10/19/2004
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 19,2004
Present: John Doran
David Gildersleeve
Shirley Moran
Alex Plisko
Kathy Milam
J. B. Johnson
Daniel Dennehy
Empty Seat
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member
Board Member
Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides
Cyndi Tarapani
Frank Gerlock
Brenda Moses
Assistant City Attorney
Planning Director
Development Review Manager
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
.
Member Moran moved to appoint Member Gildersleeve as Chair. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Milam moved to appoint Member Plisko as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: September 21,2004
Member Johnson moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September
21,2004, as submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
E. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (to November 16, 2004 Meeting) (Items 1-3):
1.
Case: FLD2004-02010 - 503 Marshall Street Level Two Application
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 acre 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
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
1
.
.
.
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; email:
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.
Development Review Manager Frank Gerlock said the applicant is out of the country and
requests a continuance.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to continue Item #E1, Case FLD2004-02010,
for 503 Marshall Street to November 16, 2004. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously;
2.
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2004-07052 - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 and 304
Coronado Drive (Related to DV A2004-00002)
Owners: Clearwater Seashell Resort, L.C.
Applicant: Taub Properties, Inc.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036;
email: nestech@mindsprinq.com).
Location: 1.63 acres between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive at Third
Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development application to amend a previously approved FL 01-01-
01 (COB approved on February 20, 2001) to permit an additional 24 overnight
accommodation units from the density pool (in addition to the previously approved 250
overnight accommodation units) as a mixed use, with a maximum of 70,000 square-feet
of amenities accessory to the hotel and a minimum of 400 public parking spaces, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Hotel of 250 rooms (153.37 rooms/acre on total site), 18 attached
dwellings (11.04 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 70,000 square-feet (0.98
FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to 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).
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
2
.
AND
3.
.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Level Three Application
Case: DVA2004-00002 - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230,300 and 304
Coronado Drive (Related to FLD2004-07052)
Owners: Clearwater Seashell Resort, L.C.
Applicant: Taub Properties, Inc.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036;
email: nestech@mindsprina.com).
Location: 1.63 acres between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive at Third
Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of an amended
Development Agreement between Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, (the property owner)
and the City of Clearwater (previously approved DA 01-01-01 by City Council on March
1,2001).
Proposed Use: Hotel of 250 rooms (153.37 rooms/acre on total site), 18 attached
dwellings (11.04 units/acre on total site) and a maximum of 70,000 square-feet (0.98
FAR on total site) of amenities accessory to the hotel, at a height of 150 feet (to 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.
Ms. Tarapani said the applicant requests a month continuance to resolve outstanding
development agreement issues.
Member Gildersleeve moved to continue Item #E2, Case FLD2004-07052 for 229 and
301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230,300 and 304 Coronado Drive (Related to DVA2004-
00002); and Item #E3, Case DVA2004-00002 for 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and
230, 300 and 304 Coronado Drive (Related to FLD2004-07052, to November 16, 2004. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
F. CONSENT AGENDA:
.
Mr. Gerlock reviewed staff changes to Consent Agenda Items #8 and #9.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani reported staff and the applicant had reviewed
conditions for Consent Agenda Items #11 and #12. Conditions were based on COB (Community
Development Board) direction.
1.
Case: ANX2004-0701 0 - 1705 Thomas Drive
Level Three Application
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
3
.
Owner/Applicant/Representative: Jason Stewart, 1705 Thomas Drive, Clearwater, FL
33759; phone: 727-797-4650.
Location: 0.385 acre on the east side of Thomas Drive approximately 150 feet north of
State Road 590.
Atlas Page: 264A.
Request:
(a) Annexation of 0.385 acre and 0.34 acre of abutting Thomas Drive right-of-way to the
(City of Clearwater).
(b) Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater).
(c) Rezoning from R3, Single-Family (County) to Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR) District (City of Clearwater).
Proposed Use: Single-family home.
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams,
President, 2544 Frisco Drive, Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email:
Diw@qte.net); Virginia Groves (Paula Clemens, 1746 Saint Croix Drive, Clearwater, FL
33759; phone 727-669-1730).
Presenter: Mark Parry, Planner III.
.
The applicant requests this annexation to receive sanitary sewer and solid waste
service. This annexation involves a 0.385-acre property consisting of one parcel on the east
side of Thomas Drive, approximately 150 feet north of SR 590. The property is within an
enclave and is contiguous with City boundaries to the south; therefore, the proposed annexation
is consistent with Florida Statutes with regard to voluntary annexation. It is proposed that the
abutting Thomas Drive right-of-way, not currently within the City limits, also be annexed. Itis
proposed the property have a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential Low (RL) and a
zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The Planning Department recommends approval of the following action on the request:
1) Annexation of 0.385 acre and 0.34 acre of abutting Thomas Drive right-of-way to the City of
Clearwater; 2) Land Use Plan amendment from Residential Low (RL) Category (County) to
Residential Low (RL) Category (City of Clearwater); and 3) Rezoning from R3, Single-Family
Residential District (County) to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District (City of
Clearwater).
In response to a question, Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton said this item
does not request spot-zoning. A 2000 charter amendment allows noncontiguous annexation of
property in an enclave.
See page 34 for motion of approval.
2.
Case: FLD2004-06046 - 205,209 and 214 Brightwater Drive Leve/ 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:
billwoods@woodsconsultinq.orq).
Location: 0.594 acre located at the eastern terminus of Brightwater Drive,
approximately 1,700 feet east of Harnden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
4
.
.
.
Request: Flexible Development to permit a multi-use dock, under the 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: 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.
At the applicant's request, the CDB had continued this case on September 21,2004.
The 0.594-acre site is at the eastern terminus of Brightwater Drive, 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 CDB
approved Case FLD2003-06027/TDR2003-06003 with 13 conditions to redevelop the upland
portion of this site with 20 attached dwellings (condominiums). Five existing docks, which under
prior approval were to be retained, 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 approved as
part of a Level Two, Flexible Development review. The proposal includes removal of the docks
and construction of two docks, totaling 2,478 square-feet for 14 slips for use by owners/tenants
of the condominiums.
The proposal is to construct the 14 slips in two docks due to the existence of
seagrasses. The northern dock is proposed with six slips, while the southern dock is proposed
with eight slips. Slips for both docks will be accessed by walkouts to avoid impact to 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 seagrasses 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. 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 seagrasses.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) requires a minimum
three feet water depth at mean low water for boats in the slips. All slips have at least 3.5feet of
water depth (most have greater depth). The width of the waterway at this location is
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
5
.
approximately 369 feet. Based on the proposed design of the two docks, there are no issues
regarding seagrasses. While there are no issues regarding navigation with the proposal, since
this site is at the end of the land finger it is suggested that lights be installed on the ends of the
docks to make the docks more visible to recreational boaters and slip owners locating their slips
at night. All other criteria for docks have been met.
The Development Review Committee 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 Approval: 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.
.
Conditions of Approval: 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
submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement
of construction.
See pages 32 and 33 for motion of approval.
3. Case: FLD2004-07049 - 674 Bayway Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: The Moorings Town Homes II, LLC.
Representative: Bill Woods, Woods Consulting, Inc. (322 Ridge Road, Palm Harbor, FL
34683: phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email:
billwoods@woodsconsultinq.orq).
Location: 0.33 acre on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 700 feet
west of Gulf Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 285A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development to permit a multi-use dock, under the provisions of
Section 3-601.
Proposed Use: Construction of a 740 square-foot multi-use dock for six slips, with each
dock measuring 40 feet in length from the seawall (in association with an approved six-
unit townhome project).
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.
.
The 0.33-acre site is on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, approximately 700 feet
west of Gulf Boulevard, within the South Beach/Clearwater Pass District of Beach By Design,
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
6
.
.
