, with back-out parking on
Bay Esplanade. A deck is on the east side of the site and a walkway extends from the front of
the site to the rear, along the south property line. The building and its parking area fit tightly
onto the site. There is limited landscaping. One existing dock, located at the east side of the
site, is proposed to remain by this redevelopment request.
The site is within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the
"Old Florida" District. This area has been designated for multi-family townhomes and
condominiums of low to mid-rise. The immediate vicinity is almost entirely composed of
attached dwellings and small motels. Building styles generally resemble architecture from the
1950s and appear to have been progressively expanded. Bay Esplanade, in this general
vicinity, is a local street with no sidewalks with many sites that rely on the public right-of-way to
accommodate perpendicular, back-out parking. Generally, the streetscape needs
redevelopment to improve parking, pedestrian access, and its aesthetic appearance. Beach by
Design recognizes site constraints of parcels in the neighborhood and difficulties of
redevelopment.
The proposal is to raze the apartments and construct four attached dwellings ("La Risa
II"). The application seeks approval of the use, lot size and width reductions, setback
reductions, plus an increase in height. The proposal shows six on-site parking spaces at
ground level. The building is proposed to be four stories above parking and reach to 51.83 feet
from a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Authority) building line to roof midpoint. This
site is located within a flood zone (Zone AE) with an elevation of 11 feet.
The building elevations show four stories with a rooftop terrace over parking. An
elevator overrun tower extends over the roof terrace. The design of the building includes
arched styling with some doorways and windows. Large windows are shown on the east
elevation, with views of Clearwater Harbor. Plans show the buildings to have a beige color
stucco finish with a red-brown color roof. Windows are proposed to have aluminum framing with
a precast stone-look trim. The roof is shown to have a clay tile mission shape. Wrought iron
railings will be attached to walkways and platforms outside the building on five levels. The north
and west elevations show a decorative architectural medallion on the north and west sides of
the elevator tower. Exterior stairs are shown on the north elevation, from the ground level to the
roof.
Vehicular and pedestrian safety would be improved, as there no longer will be any back
out parking onto Bay Esplanade. Five cabanas and a rest room are shown on the site plan at
the rear of the site. The deck and dock amenity is proposed to be shared with residents of a
residential development across the street to the west, (La Risa I).
Trash collection is proposed to be made from a solid waste dumpster located inside the
building at the front (west side) of the site. The dumpster is directly accessible from a door
opening to the site entrance from Bay Esplanade.
Community Development 2004-09-21
9
.
While there is a landscape plan, the proposed setbacks reduce the opportunity for green
space. A six-foot high opaque fence is proposed along the south side of the property.
Preliminary stormwater design has been addressed. The design is essentially complete.
Beach by Design does not specifically suggest the development as proposed by this
application. Beach by Design reads in part, "... the scale and intensity of the area, with relatively
few exceptions, is substantially less than comparable areas to the south." The document
contemplates "limited new construction where renovation is not practical." What is proposed is
a substantial increase in scale to what exists within the Old Florida District. The development is
not visually interesting and the massing and scale do not comply with the intended character of
the "Old Florida District" and Beach by Design.
The application proposes to maximize the allowable density and is seeking seven
variations from the Code to make this project work (reductions in lot size, width, setbacks, and
an increase in building height). The proposed use is acceptable, but the overall scale is not
compatible with the existing surrounding land uses.
The proposed reduction in lot area will result in a building, which is out of scale with
existing buildings in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The
proposed increase in height does not result in an improved site plan or improved design and
appearance. The proposed reductions in side setbacks do not result in an improved site plan,
more efficient parking, or improved design and appearance. Development of the land, as
proposed, will not be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of
adjacent properties. Design of the proposed development does not minimize visual adverse
impacts on adjacent properties.
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meetings on May 6, 2004 and June 10, 2004. The Planning Department recommends
denial of the Flexible Development application to develop four residential attached dwelling units
on 1) a 6,479 square-foot lot (10,000 square-feet is required, with 2) a minimum lot width of 60
feet (100 feet is required); seeking 3) a reduction in the front setback from 15 feet to 5.69 feet to
pavement; 4) a reduction in the side (south) setback from 10 feet to four feet to exterior stairs; 5)
a reduction of the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 6.72 feet (to building); 6) a reduction of
the rear setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to wooden deck; and 7) a building height increase from
35 feet to 51.83 feet from FEMA to roof midpoint under the provisions of Section 2-803.B.
Bases for Denial: 1) The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development
criteria per Section 2-803.B; 2) The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the
Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The development is not
compatible with the surrounding area and will not enhance other redevelopment efforts in the
vicinity of the site location; and 4) The proposed development is inconsistent with what is
proposed within Beach by Design for property within the Old Florida District.
Troy Perdue, representative for the applicant, submitted 20 letters supporting the project.
To meet staff concerns, he said the mass of the building was reduced, the walkway along the
south boundary line was removed, technical issues related to windows and doors were
addressed, and four of the five cabanas will be reserved for project residents. Access to the
fifth cabana will be limited by a key, held by La Risa I management, for residents of that project
across the street. Restrictions will limit noise levels and the number of people using the cabana.
.
Community Development 2004-09-21
10
.
.
.
Keith Zayak, representative, said the project will increase onsite landscaping and green
space and reduce the density from 8 motel units to 4 ownership condominium units. He said
the project has been granted a SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District)
permit for construction. He said all parking will be removed from the right-of-way. He said the
applicant has worked with staff for many months to improve the project.
Dennis O'Keefe, architect, said he reduced the building's massiveness by lowering its
height and stepping it back from the street. He said townhomes constructed on the sitewould
be 19 feet wide and 40 feet long and would not be compatible with the neighborhood.
Six people spoke in support of the project.
Paul Kelley, party status holder, indicated support for the project, if the developer honors
his agreement to construct a wall along the south end of the development, that the wall be at
least 6 feet from the new structure, and that the area between the structure and south wall
feature significant landscaping and provide no pedestrian or public access.
Mr. Reynolds reported even after modifications, staff still thinks the proposed
development is too massive for the "Old Florida District" and does not meet the spirit of Beach
by Design.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said about one third of the proposed
development is 67 feet, with other heights varying above 40 feet. This lot's width is that of a
typical single-family residence.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani recommended the board continue the item if
they supported approval to give staff the opportunity to meet with the applicant and develop
conditions of approval. Discussion ensued regarding conditions of approval.
Mr. Perdue said the proposed structure is a mid-rise and meets Beach by Design
standards. The applicant submitted proposed conditions related to common area restrictions
addressing the docks, cabanas, assemblages, noises, and violations of common area usage
restrictions.
Discussion ensued with comments that the items should be continued and the project
would enhance the area.
Consensus was to allow Mr. Zayak to respond.
Mr. Zayak requested the item not be continued and that the board approve the item with
15 of the 16 conditions listed in last month's CDS packet, along with the common area
restrictions proposed by the applicant. Ms. Dougall-Sides said the conditions do not address
the 6-foot wall on the project's south side, the proposal to block public access to the fifth
cabana, and common area restriction provisions. Development Review Manager Frank Gerlock
reviewed the proposal to block the stairway on the project's south end.
Concerns were expressed the project meets only 8 of 21 required criteria for approval
and does not meet the intent of Beach by Design by crowding too much mass on a small lot.
Community Development 2004-09-21
11
.
.
.
Discussion ensued with comments that the project across the street is not comparable as that
lot is large enough for the development, the proposal requires the assembly of several lots, the
size of the project's footprint is determined by the need to provide parking under the building,
the structure will be set back 8 feet from the property line, and the Code allows the board to
approve the item or continue it.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to continue to October 19, 2004, Item F2, Case:
FLD2004-03018 for 669 Bay Esplanade. The motion was duly seconded. Members Doran,
Moran, and Johnson and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Members
Gildersleeve, Plisko, and Milam voted "Nay." Chair Hooper abstained. Motion carried.