.
which is a distinctive area of mixed uses, including high-rise condominiums, resort hotels and
commercial uses. Beach by Design contemplates this District will be an area of strategic
revitalization and renovation in response to improving conditions on the balance of Clearwater
Beach. On January 21, 2003, the CDB Board approved Cases FLD2002-11 038/PL T2002-
11002 with eight conditions to develop the upland portion of this site with six attached dwellings
(townhomes). The site contains an 11-foot wide deck over the water extending the full width of
the property with four existing docks, which under the prior approval was to be retained,
unchanged.
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 the removal of the
existing deck and docks and the construction of three docks, totaling 816 square-feet for six
slips for use by the owners/tenants of the townhomes.
The proposal is to construct the three docks in line with the common lot line between two
units, allowing shared use of each dock by two town home owners. Tie poles are proposed on
the east and west sides of the overall property at a one-foot setback, meeting Code
requirements. The easternmost and westernmost docks are proposed 16 feet from the property
lines. A minimum side setback of 12.28 feet is required for the docks. The reduced setback is
primarily to dock wings that are seven feet by eight feet adjacent to the seawall, which are used
as an area for dock boxes, electric pedestals and hose racks. Each slip is a minimum of 15 feet
wide. Code dock provisions limit the width of docks to a maximum of 75% of the lot width, or
92.1 feet in this case. The proposed overall dock width is 73.4% of the lot width (90.24 feet).
Code provisions restrict dock length to a maximum of 75% of the lot width (92.1 feet). The three
docks are proposed to be 40 feet in length from the seawall. 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 sea
grasses (if any).
SWFWMD requires a minimum three feet water depth at mean low water for boats in the
slips. All of the slips will have 32 feet of the dock usable due to water depth. The width of the
waterway at this location is approximately 740 feet. There are no issues regarding sea grasses
or navigation with the proposal and the 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 Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on September 9, 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
674 Bayway Boulevard, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 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.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That boats moored at the docks be for the exclusive use by
the residents and/or guests of the townhomes and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately
from the town homes; 2) That dock-supported signage be permanently installed containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity;
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
7
.
.
.
and 3) That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof
of permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to commencement of construction.
See pages 32 and 33 for motion of approval.
4.
Case: FLD2004-07051 - 130 Brightwater Drive Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Brightwater Cove LLC.
Representative: Bill Woods, Woods Consulting, Inc. (322 Ridge Road, Palm Harbor, FL
34683: phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email:
billwoodsCQ>.woodsconsultina. ora).
Location: 0.526 acre on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 450 feet east
of Harnden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a multi-use dock for nine slips with a
reduction to the side (east) setback from 17.9 feet to seven feet, a reduction to the side
(west) setback from 17.9 feet to nine feet and an increase to the width of the dock from
75 percent of the lot width (134 feet) to 90.5 percent of the lot width (162 feet), under the
provisions of Section 3-601.
Proposed Use: Construction of a 1700 square-foot multi-use dock for nine slips, with
each dock measuring a maximum of 58.9 feet in length from the seawall (in association
with an approved nine-unit townhome project).
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>.ate.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
The 0.526-acre site is on the north side of Brightwater Drive, approximately 450 feet east
of Hamden Drive. The site is located 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 April 15, 2003, the CDB
approved Cases FLD2003-02007/PL T2003-00001 with nine conditions to develop the upland
portion of this site with nine attached dwellings (townhomes). There are three existing docks,
which under the prior approval was to be retained, unchanged.
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 the removal of the
existing docks and the construction of five docks totaling.1 ,700 square-feet for nine slips for use
by the owners/tenants of the townhomes.
The proposal is to construct the five docks/catwalks in line with the common lot line
between two units, allowing shared use of each dock/catwalk by two townhome owners, with the
exception of a single-use dock on the east side of the property. Tie poles are proposed on the
east and west sides of the overall property at a one-foot setback, meeting Code requirements.
The easternmost dock/catwalk is proposed seven feet from the east property line, while the
westernmost dock/catwalk is proposed nine feet from the west property line. A minimum side
setback of 17.9 feet is required for the docks/catwalks. The reduced setback is primarily to dock
wings, which are used as an area for dock boxes, electric pedestals and hose racks. Most slips
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
8
.
.
.
are a minimum of 16.3 feet wide, with the eastern slip 14.6 feet wide and the west slip 17.1 feet
wide. Code dock provisions limit the width of docks to a maximum of 75% of the lot width, or
134 feet in this case. The proposed overall dock width is 90.5% of the lot width (162 feet).
Code provisions restrict dock length to a maximum of 75% of the lot width (134 feet). The five
docks are proposed to be between 56 and 59 feet in length from the seawall, depending on the
location of the curvature of the seawall. 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 sea grasses (if
any).
SWFWMD requires a minimum three feet water depth at mean low water for boats in the
slips. Most of the slips will have 30 feet of the dock usable due to water depth, with the
exception of the easternmost dock, which will only have an effective (usable) length of 18 feet
due to the existence of a sparse sea grass bed. Pilings will be installed for this easternmost
dock to protect the sea grass bed from the moored boat. The width of the waterway at this
location is approximately 500 feet. There are no issues regarding navigation with the proposal
and the 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 Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on September 9, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit a multi-use dock for nine slips with a reduction to the side
(east) setback from 17.9 feetto seven feet, a reduction to the side (west) setback from 17.9 feet
to nine feet and an increase to the width of the dock from 75 percent of the lot width (134 feet)
to 90.5 percent of the lot width (162 feet), under the provisions of Section 3-601, for the site at
130 Brightwater Drive, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 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.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That boats moored at the docks be for the exclusive use by
the residents and/or guests of the town homes and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately
from the town homes; 2) That dock-supported signage be permanently installed containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity;
and 3) That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof
of permission to use State submerged land, if applicable, be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to commencement of construction.
See pages 32 and 33 for motion of approval.
5.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2004-04027 - 400 Mandalay Avenue Level Two Application
Owners: Interstate Hotels and Resorts.
Applicant: Continental Design and Supplies, LLC.
Representative: Thomas W. Kensler (700 Central Avenue, Suite 200, St. Petersburg,
FL 33701; phone: 727-823-0220; fax: 727-822-7533; e-mail:
tkensler@csimarchitects.com).
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
9
.
Location: 5.595 acres located on the west side of Mandalay Avenue, between the
Clearwater Beach Roundabout and Papaya Street.
Atlas Page: 267 A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a reduction to the number of parking
spaces from 445 to 324 spaces at an existing overnight accommodation and retail sales
use (Hilton Hotel), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-803.C.
Proposed Use: Elimination of 35 existing parking spaces in conjunction with
improvements to an existing hotel (Hilton).
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.
.
The 5.595-acre site (area above the CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line); 10.03
acres overall including the beach area) is on the west side of Mandalay Avenue, between the
Clearwater Beach Roundabout and Papaya Street, along a highly developed area within
Clearwater beach and has frontage along the Gulf of Mexico. The site is within the Destination
Resort District of Beach By Design, which represents the primary opportunity for near-term
redevelopment on Clearwater Beach because of the relative strength of the Hilton and the
Clearwater Beach Hotel and the opportunity for beachfront resort development with direct beach
access. The preferred form of redevelopment for this area is mixed use with resort residential
and hospitality uses fronting on the beach and retail, restaurant and residential uses fronting on
North Mandalay Avenue.
The site currently is developed with a 12-story Hilton Hotel of 425 rooms, which is
nonconforming to density standards. Based on the current density limitations of 40 units/room
per acre and on 5.595 acres above theCCCL, a maximum of 223 units/rooms would be
permitted today on this site. A Development Order was issued on April 16, 2004, for Flexible
Standard Development approval to repaint the existing hotel and augment an existing deck on
the northwest portion of the building with awnings and landscaping (Case FLS2004-03015).
There are 359 existing, on-site parking spaces.
The proposal includes renovation of the parking area south of the hotel building to
provide a more tropical/resort environment to enhance the hotel's appearance and the
pedestrian experience along Mandalay Avenue. Redesign of the southern parking lot is
intended to provide a more direct, clear and appealing approach to the porte cochere. This
redesign also allows vehicles to enter under the porte cochere, then turn into the parking lot or
exit the site without entering the parking lot. Vehicular circulation within the parking area will no
longer interfere with the traffic flow of this northern drive aisle adjacent to the south side of the
building, reducing congestion in front of and around the porte cochere. Three gates, currently
controlling entry into the parking lot, will be eliminated. Handicap parking spaces under the
building also will be reconfigured to meet current Code requirements. New pavers or stamped
concrete will be added to the porte cochere, as well as new tile for many pedestrian walk areas.
.
The proposal includes the reduction of on-site parking by 35 spaces from 359 to 324
parking spaces. Current Code provisions require 425 parking spaces. A parking study was
conducted which indicates adequate parking is available within a reasonable walking distance of
the Hilton to support the reduction in on-site parking spaces.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
10
.
.
.
While much of the existing southern parking lot is not proposed to change, prior to the
issuance of any site improvement permit, the dimensions of the parking lot will to be verified and
shown on the site plan to ensure compliance with Code requirements.
The applicant has not proposed any changes to the northern parking lot. However,
based on site inspection, the northern boundary of the site currently has no landscaping other
than grass. This approximate nine-foot wide area should be improved with a hedge, ground
cover, and trees to further complement improvements to other areas of the site.
A Comprehensive Sign Program (SGN2004-04022) to replace existing attached signage
with updated colors, Hilton lettering, and logo has been approved. The freestanding signage in
the southeast corner will be updated, but will be a face change not requiring a permit.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on July 8, 2004, and September 9, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of
the Flexible Development application to permit a reduction to the number of parking spaces
from 445 to 324 spaces at an existing overnight accommodation use, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, for the site at 400 Mandalay
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 2-803.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.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any site improvement permit, the
dimensions of the parking lot be verified and shown on the site plan to ensure compliance with
Code requirements and 2) That prior to the issuance of any site improvement permit, the site
plan be revised to show improvement of the northern landscape area along Papaya Street with
a hedge, ground cover and trees acceptable to the Planning Department.
Senior Planner Wayne Wells distributed correct information regarding the parking study.
The Traffic Department has reviewed and accepted the parking analysis. The facility is being
painted.
Concern was expressed that the parking study done in May was not during peak season
and did not consider 100% occupancy or large events. Mr. Wells said accessory function space is
considered accessory to the hotel and requires no additional parking required. Even with 100%
occupancy, the site does not have adequate parking. Staff meets with firms working on parking
studies to establish parameters, based on the time of year, rather than delaying projects and
performing parking studies only during peak season. Mr. Wells said during large functions, hotel
patrons probably park off site. In response to a question, Mr. Wells said he is not aware if the
applicant has considered building a parking garage.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the site has 359 parking spaces, requires 445,
and currently is deficient 121 spaces. The applicant requests reducing the number of spaces by
an additional 35, for a total of 324. Concern was expressed the hotel cannot provide sufficient
parking spaces for hotel guests. Mr. Wells said not all the parking spaces are used, as some
guests use airport shuttles and do not rent cars.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
11
.
Tom Kensler, project architect, said the parking study was based on City criteria and was
approved by the City's Traffic Engineering Department. He confirmed a discrepancy in the study
regarding the required number of spaces. He said the study was done was because the hotel is
operated under the Hilton flag. The Hilton chain required property improvements, including
enhancing internal circulation of the south parking lot, increasing landscaping on the property's
approach, and reconfiguring and enhancing the entrance to the port cochere. He said the City's
Traffic Engineers had assured him the plan would meet City requirements, because off-site
parking spaces were available nearby.
Concern was expressed that removing onsite parking spaces could be detrimental to the
community. In response to a question, Mr. Kensler said off-site parking is within 1 ,OOO-feet of the
property. He said visitors also use the bus transit system. He said onsite parking is never 100%
occupied. He said the study was done on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, peak days, and a
number of parking spaces were available. The hotel also provides valet parking service for
unloading. Valet drivers do not park vehicles off-site. Mr. Kensler saidduring a busy weekend if
all parking was full, hotel guests could use four off-site parking lots, such as at the Pier. He
reported hotel employees park off-site.
Concern was expressed that the City continues to grant variances to parking requirements,
as weekend parking on the beach is inadequate, especially during peak times. Mr. Kensler said
the parking study was rescheduled twice, to provide a rendering of normal usage. He said Hilton
could pull the franchise if the hotel does not meet corporate requirements. He said there are no
plans to build a parking garage on site. He said the hotel maintains 85% occupancy year-round.
.
Concern was expressed removal of parking also would affect residents, beachgoers, and
those patronizing area businesses. It was stated a previous parking study indicated beach
parking is full only 65 days of the year.
One person spoke in opposition to the request.
Mr. Wells said the hotel plans to remove a row of parking adjacent to Mandalay Avenue
and some handicapped parking spaces underneath the building. A six-foot landscaping area may
provide additional parking.
Discussion ensued with comments that there is not ample parking at the beach; public
opposition would have occurred if more were aware of the proposal; the plan is unrealistic; new
projects require one space per room; other beach business use off-site parking; and hotel parking
is already deficient.
Alternate Board Member Dennehy moved to deny Item #F5, Case FLD2004-04027 for
400 Mandalay Avenue. The motion was duly seconded. Members Doran, Gildersleeve,
Moran, Plisko, Milam and Alternate Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Johnson voted
"Nay." Motion carried.
6. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2004-07055/SGN2004-08001 - 601 Old Coachman Road
Level Two Application
Owners/Applicants: City of Clearwater and Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
12
.
Representative: Kevin Dunbar, Director, Parks and Recreation Department (100 South
Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-562-4800; email:
kdu nbar@mvclearwater.com).
Location: 41.708 acres between US Highway 19 N and Old Coachman Road
approximately 750 north of Drew Street and on the west side of Old Coachman Road
between Drew Street and Sharkey Road.
Atlas Page: 281B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C), Open Space/Recreation (OSR), Institutional (I) and
Preservation (P).
Request: Flexible Development application to amend a previously approved FLD2002-
07021A (COB approved on April 15, 2003) to eliminate landscape islands and
separators in the parking area south of the stadium and to add additional land area
within the Progress Energy right-of-way south of the stadium for grass parking, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sections 2-704.C
and 2-1404.A and to amend a previously approved Comprehensive Sign Program
(SGN2003-01002) for the stadium, under the provisions of Section 3-1807.
Proposed Use: Addition of grass parking area within Progress Energy right-of-way
adjacent to and southwest of the Bright House Networks stadium, elimination of
landscape islands and separators from paved parking area south of the stadium and
amendment to the approved signage.
Neighborhood Association: None.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
.
The overall site consists of several parcels. The main parcel (sites A and B) of 17.42
acres is actually three parcels or portions of parcels: 1) the former Home Depot commercial
property, now owned by the City; 2) the former Bomber Field, owned by the City; and 3) the
grass parking area of 2.712 acres (site C) within a portion of the Progress Energy right-of-way
between Old Coachman Road and the Carpenter Complex, on which the City has a License
Agreement for parking. The parking area, soccer fields and baseball field at the Joe DiMaggio
complex of 17.261 acres (site D) also is included. A new area of 4.315 acres within the
Progress Energy right-of-way east of Old Coachman Road, approximately 350 feet north of
Drew Street and directly south of the area approved for the stadium, now is proposed to be
included as part of the proposal (site E).
On September 17,2002, the COB approved with nine conditions a Flexible Development
application to develop the original overall property of 37.393 acres with the Clearwater
Community Sports Complex and Phillies Spring Training Facility of 8,000 seats and
approximately 1,841 parking spaces (Case FLD2002-07021). On April 15, 2003, the COB
approved, with 11 conditions (nine original plus two new), a revision to the original project to
permit an increase in height for the scoreboard building to 70 feet and to approve a
Comprehensive Sign Program for all signage at the stadium (Case FLD2002-07021A1
SGN2003-01002). The City sold naming rights to the stadium, which was renamed Bright
House Networks Field. The stadium opened for the 2004 spring training season and has been
operating under a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy.