G. CONSENT AGENDA: 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 (Items 1 - 4)
1. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2004-06046 - 205,209 and 214 Brightwater Drive Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Brightwater Point, LLC.
Representative: Bill Woods, Woods Consulting, Inc. (322 Ridge Road, Palm Harbor, FL
34683: phone: 727..;786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email:
billwoodsCQ>.woodsconsultino. oro).
Location: 0.594 acres located at the eastern terminus of Brightwater Drive,
approximately 1,700 feet east of Hamden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development to permit a multi-use dock, under provisions of Section 3-601.
Proposed Use: Construct two multi-use docks of 2,478 square-feet for 14 slips.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay
Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-5801; email: dmacnavCQ>.att.net); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: DiwCQ>.ote.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.594-acre site, at the eastern terminus of Brightwater Drive, is approximately 1,700
feet east of Hamden Drive. The site is within the Small Motel District of Beach By Design, which
is a distinctive area of overnight accommodation uses being demolished and redeveloped with
attached dwellings of either townhomes or condominiums. On September 16, 2003, the COB
approved Case FLD2003-06027/TDR2003-06003 with 13 conditions to redevelop the upland
portion of this site with 20 attached dwellings (condominiums). There are five existing docks,
which under the prior approval were to be retained, unchanged, but now will be removed.
Section 3-601.C.3 requires docks over 500 square-feet in area (in association with a
multi-family development or condominium) be treated as a commercial dock and be approved
as part of a Level Two, Flexible Development review. The proposal includes removal of the
existing docks and construction of two docks totaling 2,478 square-feet for 14 slips for use by
the owners/tenants of the condominiums.
The proposal is to construct the 14 slips in two docks due to the existence of seagrass.
The northern dock is proposed with six slips, while the southern dock is proposed with eight
Community Development 2004-09-21
12
.
.
.
slips. Slips for both docks are accessed by walkouts to avoid impact to the seagrass beds.
These walkouts are designed with handrails on both sides to preclude boats mooring against
the walkouts. The docks are designed with T-heads, which will have handrails on their
landward side to avoid boats mooring against the T-heads, outside of designated boat slips.
"No mooring" and "caution manatee" signage also are proposed to assist with restricting boat
traffic within the areas of seagrass and to increase manatee awareness. The northern T -head
is proposed to be accessed by a walkout that is approximately 53 feet in length from the
seawall. The southern T-head is proposed to be accessed by a walkout that is approximately
69 feet in length. Catwalks for the slips are proposed to be 36.5 feet in length. Individual slips
are proposed to be 15 feet in width each. The overall length of the northern dock from the
seawall is 94.7 feet, while the southern dock is proposed to be 111.4 feet in length from the
seawall. The northern dock is proposed 37 feet from the northern property line, while the
southern is proposed 182.5 feet from the west property line. A minimum side setback of 36.9
feet is required for the docks. Code dock provisions limit the width of docks to a maximum of
75% of the lot width, or 276.75 feet in this case. The proposed combined dock width is 66% of
the lot width (244.9 feet). Code provisions restrict dock length to a maximum of 75% of the lot
width (276.75 feet). The docks are proposed to be a maximum of 30% of the waterfront width.
While not consistent with existing, older and shorter docks, the proposed docks are consistent
with newer docks required to meet today's Codes, wherein the length takes into account the
water depth at mean lot water and seagrass.
SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management District) requires a minimum three-
feet water depth at mean low water for boats in the slips. All slips have at least 3.5 feet of water
depth (most have greater depth). The width of the waterway at this location is approximately
369 feet. Based on the proposed design of the two docks, there are no issues regarding
seagrass. While there are no issues regarding navigation with the proposal, since this site is at
the end of the land finger, it is suggested to install lights on the ends of the docks to make the
docks more visible to both recreational boaters and to slip owners finding their slips at night. All
other criteria for docks have been met.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria, including but not limited to General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and dock criteria (Section 3-601.C.3), have been met.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 12, 2004. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development to permit a multi-use
dock, under the provisions of Section 3-601, for the site at 205, 209 and 214 Brightwater Drive,
with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Aooroval: 1) The proposal complies with the
Flexible Development criteria under the provisions of Section 3-601; 2) The proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria per
Section 3-913; and 3) The dock development is compatible with the surrounding area. AND
Conditions of Aooroval: 1) That boats moored at the docks be for the exclusive use by the
residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately
from the condominiums; 2) That dock-supported signage be permanently installed containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity;
3) That lighting be installed at the ends of the docks to make the docks more visible to both
recreational boaters and to slip owners finding their slips at night; and 4) That a copy of the
SWFWMD and/or FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) Permit, USACOE
(United States Army Corps of Engineers) Permit and proof of permission to use State
Community Development 2004-09-21
13
.
.
.
submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement
of construction.
Bill Woods, representative for the applicant, said due to questions from other agencies,
the dock's design could change. He requested the item be continued to October.
Member Doran moved to continue to October 19, 2004, Item G1, Case: FLD2004-06046
for 214 Brightwater Drive. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate
Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
2.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2004-02010 - 503 Marshall Street
Owner/Applicant: 1504 Garden Inc.
Representative: Hashim Sullaiman (1504 N. Garden Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755;
phone: 727-542-2629; fax: 727-813-910-1285; email: hsullaiman@aol.com).
Location: 0.18 acres located at the southeast corner of Marshall Street and North Fort
Harrison Avenue.
Atlas Page: 268B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit retail sales within an existing two-story
commercial building with a reduction to lot area from 10,000 square-feet to 7,720 square-feet, a
reduction to lot width (west) from 100 feet to 50.81 feet, reductions to the front (north) setback
from 25 feet to 19 feet (to existing and proposed building) and from 25 feet to 14 feet (to
proposed pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to proposed
pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to one foot (to existing and
proposed building) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to proposed pavement) and a reduction to
required parking from five to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square-feet, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and a reduction to the
landscape buffer along the south property line from five feet to zero feet and a reduction in the
width of the required foundation landscaping adjacent to the building (west side) from five feet to
3.75 feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-
1202.G.
Proposed Use: Retail sales and services.
Neighborhood Association: Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association (Vicky Morgan, 301
Cedar Street, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-461-1995; em ail: vmorQan@tampabaV.rr.com);
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater,
FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@Qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
It was stated the proposed design is not architecturally pleasing and the colors are
poorly chosen. Planner Wayne Wells said staff has worked with the client and the proposal is a
vast improvement over current conditions. In response to a concern regarding code violations
due to a lack of permitting for construction efforts, Mr. Wells said conditions are tightly written to
avoid future problems.
Concern was expressed regarding the agreement with the abutting property owner to
provide substantial parking for this development. Mr. Wells said the abutting property has
excess parking spaces.
Community Development 2004-09-21
14
It was requested the item be pulled from the Consent Agenda.
.
Mr. Wells reviewed the request. The subject 0.18-acre parcel is at the southeast corner
of Marshall Street and North Ft. Harrison Avenue. The property is developed with a two-story
commercial building (presently vacant) on the eastern portion of the site and an attached
dwelling building (duplex - presently vacant) on the western portion of the site. The only
parking area for this site is north of the two-story commercial building, which requires vehicles to
back into Marshall Street.
The proposal is to demolish the duplex residential building on the western portion of the
site to provide for construction of a parking lot for six parking spaces and to improve the existing
two-story commercial building for a retail sales and service use. All existing parking spaces that
require vehicles to back into Marshall Street will be removed and converted to a landscaped
area. A retention pond is proposed within the landscape buffer area adjacent to North Ft.
Harrison Avenue. Two small additions to the two-story commercial building are proposed, one
on the north side (approximately three feet by 19 feet) and one on the west side (approximately
seven feet by 30 feet). The applicant has a recorded shared parking agreement with the
property to the south (currently a closed restaurant) for 11 parking spaces to provide for
required parking. This off-site adjacent parking area is proposed to be upgraded prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the subject building.
.
The northern building addition will help square off the building's northern fayade for both
floors. The western building addition will provide for a new first-floor building entry and provide
for a required secondary egress for the second floor. The fayade of the building will be
improved and modernized through these building additions. The building will be painted an off-
white or sand color with white or contrasting columns or pilasters. The new western first-floor
entry and the proposed stairway to the second floor will be improved with a canvas awning.
With the demolition of the duplex on the western portion of the site and construction of
the parking lot, the visual appeal of the site will be greatly enhanced through complete
landscaping of the site. Perimeter buffers are proposed along both street frontages.
For the site to work, the applicant is requesting a number of reductions from the
development standards of the Code. This site has been developed for a long period of time in
its current configuration. The parcel is only 7,720 square-feet in area and has only 50.81 feet of
lot width along North Ft. Harrison Avenue, whereas the Code requires 10,000 square-feet of lot
area and a lot width of 100 feet for retail sales and service uses. These reductions are
minimized due to the location of the existing two-story building on the extreme eastern portion of
the site and the shared parking agreement for 11 parking spaces on the lot adjacent to the
south. The applicant is requesting a reduction to the front (north along Marshall Street) setback
from 25 feet to 19 feet (to the existing and proposed building). The existing two-story building is
nonconforming to required front and side setbacks. Code provisions require additions to meet
the required Code setbacks, unless reductions are approved through appropriate procedures.
The additions are necessary to provide functionality for the building and to square off the
building's fayade. The applicant is proposing a reduction to the front (west) setback along North
Ft. Harrison Avenue from 25 feet to 15 feet (to the proposed pavement). Along this portion of
North Ft. Harrison Avenue buildings and pavement exist closer to the front property line. This
proposed setback to pavement provides sufficient area for site beautification, while still
providing for other required site improvements. In order to construct the on-site parking lot to
.
Community Development 2004-09-21
15
.
.
.
meet Code dimensional standards, and since the lot is only 50.81 feet wide (north/south
dimension), the applicant has proposed to provide as much landscape area adjacent to Marshall
Street as possible, while minimizing the landscape buffer along the south property line. As
such, the applicant is requesting a reduction to the front setback adjacent to Marshall Street
from 25 feet to 14 feet (actually 14.81 feet to the proposed pavement). Much like the proposed
front setback reduction for the building additions, the same nonconforming provisions of the
Code apply to the building addition adjacent to the south property line. The existing building is
approximately one-foot from the south property line. The applicant is requesting to reduce the
side (south) setback from 10 feet to one-foot in order to construct the western building addition.
The applicant also is requesting a reduction to the required setback and perimeter buffer along
the south property line to zero feet to construct the proposed parking lot. In order to construct
the addition as proposed and the parking lot, while providing for required handicap accessibility
for the parking lot, into the building and to access the proposed public sidewalk in the Marshall
Street right-of-way, the applicant is requesting to reduce the required foundation landscape area
adjacent to the western portion of the building from five feet to 3.75 feet. In light of all other
landscape improvements to the site, this proposed reduction is minimal and will still provide
adequate planting area. Finally, the applicant is requesting a reduction to required parking from
five to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square-feet. Code criteria provide that the use of significant
portions of the building will be used for storage or other non-parking demand-generating
purposes. The applicant plans to have large storage areas on the second floor.
The applicant is proposing a monument-style sign a maximum of six-feet high near the
intersection of Marshall Street and North Ft. Harrison Avenue. Use of a dumpster on the
adjacent parcel to the east is proposed through appropriate agreements with the City and the
abutting property owner. This off-site dumpster will need to be upgraded with appropriate
building permits and be properly located and screened to meet City requirements prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for this site. Site and landscape plans will need to be
amended prior to the issuance of any building permits addressing certain zoning, landscaping
and engineering requirements.
All applicable Code requirements and criteria including, but not limited to, General
Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria
(Section 2-704.C) have been met.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on April 1 ,2004. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development approval to permit
retail sales within an existing two-story commercial building with a reduction to lot area from
10,000 square feet to 7,720 square-feet, a reduction to lot width (west) from 100 feet to 50.81
feet, reductions to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 19 feet (to existing and proposed
building) and from 25 feet to 14 feet (to proposed pavement), a reduction to the front (west)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to proposed pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback
from 10 feet to one-foot (to existing and proposed building) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to
proposed pavement) and a reduction to required parking from five to 4.5 spaces per 1,000
square-feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section
2-704.C, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the south property line from five feet to
zero feet and a reduction in the width of the required foundation landscaping adjacent to the
building (west side) from five feet to 3.75 feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program,
under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for the site at 503 Marshall Street, with the following
bases and conditions: Bases for Aooroval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible
Community Development 2004-09-21
16
.
.
.
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C; 2)
The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The proposal is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria per Section 3-1202.G; and 4) The development is
compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the applicant apply for City building permits for after-the-fact
interior renovations, building additions and site improvements by November 22, 2004. Failure to
submit for these permits within this time frame shall cause this Flexible Development approval
by the COB to be null and void and cause enforcement action to be initiated again; 2) That use
of the building be for retail sales and services, or uses with a similar or lesser parking
requirement, with a significant amount of storage area. The applicant shall indicate all storage
areas on the building plans to be submitted and revise the site data table on Sheet C 1/6 to
ensure required parking is being provided; 3) That the site and landscape plans be amended
prior to the issuance of any building permits to show the following: a) as part of the site data,
that a recorded shared parking agreement exists on the adjacent property to the south for 11
parking spaces; b) revised landscape plans addressing overall landscape requirements,
including showing the canopy of the 14-inch oak tree to be preserved, irrigation, visibility
triangles and foundation landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department; c) provide
existing topography of the eleven parking spaces in order to provide assurance that project will
not block offsite flow nor will unaccounted surface waters contribute to system; d) delineate
existing and proposed drainage basins on construction plans; e) provide evidence of proper
notification to the original engineer in accordance with F.A.C. 61G15-27.001; and f) provide
erosion and sediment discharge controls on plans; 4) That the final design of the building be
consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted, or as modified by the COB; 5) That the site
be limited to one monument sign, at a maximum height of six feet, located outside of visibility
triangles, containing the site address and be coordinated/consistent with the color and materials
of the building; 6) That prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, a cross parking agreement
or restrictive covenant burdening the adjacent property for the life of the use of the property in a
form satisfactory to the City Attorney be recorded; 7) That this site share the dumpster on the
property to the east, through appropriate agreements with the City and the abutting property
owner. This off-site dumpster shall be upgraded with appropriate building permits and be
properly located and screened to meet City requirements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for this site; and 8) That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Traffic
Impact Fees be determined and paid.
Concern was expressed the proposed fayade lacks rhythm, the elevation does not
match the written description, windows lack jambs, and the plan lacks details regarding "boxes"
on the elevation and the color of glass.
Discussion ensued regarding the parking agreement, with concerns expressed that
future problems may occur if the abutting property is sold.
It was felt proposed improvements are not substantial enough to warrant requested
allowances. Mr. Wells said the building has not been used for a long time. Staff feels the
proposal is a significant improvement to the current fayade.
Tim Hunt, representative, said the proposal will raze an ugly building facing Ft. Harrison
and improve the look of the street. He requested the board approve the item, with caveats that
the issues related to aesthetics and parking will be addressed in accordance with City
Community Development 2004-09-21
17
.
requirements. Ms. Tarapani said if the CDB denies this item, the applicant cannot return with an
application for 9 months. Mr. Hunt agreed to a continuance.
It was recommended the applicant address the architecture and colors of the proposal,
as well as the parking issue.
Member Doran moved to continue to October 19,2004, Item G2, Case: FLD2004-02010
for 503 Marshall Street. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate
Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
The Community Development Board recessed from 4:08 to 4: 17 p.m.
.
Case: FLD2004-03016 - 921 S. Missouri Avenue
Owner/Applicant: MIF Investments Inc.