The application includes requests: 1) eliminate landscape islands and separators in the
parking area south of the stadium; 2) add additional land area within the Progress Energy right-
of-way south of the stadium for grass parking; and 3) amend a previously approved
Comprehensive Sign Program (SGN2003-01002) for the stadium.
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
13
.
.
.
First, during the design of the stadium and negotiations with abutting property owners in
the shopping center, Target required the complete segregation of the stadium parking area. To
accomplish their request, landscape islands and separators were created and shown on the site
plan approved by the CDS on September 17, 2002. Not long after construction of the stadium
commenced, Target moved from to the new Clearwater Mall Shopping Center. With this
relocation and other vacancies at the abutting shopping center, a majority of the floor area now
was unoccupied. In conjunction with the remaining interested parties, it is the desire of the City
and the Phillies to keep the common parking area open to all users until such time as new
tenants/owners are in place and a mutually agreeable parking plan can be established.
The proposal is to leave the parking areas open by eliminating landscape islands and
separators and design the parking area south of the stadium to be in compliance with current
ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) handicap standards. Given the shopping center's location
on US Highway 19 N at the intersection with Drew Street and the construction of the Drew
Street overpass, future redevelopment proposals for this shopping. center are unknown but the
shopping center is not expected to remain unoccupied for an extended period of time.
Upgrading the landscaping of the City's portion of the shopping center parking lot south of the
stadium is required by Code due to the nature and extent of redevelopment. However, given
the situation of the non-occupancy of a majority of the shopping center floor area, a temporary
elimination may be appropriate.
Should a redevelopment proposal for the shopping center that would redesign all of the
parking areas, including that portion owned by the City, fail to materialize within approximately
two years (December 31, 2006), landscaping of the City's portion of the parking lot will need to
be installed in an amount and location to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.
Second, the City has had along-term agreement with Progress Energy for grass parking
west of the Carpenter Complex within the high voltage right-of-way. This grass parking area
was sufficient to meet the needs of Spring Training at the training facilities at the Carpenter
Complex. Spring Training games were played at Jack Russell Memorial Stadium. However,
with construction of the stadium adjacent to the Carpenter Complex, additional parking for the
stadium for Spring Training games and for the Clearwater Threshers Class A team was
necessary. Paved parking south of the stadium (as part of the shopping center) and in the
player parking lot within the Progress Energy right-of-way west of the stadium and the
Carpenter Complex was provided. Unpaved parking (to be upgraded prior to Spring Training
2006) at the Joe DiMaggio complex also was provided under prior approvals. That portion of
the Progress Energy right-of-way south of the stadium and west of the shopping center (east of
Old Coachman Road) was not included in the City's agreement with Progress Energy for grass
parking.
During construction of the stadium, the City negotiated with Progress Energy to clean up
this portion of the high voltage right-of-way. This area was determined to be able to safely park
approximately 300 cars on the grass, and its location is closer to the stadium than parking at the
Joe DiMaggio complex. This area within the Progress Energy right-of-way was utilized for
stadium parking during the 2004 Spring Training and Threshers season. However, this area
had not previously been approved as a parking area.
The proposal includes the approval of this area for grass parking for the stadium, albeit
after the fact. This new grass parking area within the Progress Energy right-of-way should be
upgraded, with Progress Energy's approval, with paved drive aisles and a minimum landscape
area along Old Coachman Road of 15 feet, as part of a continuous, consistent streetscape,
Community Development Soard 2004-10-19
14
.
.
.
much like the grass parking area west of the Carpenter Complex. This landscape area should
include a hedge and understory trees, acceptable to Progress Energy, and be installed on the
west side of the grass parking area for site beautification and screening of parking from Old
Coachman Road. A License Agreement with Progress Energy was approved by City Council on
September 16,2004, for use of this area for stadium parking. As part of the stadium
construction, an extension of the Pinellas Trail was constructed along the east side of Old
Coachman Road to the stadium's main entrance. The Pinellas Trail provides a much wider
pathway for pedestrians to access the stadium. It is anticipated that the Pinellas Trail will be
extended in the future to Drew Street, adjacent to or as part of this new grass parking area
within the Progress Energy right-of-way.
Third, the height of the scoreboard building and a Comprehensive Sign Program was
approved by the COB on April 15, 2003, under Cases FLD2002-07021A1SGN2003-01002. That
approved Comprehensive Sign Program increased the number and area of freestanding
signage from one sign of 64 square-feet to 26 signs totaling 441.5 square-feet and increased
the number and area of attached signage from one sign of 24 square-feet to seven signs
totaling 604.07 square-feet. During construction of the complex and through the naming rights
negotiations, some signs, previously approved by the COB, were modified slightly. This portion
of the request is to approve these signage modifications, albeit after the fact.
The principal building is the Bright House Networks Field, which has frontages on both
U.S. Highway 19 and Old Coachman Road. The Comprehensive Sign Program application still
includes a total of 26 freestanding signs totaling 453.8 square-feet (a net increase of 12.3
square-feet, which is still less than the maximum of 779 square-feet or one half the lot width as
measured along the widest street frontage, Old Coachman Road), where only one sign is
permitted. The monument sign 5-foot 4-inches in height was constructed adjacent to Old
Coachman Road at the main entrance, designed to match the materials and colors of the
stadium and contains the site address. Originally this monument sign was approved to be 34.5
square-feet in sign area. Additional signage of 8.3 square.,.feet was installed, for a new total of
42.8 square-feet, with the added language of "Spring Training Home of the Phillies."
A freestanding, changeable message sign (electronic reader board) was constructed and
oriented toward U.S. Highway 19, at a maximum height of the sign area 14 feet above the
elevated roadway. This portion of U.S. Highway 19 is being reconstructed with an elevated
roadbed. The overall height from grade of this freestanding sign was constructed at 32 feet
(with an additional 4.75 feet of decorative metal work on top of the sign area). The changeable
message sign's steel supports were painted with colors to match stadium colors. This
changeable message sign does not have the site address on it, since its orientation is toward
U.S. Highway 19 and the 601 Old Coachman Road address would confuse passing motorists.
Originally, this changeable message sign was approved to be 143 square-feet in sign area. The
actual constructed sign area is 147 square-feet. The original approval provided for the message
to change every two minutes. This proposal requests the message to change every five
seconds. Twenty-four of the freestanding signs are actually banners on light poles at the front
of the stadium and along the sidewalk adjoining the south side of the stadium. The overall
height of the light poles is 12 feet.
The sign package still includes an increase from one to seven attached signs located on
the south and west fayades of the stadium and on the scoreboard building as part of the
northern stadium fayade. Attached signage is a mix of channel letters pinned off the wall faces
and cabinet-style signs. The maximum allowable sign area of attached signage under a
Comprehensive Sign Program is 6% of the building fayade to which they are attached. The
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
15
.
.
.
constructed signs complement and are integrated with the architecture of the stadium. The
attached signage for the south side of the stadium was constructed at 54 square-feet (46
square-feet originally approved, for an increase of eight square-feet, representing 0.36% or
roughly less than 1 % of the fayade to which it is attached), where one sign, 20 square-feet in
area is permitted. The attached signage for the west side of the stadium was constructed at
229.67 square-feet (198.07 square-feet originally approved, for an increase of 31.6 square-feet,
representing 1.17% of the fayade to which it is attached). The proposal includes attached
signage on the scoreboard building that was constructed at 280 square-feet (360 square-feet
originally approved, for a decrease of 80 square-feet, representing 1.73% of the north stadium
fayade to which it is attached).
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on September 9, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to amend a previously approved FLD2002-07021A (COB approved on
April 15, 2003) to eliminate landscape islands and separators in the parking area south of the
stadium and to add additional land area within the Progress Energy right-of-way south of the
stadium for grass parking, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Sections 2-704.C and 2-1404.A and to amend a previously approved
Comprehensive Sign Program (SGN2003-01002) for the stadium, under the provisions of
Section 3-1807, for the site generally located at 601 Old Coachman Road, 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 Sections 2-704.C and 2-1404.A; 2) The
proposal is in compliance with the criteria as a Comprehensive Sign Program per Section 3-
1807; and 3) The proposal is in compliance with other standards in the Code including the
General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913.