Representative: Michael Markou, D.O. (44 Sunset Bay Drive, Belleair, FL 33756; phone
727 -581-2196; fax 727-442-0696).
Location: 0.378 acre located on the northeast corner of Magnolia Drive and Missouri
Avenue.
Atlas Page: 296B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit an expansion of a medical office with
reductions to the front (west) setback along Missouri Avenue from 25 feet to four feet (to
pavement) and 23 feet (to building), the front (south) setback along Magnolia Drive from 25 feet
to three feet (to pavement) and five feet (to building), and a reduction of parking spaces from 18
required spaces to 13 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under
the provisions of Section 2-704.C, and as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under
the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: An 896 square-foot, one-story addition to an existing 3,575 square-foot medical
office.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw(CUQte.net).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Level Two Application
3.
Concern was expressed regarding the letter of agreement related to parking spaces.
The item was pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Planner Michael Reynolds reviewed the request. This 0.378-acre site is located on the
northeast corner of Magnolia Drive and Missouri Avenue. The site is occupied by a 3,575
square-foot medical office building with a 15-space parking lot. The building originally was
constructed as a bank with drive-thru lane.
The proposal is to construct an 896 square-foot, one-story addition on the south side of
the existing building. The drive-thru lane will be enclosed to accommodate this additional
space. One existing driveway will be removed along the southwest corner of the site along
Missouri Avenue. The site can be accessed from both Missouri Avenue and Magnolia Drive.
There is a concrete sidewalk along the west and south sides of the property.
.
Community Development 2004-09-21
18
.
.
.
Proposed parking is along the north and east sides of the property. There are 13
parking spaces on site, including one handicap space. The Community Development Code
requires 18 parking spaces for the site as proposed. The applicant has a letter from a
neighboring property owner, Jimmy's Dairy Delight, committing five spaces to the medical office
site. The staff of the office will use these spaces.
The single-story building addition will have a stucco finish and be consistent in design
with the existing building. It will be light yellow in color, with blue awnings over the doorways.
The addition will have a flat roof. The building will have aluminum-framed windows.
The landscape plan includes a mix of plants including palm trees, oak trees, new
ligustrum and crape myrtle trees, as well as shrubbery around the perimeter of the site and
building. Signage has not been submitted. It will need to be architecturally-integrated into the
design of the site (freestanding) and building (attached). Channel-letters should be used should
attached signage be requested. A low, monument-style sign is appropriate should a
freestanding sign be requested.
The hours of operation are Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The 13 on-site
spaces, plus five adjacent spaces on the neighboring site, will address the parking requirements
of the Code.
The parking and setback reductions are appropriate and create an opportunity to expand
an existing business. As the north and east side setbacks are five feet to pavement and already
exist, they are not part of the applicant's request. The development proposal meets all general
development and flexible development criteria.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on July 8, 2004. The
Planning Department recommends approval to permit a medical office within an existing two-
story 3,575 square-foot commercial building with a proposed one-story 896 square-foot building
addition, with reductions to the front (west) setback along Missouri Avenue from 25 feet to four
feet (to pavement) and 23 feet (to building), the front (south) setback along Magnolia Drive from
25 feet to three feet (to pavement) and five feet (to building), and a reduction of parking spaces
from 18 required spaces to 13 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape
Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. for the site at 921 South Missouri Avenue
with the following bases and conditions. Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the
Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-
704.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding
area and will enhance redevelopment efforts. AND Conditions of Approval: 1) That the site plan
application be revised to correctly state the required and provided parking, prior to building
permit issuance; 2) That the revised site plan indicate setbacks (with dimensional arrows) at the
closest point per side; 3) That all Fire Department concerns be addressed prior to building
permit issuance; 4) That an approved SWFWMD (Southwest Florida Water Management
District) permit be provided prior to building permit issuance; 5) That the ingress/egress
easement as found in O.R. Book 5622, pages 14 and 31, be vacated prior to building permit
issuance; 6) That prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, a cross parking agreement or
restrictive covenant burdening the adjacent property for the life of the use of the property in a
form satisfactory to the City Attorney be recorded; 7) That a Traffic Impact fee to be assessed
Community Development 2004-09-21
19
.
.
.
and paid prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, by the applicant; 8) That all proposed on-
site utilities, including electric, phone and cable television, be located underground; and 9) That
all signage meet Code, consist of channel letters for any attached signs, and low monument-
style for a freestanding sign and be architecturally-integrated into the design of the building and
site. Any existing signage, if non-conforming, will need to be replaced to meet Code.
Discussion ensued regarding the parking agreement, with concerns expressed problems
could occur if the abutting property is sold. Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed recommended related
conditions of approval. It was suggested the site could be redesigned to meet Code parking
requirements.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item G3, Case: FLD2004-03016 for 921 S.
Missouri Avenue with bases of approval and conditions of approval as listed above. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
4. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2004-04032 -1410 Betty Lane Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: David Jaye, 2850 Weathersfield Court, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone:
727-791-7878.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street # 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax 727-446-8036; e-mail
address: dwilliams@northsdsideengineeering.com).
Location: 0.220 acres located on the southwest corner of Stephenson Drive and Betty
Lane.
Atlas Page: 269B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C).
Request: Flexible Development approval of a car wash with reductions to the front (north)
setback along Stephenson Drive from 25 feet to eight feet (to dumpster enclosure), from 25 feet
to 24 feet to building, a reduction from the front (east) setback along Betty Lane from 25 feet to
20 feet to building, a reduction from the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet to the
freestanding vacuum area and from 10 feet to nine feet to pavement, and a reduction to the
required number of parking spaces from seven to three spaces, as part of a Comprehensive
Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: A three-bay, self-service car wash.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@Qte.net).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Mr. Reynolds reviewed the request. This 0.220-acre site is on the southwest corner of
Stephenson Drive and Betty Lane. The site is vacant.
The proposal is to construct a three-bay, self-service car wash on this property. The site
is to be accessed from Stephenson Drive. Vehicles will exit the car wash onto Betty Lane.
While this is a double frontage lot, the building was designed so that the side of the building
faces Stephenson Drive. A self-service vacuum station will be on the west side of the site.
As the car wash is self-service, no employees will be on site on a regular work schedule.
The building is proposed to be painted yellow with brown trim and white trim at the roofline. It
will have a pitched roof. A dumpster with enclosure is proposed on the north side of the site,
Community Development 2004-09-21
20
just south of the curb cut at Stevenson's Drive. A detention basin will be located on the south
. side of the building.
The landscape plan includes a mix of plants including dwarf burford holly, southern live
oak, bald cypress, and sweet viburnum. An irrigation plan has been submitted as well. Any
signage will need to be architecturally integrated into the design of the site (freestanding) and
building (attached). Channel-letters should be used should attached signage be requested. A
low, monument-style sign is appropriate should a freestanding sign be requested.
.
.
The parking and setback reductions are necessary to accommodate the car wash and
vehicular access ways on the site. The building, as designed, is compatible with the
surrounding area. The application meets the general applicability and flexible development
standards.
The DRC Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 18,
2004. The Planning Department recommends approval to construct a three-bay self-service car
wash, with reductions to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to eight feet (to the dumpster
enclosure), from 25 feet to 24 feet (to building), a reduction from the front (east) setback from 25
feet to 20 feet (to building), a reduction from the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet to
the freestanding vacuum area and from 10 feet to nine feet to pavement, and a reduction to the
required parking spaces from seven to three spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape
Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.GJor the site at 1410 Betty Lane with the
following bases and conditions. Bases for Aooroval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible
Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Section 2-704.C; 2)
The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The proposal is compatible with the surrounding
area and will enhance redevelopment efforts. AND Conditions of Aooroval: 1) That the vacuum
operation be limited to 7:00 am to 10:00 pm; 2) That all Fire Department concerns be addressed
prior to building permit issuance; 3) That an approved health permit be obtained from Pinellas
County Health for sanitary connection prior to issuance of a building permit; 4) That an
approved SWFWMD permit be provided prior to building permit issuance; 5) That a Traffic
Impact fee to be assessed and paid prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, by the
applicant; 6) That all proposed on-site utilities, including electric, phone and cable television, be
located underground; 7) That all signage meet Code, consist of channel letters for any attached
signs, and low monument-style for a freestanding sign and be architecturally-integrated into the
design of the building and site; 8) That on-site surveillance cameras be used and remain
operational; and 9) That security lighting be installed on the west side of the property, to be
directed toward the site, and mounted to not flood abutting neighborhood with light.
Housh Ghovaee, representative, said the car wash will be well landscaped and buffered
from single-family residences to the west. He said the City had contributed to clean up this
Brownfields site. He said the proposal is a good fit for the neighborhood.
Two people spoke in opposition to the request.
Mr. ReynoldS said Betty Lane, a north/south carrier street through the City, features
many different land uses. This site is zoned commercial. The project will enhance the
neighborhood. It was suggested other commercial uses, such as a liquor store, would have
worse consequences and that car washes are low on the list of dangerous uses. In response to
Community Development 2004-09-21
21
.
.
.
a concern, Mr. Gerlock suggested conditions could require deterrent lighting and prohibit light
infusion into the abutting residential neighborhood. It was recommended surveillance cameras
be required.
Mr. Ghovaee agreed to the recommendations for lighting and surveillance cameras. He
said it is proposed that the car wash will remain open 24 hours a day, with limits on the hours
vacuums can be used. It was suggested criminal activity is less likely in a lighted environment
at night than behind a darkened office building. It was noted the neighborhood is in transition,
with the recent opening of a nearby fire station.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item G4, Case: FLD2004-04032 for 1410 Betty
Lane with bases of approval and conditions of approval as listed above. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did not vote.
H.LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Items 1 - 2)
1. Case: FLD2004-04026 - 850 Bayway Boulevard
Owner/Applicant: Decade Properties, Inc. (Jeff Keierleber, President, N19W24130
Riverwood Drive, #100, Waukesha, WI 53188; phone 727-461-2921).
Location: 0.66 acre located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 600
feet east of the intersection of Gulf Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 285B.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development approval of a development for 13 multi-family residential units
and six hotel units with a reduction of the front (south) setback along Bayway Boulevard from 15
feet to 6.03 feet (to pavement), and a building height increase from 35 feet to 49 feet from base
flood elevation (plus roof appurtenances), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Multi-family residential and overnight accommodations.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Beach Association (David MacNamee, 827 Mandalay
Ave., Clearwater, FL 33767; phone: 727-446-5801; email: dmacnav(Q>.att.net); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw(Q>.qte.net).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Leila Connor requested this item be continued on the grounds of due process. She said
the City's notice of this meeting was ineffective as it was mailed on the weekend of a tropical
storm and was not received by all nearby residents. She said this lack of notice negatively
affects the ability of all affected parties to be heard. She reviewed her efforts to discuss this
item with staff, indicating they were disrupted by a subsequent storm.
Ms. Dougall-Sides reviewed notice guidelines and said the City had correctly mailed and
published in the newspaper notices of this meeting. She opined a due process violation had not
occurred. Ms. Tarapani said a hurricane threat is not currently imminent.
Chair Hooper ruled that Ms. Connor's argument for continuance is not valid. Ms. Connor
objected to the ruling.
Community Development 2004-09-21
22
.
.
.
Mr. Reynolds reviewed the request. The 0.66-acre overall site, on the north side of
Bayway Boulevard, is approximately 600 feet east of the intersection of Gulf Boulevard. A hotel,
Charthouse Suites, is on the site, on Clearwater Bay.
The applicant proposes 13 attached units and six hotel suites within a 49-foot high
building. The maximum density for this site is 19 dwelling units, or 26 hotel rooms. The
proposed front setback reduction and building height increase are necessary in order to fit the
proposed mixed use of multi-family residential units and hotel units on this site. The only
setback reduction requested is minor (6.03 feet to back of curb at the front of the site)
considering that the setback to building is 20.21 feet. The DRC (Development Review
Committee) can consider building height deviations up to 50 feet. The application is before the
COB as a mixed use Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 18, 2004. The
Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application of a mixed
use development for 13 multi-family residential units and six hotel units with a reduction of the
front (south) setback, along Bayway Boulevard, from 15 feet to 6.03 feet (to pavement), and a
building height increase from 35 feet to 49 feet from base flood elevation (plus roof
appurtenances), as a Comprehensive InfHI Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C. with the following bases and conditions: Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal
complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project per Section 2-803.C; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code
including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; and 3) The development is
compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. AND
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the
conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the COB; 2) That all Fire Department
requirements be met prior to the issuance of any building permits; 3) That the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 303 standards for "marinas and boat yards" be met to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permits; 4) That all
Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits; 5) That
dumpster service with the City of Clearwater be arranged prior to building permit issuance; 6)
That the irrigation plan sheet be revised to the satisfaction of City Planning Staff, prior to any
building permit issuance; 7) That all storm water, water, and sewer design standards of the
Engineering Department be met prior building permit issuance; 8) Traffic impact fees are to be
determined and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy; 9) That the condominium plat be
recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 10) That boats moored at the
docks be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the condominiums and not be
permitted to be sub-leased separately from the condominiums; 11) That covered boat lifts be
prohibited (uncovered boat lifts may be reviewed at an administrative level provided that all
requirements of Section 3-601 are met); 12) That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of
the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 13) That floating and dock-supported
signage be permanently installed containing wording warning boaters of the existence of
protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity; and 14) That the monument sign be limited
to six feet in height and be consistent with the architecture and color of the building.
Richard Gillette, project architect, reviewed the project. He said the logia pool will be
trellised and open to direct sunlight on the northeast side of the building.
Community Development 2004-09-21
23
.
.
.
The design of the project was complimented. In response to a question, Mr. Gillette
anticipated the six overnight units will be sold as amenities to condominium units for use by
visiting guests. A small lobby with a desk is planned for guests with reservations. No hotel
amenities are planned, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, and laundry facilities. Guests will
use the same elevators as condominium owners. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said
hotel unit stays will be limited to 30 days.
Seven people spoke in opposition to the project.
In response to a request, Ms. Dougall-Sides reported those requesting party status
needed to be present at today's hearing. Discussion ensued regarding party status
qualifications. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported the City mails to those within 500 feet of a project
and the CDB previously has granted party status to people who live within 500 feet of a project.
Upon request, Member Gildersleeve moved to grant party status to Leila Connor. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did
not vote.
Ms. Connor objected to the board not granting party status to two individuals who are not
present. In response to a question, Ms. Connor said her building's height is 9 stories. It was
indicated the proposed project is four stories over parking.
Upon request, Member Gildersleeve moved to grant party status to Pat Ruzzo. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did
not vote.
In response to a question, Mr. Ruzzo said his condominium documents require a three-
month minimum for residential rentals and reported his building's height is 9 stories.
Upon request, Member Gildersleeve moved to grant party status to Richard Jeffrey. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did
not vote.
It was indicated the only requested allowances related to setbacks are due to staffs
recommendation that a parking space be added for deliveries.
Upon request, Member Gildersleeve moved to grant party status to David Connor. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy did
not vote.
Donald Patterson requested party status. In response to a question, he said he could
see the proposed project if he goes outside his unit.
Member Gildersleeve moved to grant party status to Donald Patterson. The motion was
duly seconded. Members Gildersleeve, Doran, Moran, and Milam, and Alternate Board Member
Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Johnson and Chair Hooper voted "Nay." Motion carried.
Upon request, Member Moran moved to grant party status to Sam Meo. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted.
Community Development 2004-09-21
24
.
.
.
In response to a question, Mr. Meo said his building's height is 9 stories. He said he did
not receive notice of this meeting.