Conditions of Approval: (* Indicates prior conditions of approval adopted September 17,
2002, under Case No. FLD2002-07021 and revised under Case No. FLD2002-
07021A1SGN2003-01002, adopted on April 15, 2003, that are carried forward): 1) That the City
upgrade site 0 (Joe DiMaggio) prior to the 2006 spring training season. The City shall provide
at least 1,200 spaces at this location, with at least 550 spaces to be upgraded with paved drive
aisles and a minimum 15-foot wide landscape area along Drew Street and Old Coachman
Road. The balance of the spaces may be on grass spaces (on playing fields);* 2) That the City
upgrade, with Progress Energy's approval, site C with paved drive aisles and a minimum
landscape area along Old Coachman Road of 15 feet, as part of a continuous, consistent
streetscape;* 3) That the player parking area be enhanced with a column and ornamental fence,
acceptable to the Planning Department;* 4) That a landscape plan for each parking lot be
submitted to approved by Staff, prior to the issuance of permits for construction;* 5) That should
the Pinellas Trail extension within the Progress Energy right-of-way be constructed prior to the
2004 spring training season, the sidewalk along the east side of Old Coachman Road may be
eliminated and the sidewalk along the west side of Old Coachman Road shall be increased to a
minimum width of 10 feet. If the Pinellas Trail extension is not constructed within this timeframe,
but is substantially designed with funding assured (within fiscal year 03/04), then its construction
may be deferred and a temporary surface should be installed for an interim period. If the trail is
neither substantially designed nor funded, five-foot sidewalks should be installed prior to the
2004 spring training season;* 6) That the signature landscape display at the intersection of
Drew Street and Old Coachman Road be approved by the Planning Department, prior to
construction, and installed prior to the 2006 spring training season;* 7) That all proposed
signage (scoreboard, directionals, temporary, etc.) be approved through a Comprehensive Sign
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
16
.
.
.
Program by the Community Development Board;* 8) That the design of the buildings be
consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by the CDB;* 9) That a
revised Master Parking Plan be submitted to staff within 14 days, with corrected parking
tabulations and identifying site E (plaza parking);* 10) That the scoreboard building be attached
to, and made a part of, the north wall of the berm seating portion of the stadium;* 11) That the
changeable message sign may be relocated, under Staff approval, by a maximum of 25 feet in
any direction to accommodate unforeseen construction issues;* 12) That landscaping of the
City's portion of the parking lot (south of the stadium) be installed in an amount and location to
the satisfaction of the Planning Department, with proper site improvement permits, by
December 31, 2006, in the event a redevelopment proposal for the shopping center that would
redesign all of the parking areas, including that portion owned by the City, fails to materialize;
13) That the City upgrade, with Progress Energy's approval, the new grass parking area west of
the shopping center with paved drive aisles and a minimum landscape area along Old
Coachman Road of 15 feet, as part of a continuous, consistent streetscape. Landscaping, in
the form of a hedge and understory trees, acceptable to Progress Energy and to the Planning
Department, be installed on the west side of the new grass parking area prior to the 2006 spring
training season. Site and landscape plans shall be submitted to the Building Department to
obtain a site improvement permit prior to construction/installation. The location of landscaping
shall be coordinated with the future extension of the Pinellas Trail; and 14) That the changeable
message sign oriented toward US Highway 19 N change no faster than every five seconds.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the request to accelerate changes to the
message on the changeable message sign does not provide Bright House Networks an
advantage over other changeable signage. The sign is on public property and is used for and
meets the intent of public purpose requirements. The City regulates location, size, height, and the
placement of signs, not content. In response to a question, Parks and Recreation Director/
applicant Kevin Dunbar said tenants control the advertisement on signs, including this one. He
supported staff recommended conditions.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item #F6, Case: FLD2004-07055/SGN2004-08001
for 601 Old Coachman Road with Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
7.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2004-07050ITDR2004-09012 - 600 Bayway Boulevard Level Two Application
Owners: Baywatch Suites Inc.
Applicant: Newkirk Group
Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland
Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036;
email: nestech@mindsprina.com).
Location: 0.558 acre on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, immediately north of the
intersection of South Gulfview Boulevard and Bayway Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning District: Tourist (T).
Request: Flexible Development application to permit attached dwellings with reductions
to the front setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement and trash staging area), a
reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to pavement), reductions
to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 7.1 feet (to pavement) and 7.3 feet to building,
reductions of the rear setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pool deck) and from 20 feet to
9.7 feet (to building), and to increase the building height from 35 feet to 45.43 feet (from
Base Flood Elevation to roof deck) with an additional six feet (from roof deck for
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
17
.
.
.
perimeter parapets), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Section 2-803.C. and the Transfer of Development Rights for three dwelling
units from 620 Bayway Boulevard (one unit), 674 Bayway Boulevard (one unit), and 645
Bayway Boulevard (one unit).
Proposed Use: Attached dwelling units (19-unit condominium; four levels of living area
over ground-level parking).
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.
This 0.558-acre site, on the north side of Bayway Boulevard, is immediately north of the
South Gulfview!Bayway intersection, along a highly developed area within Clearwater beach,
and has frontage along Clearwater Harbor. The site is located within the South Beach!
Clearwater Pass District of Beach By Design, a distinctive area of mixed uses including high rise
condominiums, resort hotels, and commercial uses. Beach By Design contemplates this District
will be an area of strategic revitalization and renovation in r~sponse to improving conditions on
the balance of Clearwater beach.
The site is occupied with a two-story overnight accommodations building of eight units
(Baywatch Suites), a two-story retail building with two vacant apartments, and a one-story
restaurant. All existing improvements (buildings, pavement, and walkways) will be demolished
and removed as part of site redevelopment.
The property to the west has been redeveloped with seven floors of living area (55
attached dwelling units) over one floor of ground level parking. This development was approved
by the CDB as "Harborview Grande" (FLD2003-08041/TDR2003-08004) on October 21, 2003.
Townhome development is to the east of the project site. To the south is a convenient store,
gas station, and miniature golf course. Significant development has occurred with a transition
from small motels and retail to attached dwelling units.
The proposal includes constructing a 19-unit, four-story (over ground level parking)
residential condominium building. A total of 16 dwelling units are permitted for the subject
property, based on the maximum of 30 units per acre. The applicant proposes using three
dwelling units through the Transfer of Development Rights from 620,645, and 674 Bayway
Boulevard (one unit each per address). The first level will contain four units, while higher levels
will feature 5 units per floor. All units are 1,890 square-feet.
The proposal includes 31 parking spaces under the building and four open parking
spaces accessed off the driveway (total of 35 parking spaces). Twenty-nine parking spaces are
required (1.5 spaces per unit).
The request is processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to permit
attached dwellings within the Tourist District due to the rear setback reductions requested to the
pool deck. The proposal includes a request for setback reductions, a building height increase,
and a transfer of development rights. Setback reductions and building height are requested to
fit the building and exterior site design onto the property. The transfer of development rights
enables the density limit of 16 units to be compensated with three additional units.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
18
.
.
.
The proposal includes increases to building height from 35 feet to 45.43 feet (from Base
Flood Elevation) with an additional 4.17 feet (from roof deck for perimeter parapets) and an
additional six feet (from roof deck for perimeter parapets). The proposed building of four stories
over ground level parking is consistent with that envisioned by Beach by Design for this street.
Code provisions allow parapet walls to extend a maximum of 30 inches above the roof deck.
The applicant is requesting to increase the parapet to a total of six feet from the roof deck.
The design of the building will include a "cementous finish" brown color for the main
building, accented by white aluminum railings and a light yellow color for decorative features,
such as window accents and wall trim lines. Barrel shaped tiles are proposed for the roof.