Mr. Reynolds said the staff report is not flawed. The project complies with flexible
criteria regarding the mass and height of the building. Staff could have approved this project if
not for its mixed-use proposal and front setback reduction for the loading space. In the tourist
district, Code allows buildings as tall as 100 feet. This project is only 49 feet.
In response to a concern, Ms. Dougall-Sides said staff will review proposed impact costs
for accuracy.
Ms. Connor, with party status, questioned staff's assumptions that the fair market value
of neighboring properties would not decrease. The Chair disallowed the question. as it did not
address evidence presented during direct testimony.
In response to a question regarding staff's interpretation of Code, Ms. Dougall-Sides
reviewed the process to appeal CDB decisions. It was noted staff makes recommendations, not
decisions. In response to a concern regarding staff's assumptions related to fair market value,
Mr. Reynolds said completion of the staff report does not require an appraiser's expert opinion.
Jeff Keierleber, President of Decade Properties, Inc., reviewed letters of opposition,
stating all contain a common element. The subject property currently is developed with a motel.
The project includes a swimming pool. The requested parking space is not for fire trucks but will
permit delivery trucks to parkonsite, rather than in the street. He said the units will be more
expensive than others in the area. He said the project reduces the number of motel units onsite
from 26 to six. He will try to market the site's 27 boat slips. Unit owners may wish to purchase
more than one slip. Mr. Keierleber requested permission to rent boat slips to the Clearwater
Yacht Club, which is short of slips, if related parking can be contained on site. In response to a
question, Mr. Gerlock said staff had not considered that request.
Discussion ensued with the applicant and staff complimented for an excellent project
that meets Code requirements, and comments that this project meets the mark established in
Beach by Design, the architect presented a beautiful design, the project will benefit the City
overall, the site could support 19 condominiums or 26 hotel rooms, and the project is a good fit.
The developer and architect were commended for this project.
Alternate Member Dennehy moved to approve Item H1, Case: FLD20Q4-Q4026 for 850
Bayview Boulevard with bases of approval and conditions of approval as listed above. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted.
The Community Development Board recessed from 6:34 to 6:43 p.m.
Community Development 2004-09-21
25
.
.
.
2. Case: FLD2004-06042 - 279 Windward Passage
Owner: Quality Boats Inc.
Applicant: Harbour Watch L.L.C.
Representative: Jonnatti Architecture, Inc. (21021 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater, FL
33765; phone: 727-725-2724; fax: 727-725-2603; e-mail: mjonnatti@jarch.com).
Location: 1.45 acres located on the south side of Windward Passage, approximately 300
feet west of Island Way.
Atlas Page: 267B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit attached in the Commercial District with a
reduction in front (north) setback along Windward Passage to 6.6 feet (to pavement) and 26.12
feet (to building), a reduction in side (east) setback reduction to 22.75 feet (to building), a
reduction in rear (south) setback of 20 feet (to pool and cabana) and 53.56 feet to building, and
a reduction in side (west) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 22.74 feet (to building), and an
increase in building height to 85 feet from base flood elevation to midpoint of the roof, as part of
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sections 2-704.C.
Proposed Use: Multi-family residential development of 31 units.
Neighborhood Association: Islander Condominium Association (Rex Clark, 113 Island Way, Apt.
245, Clearwater, FL 33767); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President,
2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: Diw@Qte.net).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Chair Hooper declared a conflict of interest and left the dais.
Mr. Reynolds reviewed the request. The 1.45-acre overall site, on the south side of
Windward Passage, is approximately 300 feet west of Island Way. The site, on the south side
of Windward Passage, contains an existing large boat maintenance and storage yard, which
covers the entire site. An existing building houses boats. Boats also are stored outside. The
site also will include part of the existing Clearwater Marine Science Center lot, as a proposed
easement runs along the existing boat yard's west property line. The Clearwater Marine
Science Center abuts the site to the west and southwest. The Island Way Grill abuts the site to
the immediate east. Residential land use is to the north and Clearwater Harbor is to the south.
The applicant proposes 31 attached units within an 85-foot tall building in the
Commercial District. As attached residential units are not a permitted land use within the
Commercial District, the applicant seeks Flexible Development approval of a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project. The maximum density for this site is 34 dwelling units. At the
west side of the side, the applicant proposes a zero foot setback. A 40-foot ingress/egress
easement meets the property line at the west side of the site. A swimming pool and cabana are
proposed on the south side of the site. The site plan shows 65 vehicular parking spaces and
includes landscape and irrigation plans.
The proposed land use is not compatible with existing surrounding land uses and
zoning. The scale of this project appears to overwhelm the lot. The applicant has submitted a
written response to say that the project is compatible and that the scale does not overwhelm the
lot. The Commercial District does not permit attached residential development. Within the
applicant's response is a surrounding land use map that identifies The Villages at Island Estates
as an existing 4-story multifamily. A site visit found that The Village on Island Estates is two-
stories over parking.
Community Development 2004-09-21
26
.
.
.
The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting on August 18,
2004. The Planning Department recommends denial of the Flexible Development application to
permit 31 attached residential units with a front (north) setback of 6.6 feet (to pavement) and
26.12 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of 22.75 feet (to building), a rear (south) setback of
20 feet (to pool and cabana) and 53.56 feet to building, and a side (west) setback of zero feet
(to pavement) and 22.74 feet (to building), and a building height of 85 feet from Base Flood
Elevation to midpoint of the roof, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Sections 2-704.C. Bases for Denial: 1) The proposal does not comply
with the Flexible Development criteria per Section 2-704.C; 2) The proposal is not in compliance
with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913;
and 3) The development is not compatible with the surrounding area and will not enhance other
redevelopment efforts in the vicinity of the site location.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the applicant had not made a formal
request for a zoning change. Staff would not support rezoning the property based on the
pattern of development in the area.
Harry Cline, representative, said the applicant is not trying to circumvent zoning
requirements. He said the current commercial zoning is not appropriate. He reviewed the
history of the previous onsite marine operation, stating that enterprise was doomed to failure
once the moorings were lost after Island Grill's dock was approved. He said the proposed
project will provide a gateway to nearby residential development. The proposed density is less
than allowed. He said the stepped architectural design avoids mass and is compatible with the
area. He said staff had requested the developer discuss the project with the Clearwater
Aquarium to develop a common theme or plan for the area. From the aquarium, the project
acquired additional land, an easement, and a buffer. A gas light wall is planned around the
property. The aquarium has agreed to spend funds received for its property for improvements
and to improve its wall with wrought iron to match the project's wall.
Mr. Cline said nearby residents do not want the site to retain its commercial zoning. He
said Island Estates is self-sufficient and does not need additional commercial zoning. He said
the site is on a dead-end street and commercial development would be financially unfeasible.
He said the trend is toward residential development. Mr. Cline said the project will provide a
minimum of two parking spaces per unit, plus guest parking. The nearby restaurant is
considered to be a major amenity.
Michael Twitty, certified property appraiser, said the request represents the highest and
best use of the land. He indicated the demand for waterfront land is great while the supply is
limited. He said residential development provides the highest value for property. He said the
project is well designed and architecturally pleasing and will provide a significant upgrade to
Island Estates and the City. In response to a question, he did not see other commercial uses
for the site, now that it has lost its moorings.
Mark Jonnatti, architect, reviewed the project, which ranges from four to seven stories
above parking. He said this project differs from the arc of massive residential towers that
encircle Island Estates' commercial core. He said it would be reasonable to continue the arc to
include this residential project. He said the project would add to the area's vibrancy, mixing this
use with the nearby restaurant and aquarium. He reviewed the architecture of nearby
Community Development 2004-09-21
27
.
.
.
residential towers, noting their bulk, flat roofs, lack of stair stepping, average height of 100 feet,
and average density of 50 units per acre. He requested the board consider the SOO-foot radius
of the project to determine the community's character.