The landscape plan utilizes a colorful groundcover (Nora Grant, Oleander, Yew,
Palmetto and Gold Tree.) The site plan includes an irrigation plan. Solid waste removal will be
from a 100 square-foot trash staging area located at the front of the site at the Bayway
Boulevard ingress/egress.
The rear of the site, facing Clearwater Harbor, features 15 cabanas and a swimming
pool. The cabanas and pool are accessed from the parking garage by way of a three-foot wide
concrete walkway. At the front of the site, a five-foot sidewalk is proposed, leading pedestrians
to and from the building entrance and a proposed nine-foot wide sidewalk to run along the
frontage. The new sidewalk at the front will connect to an existing four-foot walk east of the site.
A front sidewalk was part of the site plan for Harborview Grande, Just west of the site, so there
will be improved pedestrian connectivity along Bayway Boulevard.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on September 9, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval to permit 19 attached
dwellings with reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement and
trash staging area), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to
pavement), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 7.1 feet (to pavement) and from
10 feet to 7.3 feet (to building), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 feet to zero feet
(to pool deck) and from 20 feet to 9.7 feet (to building), and to increase the building height from
35 feet to 45.43 feet (from Base Flood Elevation to roof deck) with an additional six feet (from
roof deck for perimeter parapets), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-803.C and the Transfer of Development Rights for three
dwelling units from 620 Bayway Boulevard (one unit), 674 Bayway Boulevard (one unit), and
645 Bayway Boulevard (one unit) under the provisions of Section 4-1403, for the site at 600
Bayway Boulevard, 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.
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 CDB; 2) That prior to the
issuance of any permits, the site plan be revised to correct the setback and building height data
within the site data table; 3) That a revised landscape plan be submitted to the satisfaction of
Planning staff, prior to any building permit issuance; 4) That a soils report be submitted to the
satisfaction of Engineering staff, indicating the seasonal high water elevation prior to any
building permit issuance; 5) That a special warranty deed, specifying the number of dwelling
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
19
.
.
.
units being conveyed or sold from 620,645, and 674 Bayway Boulevard and being transferred
to this site, be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits for this project. The special
warranty deed shall also contain a covenant restricting in perpetuity the use of all platted lots at
said sending site addresses due to the transfer of development rights. Any mortgage holders of
the sending sites shall consent to the transfer of development rights prior to the issuance of any
permits; 6) That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any
permits; 7) That the SWFWMD Permit or letter of exemption be provided to Planning
Department staff prior to any building permit issuance; 8) That dumpster service with the City of
Clearwater be arranged prior to building permit issuance; 9) That all applicable requirements of
Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks; 10) That a condominium
plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 11) That all proposed
utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for
the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right-of-way shall be installed
along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The
applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected
utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of
conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior
to the commencement of work; 12) That all Fire Department requirements be met prior to the
issuance of any permits; 13) That Traffic Impact Fees be determined and paid prior to
Certificate of Occupancy issuance; 14) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the
issuance of any permits; 15) 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); 16)
That there be no jet ski or other like watercraft rental businesses at this location; 17) That boats
moored at the docks, lift and/or slips 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;
18) That all signage meet Code and be architecturally integrated into the design of the site and
building.
This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda by an audience member, who then
departed the meeting.
Member Moran moved to approve Item #7, Case FLD2004-07050ITDR2004-09012 for
600 Bayway Boulevard with Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously.
8.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2004-08058 - 2201 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner: Ellis & Co., Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership
Applicant/Representative: Peter Marich, (410 South Lincoln Avenue, Suite B,
Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-461-2402; fax: 727-447-7243; email:
mar410@aol.com).
Location: 0.488 acre located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Belcher Road
and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 299A.
Zoning District: Commercial (C).
Request: Flexible Development approval for the change of use of an existing
automobile service station to a 2,266 square-foot restaurant, with a reduction to the front
(west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), a reduction of the front (north)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), reductions of the side (east) setback from
10 feet to three feet (to building), from 10 feet to zero feet (to exterior seating wood
deck), and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction of the side
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
20
.
.
.
(south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to two feet (to
dumpster enclosure), a reduction in the required parking from 34 spaces to 21 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: Restaurant.
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.
This 0.488-acre site is on the southeast corner of Belcher Road and Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard. The site has an abandoned automobile service station.
The proposal is to establish a restaurant in the place of the service station building. The
plan seeks five setback reductions, but is adding considerable landscaping. The auto service
facility has been vacant for some time. The restaurant building (2,266 square-feet) will be 298
square-feet larger than the vacant 1,968 square-foot auto service garage. The restaurant will
provide both interior and outside deck seating.
The north (front) elevation will have an arched portico style doorway, vertical columns,
and large windows. The exterior design is impressive, with a pale yellow color and medium
brown columns, accented by gooseneck style lamps attached to the building fa9ade.
Proposed landscaping includes a 20-foot high existing live oak, nine sable palm trees,
and other plantings as specified on the site plan. An automatic underground irrigation system is
proposed to maintain the landscaping. The end result will be a significant improvement to what
is now a vacant building and asphalt covered site. Waste removal will be by pick-up from a
dumpster, located within an enclosure with a gate.
The proposal seeks setback reductions, and a reduction in required parking spaces. The
setback reductions are necessary to fit the restaurant on the site. Staff recommends that the
owner of the restaurant seek a written parking agreement with the neighboring shopping center
owner to accommodate the parking deficiency. Adequate parking can then be provided to
accommodate the restaurant.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on September 9, 2004. The Planning Department recommends Flexible Development approval
for the change of use of an existing automobile service station to a 2,266 square-foot restaurant,
with a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), a reduction to
the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to pavement), reductions of the side (east)
setback from 10 feet to three feet (to building), from 10 feet to zero feet (to exterior seating
wood deck), and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction of the side
(south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to two feet (to dumpster
enclosure), a reduction in the required parking from 34 spaces to 21 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. for
the site at 2201 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard 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
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
21
.
.
.
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.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the site plan be revised, prior to building permit issuance,
to correct the proposed building height stated within the site data table; 2) That a revised
landscape plan be submitted, acceptable to Planning staff, prior to any building permit issuance;
3) That all Fire Department concerns be addressed prior to building permit issuance; 4) That an
approved SWFWMD permit or letter of exemption be provided prior to building permit issuance;
5) That the existing billboard at 501-525 South Belcher be removed prior to issuance of a
building permit; 6) That the existing freestanding sign at 2201 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (near the
intersection of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and South Belcher Road) be removed prior to building
permit issuance; 7) That a parking agreement or restrictive covenant burdening the adjacent
property (501,503,505,511,513,515,517,519,521,523,525, and 529 South Belcher Road)
pertaining to the satellite parking, specify in clear detail as to the location of parking spaces, and
that the agreement run with the life of the land use at 2201 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, and that this
document meet the satisfaction of City legal staff and be recorded prior to Certificate of
Occupancy; 8) That a Traffic Impact fee to be assessed and paid prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy, by the applicant; 9) That all proposed on-site utilities, including electric, phone
and cable television, be located underground; and 10) 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.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the billboard at 501 South Belcher is being litigated. The
billboard, which should have been removed in 1995, is nonconforming and illegal. The trial was
continued without a new trial date. She reviewed pending issues related to the billboard. If
redevelopment of these parcels occurs, the City would not issue building permits or
development orders until the billboard conforms with Code. She urged the board to enforce that
condition. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said the property owner owns the
billboard. If the proposed development is scaled back to only redevelop the gas station
outparcel, billboard issue would be resolved. However, the building's height, area, setback, and
landscaping must comply with Code. Ms. Tarapani said the applicant has not agreed to
Conditions 5 and 6. The former gas station was a Jiffy Lube anddid not use both parcels.
It was questioned if a condition could be placed on a project/item that is in litigation. Ms.
Dougall-Sides said the condition is recommended. Owners lease billboards to sign companies
via multi-year contracts.
Wanda DeBor, applicant, said she objects to Condition #5, #6, and, #7. She said she
received the staff report yesterday and was unaware those conditions were included. She said
staff had never discussed Condition #6 with her. She said the two parcels have separate tax
folio numbers.
Peter Ristorcelli, representing Ellis & Company, said the firm has tried to comply with
City Code. He said the billboard has a lease, which cannot be terminated. He said if the City
wins its lawsuit, he then could legally terminate the billboard lease. He requested the temporary
removal of Condition #5 until the lawsuit is resolved. In response to a question, Mr. Ristorcelli
said the billboard lease extends five more years and has a renewal option. He said unless the
City wants to indemnify Ellis, the firm would be subject to a lawsuit by the tenant. He estimated
the billboard's lease went into effect prior to 1995. In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides
said CDB actions would not constitute a legal justification for Mr. Ristorcelli to release the tenant
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
22
.
.
.
from the contract and allow Ellis to remove the billboard. In response to a question, Ms.
Tarapani said no litigation occurred related to the Steak N Shake sign case, as the tenant's
billboard lease was near expiration.
Ms. DeBor said the billboard issue relates to a request by Pappas Market Cafe to add a
300 square-foot patio on the eastern side of the building near the Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
entrance. The applicant is requesting only 12 feet of width for patio seating due to its proximity
to the property line.
In response to a question, Ms. DeBor said she questioned Condition #7, indicating that
staff had reported parking requirements incorrectly. She said only 7 parking spaces should be
required per 1,000 square-feet, not 15 as reported by staff. Planner Michael Reynolds said the
project requires 34 spaces, at 15 spaces per 1,000 square-feet. Only 21 spaces exist. Ms.
Tarapani suggested the COB could consider if off-site parking is adequate to justify a reduction
in on-site parking. Staff felt off-site parking at the nearby shopping center may be available.
Ms. DeBor said she has no agreement with the adjacent property owner to use shopping
center parking. Concern was expressed without an agreement, parking for this site could be a
problem. Ms. DeBor said at the DRC meeting, the calculation of 7 parking spaces per 1,000
square-feet seemed viable.
Mr. Reynolds said the DRC always makes a concerted effort to explain applicable
sections of Code to applicants. However, staff cannot address every single regulation that
could pose a potential problem.
Louis Pappas, applicant, said he was unaware about the condition related to the
billboard until yesterday. He said he would not have entered into the agreement had he known
outdoor seating would not be approved. He said the current freestanding sign is only a frame.
He suggested placing his logo and lettering inside the current sign would be acceptable. In
response to a question, Mr. Pappas requested the item be continued to work with staff on some
issues. He said outdoor seating is essential.
Mr. Gerlock said staff does not oppose outdoor seating or the project. Staff opposes the
nonconforming illegal billboard and the signage. Concern was expressed the applicants had
indicated the conditions were a surprise to them.
Member Moran moved to continue Item #F8, Case FLD2004-08058 for 2201 Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard, to November 16,2004. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 4:04 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.
9.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2004-09064 - 2775 State Road 580 Level Two Application
Owner: City of Clearwater.
Applicant/Representative: Rob Kalch, E.I., Engineer 1, Public Works Administration
(100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-562-4800; email:
rob.kalch@myclearwater.com.)
Location: 2.87 acres located on the south side of State Road 580 approximately 600
feet east of Countryside Boulevard.
Atlas Page: 222A.
Zoning District: Institutional (I).
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
23
.
Request: Flexible Development approval for installation of a security fence at an
existing potable water facility. The request includes placement of an eight foot fence
consisting of masonry columns with substantial aluminum grillwork within a front (north)
setback and exemption from the landscaping requirements along the proposed chain link
fencing proposed for the eastern and southern property boundaries, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per section 2-1204.A.
Proposed Use: Security Fence.
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.
This 2.87 -acre site is on the south side of State Road 580, immediately east of the
Clearwater Public Library, Countryside Branch. Potable water storage facility occupies this site.
The site is surrounded by mostly single-family residential homes and some attached dwelling
units. There is a City of Clearwater Fire Department Station in the vicinity as well.
This project (security fencing) isa direct Federal mandate from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in response to provide increased security to protect public
infrastructure. This proposal will enhance the ability to secure a non-manned public potable
water supply.
.
The proposal is to place an eight-foot security fence consisting of masonry columns with
substantial aluminum grillwork within a front (north) setback and exemption from the
landscaping requirements along the proposed eight foot high chain link fencing proposed for the
eastern and southern property boundaries, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project,
per section 2-1204.A.
Along the north property line, the proposed fence will consist of masonry columns
connected by ornamental black aluminum panels. The proposal also includes an eight-foot vinyl
chain link fence along the eastern property line and along 95 feet of the southern property line,
and includes an exemption from landscaping requirements along the eastern and southern
boundaries.
This is a City of Clearwater project to establish fencing for security purposes.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application
for installation of a security fence at an existing potable water facility. The request includes
placement of an eight-foot fence consisting of masonry columns with substantial aluminum
grillwork within a front (north) setback and exemption from the landscaping requirements along
the proposed eight foot high chain link fencing proposed for the eastern and southern property
boundaries, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per section 2-1204.A. for the site
at 407 North Belcher Road, 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 2-1204 A; 2) The proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per
Section 3-913; 3) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance
other redevelopment efforts.
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
24
.
.
.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That a three-foot wide landscaping strip be provided on the
street side of the proposed eight foot high wall/fence located on the north front setback, and 2)
That a six-foot chain link fence with two feet of barbwire atop it may be substituted for the fence
sections where eight feet of chain link is shown on the site plan.
In response to a question, Mr. Gerlock said the Public Works Department staff has
requested that a second condition require installation of a six-foot chain link fence with 2 feet of
barbwire along the southern and eastern property boundaries rather than an 8-foot chain link
fence.
See pages 32 and 33 for motion of approval.
10. Case: FLD2004-08056 -1000 Eldorado Avenue Level Two Application
Owner: Ronald and Mireille Pollack
Applicant/Representative: William Reslock, (7233 East Costilla Place, Centennial, CO
80112 phone: 303-773-9578; fax: 303-773-8694; email:
reslocksullivan@mcihispeed.net)
Location: 0.23 acre at the intersection of Eldorado Avenue and Island Drive.
Atlas Page: 238A.
Zoning District: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Request: Flexible Development for an addition to an existing single-family residence.
The request is for reduction to the Coastal Construction Control Line (west) setback from
25 feet to eight feet to the structure, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the
provisions of Section 2-203.C.
Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling.
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.
Member Plisko recused himself.
The 0.23-acre site is at the intersection of Eldorado Avenue and Island Drive, within a
single-family developed area, and contains an existing single-family dwelling, and one driveway
at the east property line (Eldorado Avenue). The site is zoned Low Medium Density Residential
District and the land use complies.
The proposal is to construct an addition to an existing single-family residential structure,
at the west elevation, which faces the beach and Gulf of Mexico. The second floor addition (of
approximately 300 square-feet within the rear setback area) will include a new bathroom,
bedroom, and porch with an eight-foot setback distance to the CCCL. The rear setback
requirement is 25 feet, which is measured to the CCCL. All applicable Code requirements and
criteria including but not limited to General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residential
Infill Project criteria (Section 2-204.E) have been met.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on September 9, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval for an addition to an
existing single-family residence, for a rear setback reduction to the CCCL (west) setback from
25 feet to eight feet to the structure, as part of a Residentiallnfill Project under the provisions of
Section 2-203.C. with the following bases and conditions.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
25
.
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-204 E; 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.
Condition of Approval: That the final design be consistent with that submitted with this
application and as approved by the Community Development Board.
Member Moran moved to approve Item #F10, Case FLD2004-08056 for 1000 Eldorado
Avenue with the Condition of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members
Doran, Gildersleeve, Moran, Milam, Johnson, and Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Plisko
abstained. Motion carried.
.
11. Pulled from Consent Agenda
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 acre 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.