In response to a question, Mr. Cline said the property is under contract but said sale of
the property is not contingent on this approval.
Seven people spoke in support of the project.
Ms. Tarapani reviewed staff's opposition to the project, stating the City Council is
responsible for policy decisions, such as changing a property's zoning and land use. The COB
is not tasked with setting policy. A project's correct height and density are determined by the
site's zoning. In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the proposal seeks to use
comprehensive infill to avoid asking for a policy change related to the site's zoning. If the COB
approves the request, City Council approval of the site plan will not be necessary. She
estimated the normal process to change the site's zoning at six months. She recommended
COB approval be contingent upon City Council approval of a land use amendment and
rezoning.
Mr. Cline said the Code authorizes development of 24 units on the site. He said the
DCA (Florida Department of Community Affairs) would support the change because it reduces
density. He requested the board not punish the project due to a procedural issue.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said if the COB wishes to approve this item, she
requested they continue it to provide time for staff to draft conditions of approval.
It was felt residential development is the proper use for the site.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item H2, Case: FLD2004-06042 for 279 Windward
Passage without conditions. The motion was duly seconded.
Ms. Tarapani said staff needs to work with the applicant on some conditions of approval,
such as the driveway's width, the fire connection, etc.
In response to a question, Mr. Cline said he would accept a continuation only if the time is
necessary for staff to work on conditions of approval.
Member Johnson withdrew his motion. The seconder agreed.
It was indicated the item was being continued for the sole purpose of establishing
conditions of approval. It was requested that the entire presentation not be repeated. Ms.
Tarapani said if both sides agree to conditions of approval, the item could be placed on next
month's Consent Agenda.
Member Milam moved to continue to October 19, 2004, Item H2, Case: FLD2004-06042
for 279 Windward Passage, for the purpose of developing conditions of approval. The motion
was duly seconded. Members Doran, Gildersleeve, Moran, Milam, and Johnson and Alternate
Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye." Chair Hooper abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
Community Development 2004-09-21
28
.
.
.
I. LEVEL THREE APPLICATION: (Item 1)
1. Case: Amendments to Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan
Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request: Amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan making editorial
changes and clarifications to the Plan, changing references to Town Lake to Prospect Lake
Park, deleting certain references and holding places for the Design Guidelines, clarifying
transfer of development right provisions, adding adult uses as a prohibited use in the Downtown
Core character district, revising height provisions in the Old Bay and East Gateway character
districts, by clarifying development potential within the Town Lake Residential character district;
providing density limits for overnight accommodations in the East Gateway character district;
adding a new subsection to Chapter 3 providing Design Guidelines; amending Appendix 2 -
Downtown Milestones and adding an Appendix 9 Design Guidelines Glossary.
Neighborhood Associations: Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association (Rowland Milam,
1844 Venetian Point Drive, Clearwater, FL 33755 phone: 727-443-3227); Gateway Neighbors
(Paul Charles, 1367 Park Street, 33756; phone: 813-205-8779); Pierce 100 Condominium
Association (Terry Turner, 100 Pierce Street #710 Clearwater, FL 33756); Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761;
phone: 727-725-3345; email: Djw@gte.net<mailto:Djw@gte.net>).
Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner II.
Planner Mark Parry reviewed the request. The City Council approved the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan (hereafter referred to as the Plan) on September 18, 2003,
through the adoption of Ordinance #7153-03. Amendments were made to the Plan on
December 4,2004 (Ordinance #7231-03) to address issues identified by the BCC (Board of
County Commissioners). The Board approved the Plan as the Redevelopment Plan for
Downtown on December 16, 2003, and authorized the City to use the County's portion of the tax
increment for the expanded Community Redevelopment Area on February 3, 2004. The Plan
became effective on February 3, 2004, when the CPA (Countywide Planning Authority)
approved it.
At the time the Plan was approved, the design guidelines were not complete.
References to the guidelines were included in the Goals, Objectives and Policies section of
Chapter 3 and a subsection was included in each character district that indicated that the
guidelines would be added to the Plan at a later date. Proposed Ordinance #7323-04 amends
the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan to include the Design Guidelines, as well as
several minor amendments identified by the Planning Department to clarify certain provisions or
provide missing information,
The CDB (Community Development Board) is reviewing the proposed amendments in its
capacity as the LPA (Local Planning Agency) and is requested to make a recommendation
regarding the amendments to the City Council. The CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency)
is requested to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the amendments to the
Redevelopment Plan. Once approved by the City Council, these amendments will be submitted
to the BCC for approval as amendments to the Redevelopment Plan. They will also be
submitted to the PPC (Pinellas Planning Council) and the CPA for approval as amendments to
the Special Area Plan governing Downtown.
Community Development 2004-09-21
29
.
.
.
A total of 13 amendments are proposed to the Plan and are contained in three exhibits
attached to Ordinance #7343-04. These amendments add the design guidelines to the Plan,
make minor editorial amendments, and clarify transfer of development right provisions and
development potential in the East Gateway. The amendments also include revisions to
Appendix 9 and the addition of a new appendix that provides a design guideline glossary.
Amendment summary: 1) Amendment 1 - Revise final paragraph of Vision of Plan
section in Chapter 3 Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan. This proposed amendment corrects
a grammatically incorrect sentence and does not change the content of the paragraph or the
Vision of the Plan; 2) Amendment 2 - Add clarification regarding Transfer of Development
Rights to Policy 7 in the Goals, Objectives and Policies section in Chapter 3 Land Use
Plan/Redevelopment Plan. To be consistent with the Countywide Rules, this proposed
amendment clarifies that transfer of development rights used in areas of the Downtown that do
not have a Future Land Use Plan classification of CBD (Central Business District) cannot
increase permitted density by more than 20 percent. Those areas that have a designation of
CBD are not restricted to any percentage. As indicated when the Plan was originally adopted, a
Community Development Code amendment will need to be made that allows the Plan to govern
transfer of development rights for properties designated CBD; 3) Amendments 3, 4 and 5 -
Delete certain references to the Design Guidelines in Chapter 3 Land Use Plan/Redevelopment
Plan. When the Plan originally was adopted it was expected that Design Guidelines would be
written for and inserted into each character district. Contrary to that premise, the Design
Guidelines have been written to apply to all character districts and will be inserted into Chapter
3 Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan as a separate, self-contained subsection. Proposed
Amendment 3 deletes the Design Guidelines Section on page 54 of the Plan in its entirety.
Amendment 4 deletes all references to the Downtown Guidelines subsection in each character
district and proposed Amendment 5 deletes a reference to the design guidelines on page 55 of
the Downtown Character District section; 4) Amendment 6 - Change all references to the Town
Lake to Prospect Lake Park in all text and graphics throughout the Plan. (The name of the
Town Lake Residential and Town Lake Business Park character districts will remain the same).
At the time the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was adopted, the official name of
the downtown stormwater facility was not yet finalized but was referred to as Town Lake. The
name of this facility is now officially Prospect Lake Park. All references in text and graphics will
reflect this change. The names of the Town Lake Residential and Town Lake Business Park
character districts, however, will remain the same; 5) Amendment 7 - Amend list of prohibited
uses within the Downtown Core character district of Chapter 3 Land Use Plan/Redevelopment
Plan. Based on a recommendation from the DDB (Downtown Development Board), adult uses
were prohibited throughout the entire Downtown area. This use inadvertently was left out of the
prohibited use subsection of the Downtown Core character district and proposed Amendment 7
corrects this; 6) Amendment 8 - Delete an unnecessary word within the South Gateway
character district of Chapter 3 Land Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan. Amendment 8 corrects a
typographical error on page 67 of the Plan. The word "Avenue" appears twice in a row and the
second reference is proposed to be deleted; 7) Amendment 9 - Revise the intensity standards
by adding permitted heights for multi-family buildings and permitted density for overnight
accommodations within the East Gateway character district of Chapter 3 Land Use
Plan/Redevelopment Plan. Proposed Amendment 9 makes two revisions to the East Gateway
character district intensity provisions. One adds a density standard for hotel uses of 40 hotel
units per acre for the portion of the district that has an underlying Future Land Use Designation
of CBD. Pursuant to the 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the allowable
density was 70 units per acre. The amendment also adds a maximum height allowance of 50
Community Development 2004-09-21
30
.
.
.
feet for multi-family buildings that was not included in the original Plan. This proposal is
consistent with the height allowance of 50 feet for office uses and 35 feet for commercial uses;
8) Amendment 10 - Revise Downtown Milestones to reflect correct County approval dates
within Appendix 2 Downtown Milestones of the Actions and Public Review of this
Redevelopment Plan. Due to the fact that the review and approval process of the Plan did not
follow the schedule set forth in Appendix 2, certain dates need to be corrected. Also, the
amendment the Council made to the Plan pursuant to Ordinance #7231-04 was not included
and Amendment 10 adds this to the Appendix; 9) Amendment 11 - Amend the table of contents
as necessary and repaginate as necessary to implement the amendments in Ordinance #7343-
04. The addition of the Design Guidelines and AppendiX 9 will necessitate the revision of the
Table of Contents and the renumbering of all pages subsequent to the Design Guidelines; 10)
Amendment 12 - Add Downtown Design Guidelines as a new subsection within Chapter 3 Land
Use Plan/Redevelopment Plan. To ensure that public and private development projects
implement the Goals, Objectives, Polices and Character District visions of the Downtown Plan,
new Design Guidelines were developed to be incorporated into the Plan. To assist in the
development of these Guidelines, a steering committee was formed with representatives from
the Main Street Committee, Downtown Development Board, Chamber of Commerce, affected
neighborhood associations, business owners, local architects and contractors. This Committee
met on a regular basis between December 2003 and June 2004 to develop provisions that
require quality design and the use of quality materials while also providing for design flexibility.
The Design Guidelines are organized into four subsections: purpose and applicability; new
construction; the rehabilitation of designated historic structures; and signs and miscellaneous.
An explanation of the general and specific design principles promoted by each aspect of the
Guidelines is included, as well as a series of statements describing appropriate and
inappropriate design solutions to implement those principles. Photographs and drawings are
also included to illustrate acceptable and unacceptable design solutions. This approach values
creativity and allows for numerous design solutions for any particular project. The Planning
Department presented each subsection of the Guidelines during their development to the City
Council for review and comment. The Steering Committee and Planning Department finalized
the Guidelines and included some additions and minor changes to the New Construction,
Rehabilitation of Designated Historic Structures and the Signs and Miscellaneous sections that
have not been reviewed by the City Council. These revisions include: a) Clarification and
strengthening of some of the language; b) Additional guidelines for wireless communication
facilities; c) Guidelines requiring the use of certain building materials; d) Guidelines specific for
office development in the Old Bay District, east of Garden Avenue; and e) A Glossary. The
Planning Department is recommending one substantive revision that was not reviewed by the
Committee that relates to freestanding signs. The provision reviewed by the Committee
prohibited freestanding signs on properties where the building is located 15 feet or closer to a
front property line. The Planning Department is recommending that this distance by increased
to 20 feet. This requirement can be found on page 140 of the Guidelines within the Signs and
Miscellaneous section; and 11) Amendment 13 - Add a new Appendix 9 entitled "Design
Guidelines Glossary." The proposed Design Guidelines Glossary Appendix defines and explains
a variety of terms found within the Design Guidelines that many readers may find unfamiliar.
The glossary is intended to assist users and does not contain any regulations.
The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Ordinance #7343-04 provides for the
addition of the Downtown Design Guidelines and a Design Guidelines Glossary to the Plan. It
also makes minor editorial changes and clarifies and expands existing provisions with regard to
Community Development 2004-09-21
31
.
.
.
the renaming of the Town Lake to Prospect Lake Park, transfer of development rights,
prohibited uses within the Downtown Core and development potential in the East Gateway
character district.
The Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance #7343-04, which amends
the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Planning Department also recommends
the ordinance be revised on first reading to include an Exhibit that would add an Appendix 10,
entitled City of Clearwater Representative Downtown Architecture. This appendix would provide
additional supporting graphics requested by the City Council to guide new construction within
the Downtown Core along Cleveland Street between Myrtle and Osceola Avenues and on Fort
Harrison Avenue between Drew and Chestnut Streets, as required in the New Construction
provisions of the Design Guidelines.
In response to a question, Mr. Parry referenced page 81, indicating the bottom two
examples are inappropriate. It was noted the only substantive issue in the amendments relates
to monument signage. It was indicated these amendments had been forwarded in three parts to
the City Council and CDB for review.
Member Gildersleeve moved to recommend approval of Item 11, Amendments to
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted.
J. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
Ms. Tarapani reported staff will schedule a CDB review of Downtown design guidelines.
K. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Attest:
~ alf\i~ Pi~
oard Reporter
Community Development 2004-09-21
32
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
T NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME ~
Y. e V
[J OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
[J ELECTIVE
~INTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
es to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
re which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the speciaf private gain or loss of a Business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
.OU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly.at the next meeting after. the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days a(ter the vote occurs with the person.responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, ~~ ~ ~. \\~~~f-
, hereby disclose that on
~I~
'20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
~red to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
, by
,which
~ ~1-4:> ~~'\- ()~ a ~ ~~ ~'\.-- ~~~\
---\~~">L ~~~ ~""€. ~~ ~€. ~~1 ~Wfl~
~ ~ ~~~\:I.\. \ J ~ ~~\~';J ~~\S. ~(:I""
~~ "\)~ ~ <\~~ ~ \ ~~~~ )
~ ~~~ ~\>~\J:.~~,
~
Date Filed
~\ 1 ~~~
~'
S;gnature ~
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A..
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
[J OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
[J ELECTIVE
~OINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local pUblic office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
res to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
re which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary .o{ a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain ar loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
OU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88. EFF. 112000
PAGE 1
/
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 pays after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, ~~\.~ \) .~~f~ ,herebydisclosethaton .s~{. ~\
,20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
~red to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
, by
, which
~~ ~~ ~~'-\- C~~~ ~ ~~~ ~\\~
~~'\ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~f&\}~\.
% ~~ ~ ~'& ~~ I \. ~~~ ~ \ \)""
~c;:.~~ ~ "\~~ ~W\\~
~~'\. ~. J~~~~
Date Filed
~
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 112000
PAGE 2
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
~.
~~
I:l OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
I:l ELECTIVE
~INTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local pUblic office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
res to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
re which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. COl1'lInissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, .
mother-in-law, son~in-Iaw, and daughter-in"law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock eXChange).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
OU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88. EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A. copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, ~~\.""' 1) '~'GL
, hereby disclose that on
~. ~\.)
.20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
~red to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
, by
, which
~~ '\~ ~~'\- ~\(J~,\~ ~~ ~~ ~
~~\ "\)f'.N~t\'-.~~ ~~~ ~ ~W~'\\~~, \\s
~ ~~~) t ~~ \~l\:S~~*re
\; ~\':>'-\~ ~\;~ ~~~~ ~'\ ,,~ ~\\~$\
~.~~\l~~
Date Filed 1
zQ~~
Signature -
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: September 21.. 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
100 Coronado Drive & 201, 215 and 219
~es
FLD2004-02013
Antonios Markopoulos
no
Signature:
S:\Planning Departm
Date: 9/1.'0 f 7JLf
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: September 21~ 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
100 Coronado Drive & 201,215 and 219 FLD2004-02013 Antonios Markopou1os
/
yes no
~61 ~ '~~t
~},2ff7, Z''1 6wftr~ 7/l-
t;O~ ~ 7r'
qu f/JI-CA .
I~{O Wf1 ~
~ ~~.
V77 r)J~~
Signature:
S:\Planning Departme D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
Date:q(u( P1
L..___