At the July 20, 2004 COB meeting, a motion to approve this case failed by a vote of 2:3
and the case was continued automatically to August. This case was continued from the August
17, 2004, meeting because the applicant had submitted new plans. The staff report has been
updated accordingly. Revisions include: a reduction in the front setback was changed from six
feet (to pavement) to 5.69 feet (to pavement); a reduction in the side (south) setback was
changed from zero feet (to wooden walkway) to four feet (to exterior stairs); a reduction in the
side (north) setback was changed from eight feet (to building) to 6.72 feet (to building) (the
section of the building housing the dumpster now opens to the outside) and the impervious
surface ratio was reduced from 0.75 to 0.70.
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
26
.
.
.
This 0.148-acre site is on the east side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 300 feet south
of Somerset Street. Overnight accommodations and attached dwellings dominate the
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. There is a deck on the east side of the site and a walkway 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 dock, at the east side of the site, is proposed to remain
by this redevelopment request.
The site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part
of the "Old Florida" District. This area has been designated for multi-family town homes and
condominiums of low to midrise. The immediate vicinity is almost entirely composed of attached
dwellings and small motels. Building styles generally resemble architecture from the 1950's and
appear to have been progressively expanded. Bay Esplanade, in this general vicinity, is a local
street with no sidewalks where many sites rely on the public right-of-way to accommodate
perpendicular,back-out parking. Generally, the streetscape is in heed of 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 completely raze the existing apartments and construct four attached
dwellings ("La Risa II"). The applicant 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 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. There is an
elevator overrun tower extending over the roof terrace. The design of the building includes
arched styling with some of the doorways and windows. Large windows are show on the east
elevation, with views of Clearwater Harbor. The 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 will no longer 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.
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.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
27
.
.
.
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 applicant 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 increased 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.
Mr. Reynolds said staff had reviewed the conditions with the applicants, who agreed to
the conditions prepared by staff after the last COB meeting.
Concern was expressed that this case was put on the Consent Agenda without COB
review of the changes.
Mr. Gerlock said the staff recommendation and report has not changed since September
21, 2004. He said the only change was to develop alternate approval conditions staff felt could
be approved. It was felt the COB should review the conditions.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
28
.
It was remarked that in September, staff and some board members had expressed
concerns regarding the project's mass and scale. Ms. Tarapani said the COB had not directed
staff to address the project's mass and scale. Although no motion had been made, staff felt
board consensus in September was to approve the case.
Mr. Reynolds said this is the fourth presentation detailing the project. Staff feels this
project is too massive for the site. The applicant had asked for relief from seven items in the
Code. Staff carefully reviews each case in detail and makes site visits. Staff discussed the
scale of the project with the applicant, who chose not to reduce its size, and made only slight
modifications. Staff's position has not changed. Mr. Reynolds informed the COB that the
applicant has agreed to the following conditions:
.
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 boats
moored at the existing and any future docks be for the exclusive use by the residents
and/or guests of the condominiums; 3) That all signage meet Code and be
architecturally-integrated into the design of the site and building; 4) That there be no jet
ski or other like watercraft rental businesses at this location; 5) That the SWFWMD
permit or letter of exception be provided to Planning staff prior to any building permit
issuance; 6) That a revised landscape plan be submitted to the satisfaction of Planning
staff, prior to any building permit issuance; 7) That a revised tree survey be submitted to
the satisfaction of Planning staff, prior to any building permit issuance; 8) That the fire
service pipeline installation be addressed to the satisfaction of Engineering staff, prior to
building permit issuance; 9) That Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility
impact fees be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits or final plat, whichever
occurs first; 10) That all Fire Department requirements be addressed prior to building
permit issuance; 11) That all proposed utilities (from the rights-of-way to the proposed
buildings) be placed underground and installation of conduit(s) along the entire length of
the site's street frontages be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy; 12) That Traffic Impact Fees be determined and paid prior to Certificate of
Occupancy issuance; 13) That the condominium plat be recorded with Pinellas County
prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy; and 14) That the applicant install a six-foot
brick wall along the south property line, consistent with the revised site plan, so as to
redirect pedestrian traffic onto the adjacent southern property.
Ms. Tarapani said mass and scale could be addressed only.by redesigning the project.
She suggested in the future, the COB clarify their concerns and provide staff direction in the
form of a motion.
Troy Perdue, representative, said he also felt the majority of COB members were leaning
toward approval. He said the building's width is dictated by parking requirements; the height at
50 feet is within Beach by Design guidelines for a mid-rise development. He said the applicant
had met with staff and developed several conditions that would make the project more
amenable to the City.
.
Dennis O'Keefe, architect, said mass and scale are subjective. He said everything
possible was done to reduce the visual impact of the project from the street. He said significant
changes were made to the original design. Without requested setbacks, the project would be
unable to provide off-street parking. He said this area of the beach is in transition and felt the
trade-offs are fair and appropriate. In response to a question, Mr. O'Keefe said the applicant
has a contract to purchase the property.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
29
.
Two persons spoke in favor of the application.
Ms. Tarapani said staff did not recommend that townhomes be built on this site.
Townhomes are included in the City's plan for that area.
Discussion ensued with comments that the lot is too small for this massive project, the
applicant has attempted to develop a workable project, five lots separate this site from Somerset
to the north, many nearby property owners favor the project, the COB's function is to apply the
Code, the applicant has met Beach by Design objectives, the project cannot be compared to
one across the street, the application meets the definition of a high-rise in the "Old Florida
District"; no other high-rises are nearby, and mass and scale are subjective elements.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item #F11, Case FLD2004-03018 for 669 Bay
Esplanade, with Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members
Doran, Moran, Johnson, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member
Gildersleeve, Plisko, and Milam voted "Nay." Motion carried.
.
12. Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: FLD2004-06042 - 279 Windward Passage Level Two Application
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 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@ate.net).
Presenter: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Mr. Reynolds said this case was continued on September 21, 2004. The COB had
directed staff to draft conditions acceptable to staff and the applicant. Staff developed 19
conditions for approval, which the applicant's representative have approved.
.
The 1.45-acre overall site is on the south side of Windward Passage, approximately 300
feet west of Island Way. The site, on the south side of Windward Passage, contains a 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
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
30
.
.
.
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 is proposing 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 is seeking 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 is proposing 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. The site plan set 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 stating the project is compatible and 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.
The Development Review Committee 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.
The following conditions would apply should the CDB decide to approve this request:
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the site plan data table be revised to state the existing
and proposed building coverage (if the proposed floor area exceeds the existing floor
area by 50 percent or more, Open Space Impact Fees will apply), prior to building permit
issuance; 2) That the site plan be revised to correct the typo error (proposed standard
parking) within the data table and that the sidewalks and deck (including materials
composition) be labeled on Sheet 3 of the site plan set, prior to building permit issuance;
3) That a revised landscape plan be submitted to the satisfaction of Planning staff, prior
to any building permit issuance; 4) That the final design and color of the building be
consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 5)
That Open Space, Recreation Land and Recreation Facility impact fees be satisfied prior
to the issuance of building permits or final plat, whichever occurs first (Recreation Land
and Recreation Facilities impact fees will be assessed for the 31 residential units); 6)
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
31
.
.
.
That the SWFWMD Permit and NPDES Notice of Intent be provided to Planning
Department staff prior to any building permit issuance; 7) That prior to building permit
issuance, a site plan sheet be submitted that demonstrates a minimum 24-foot
unobstructed width will be maintained for the drive aisle on the north side of the
proposed building at the location of the gate; 8) That prior to building permit issuance, a
site plan sheet indicate the proposed location of the Fire Department Connection (FDC)
for the proposed building; 9) That all Fire Department requirements be addressed prior to
building permit issuance; 10) That prior to building permit issuance, a site plan sheet be
submitted to show the location of the existing gas service main along Windward
Passage; 11) That dumpster service with the City of Clearwater be arranged prior to
building permit issuance; 12) That the condominium plat be recorded with Pinellas
County prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy; 13) That all proposed utilities (from the
rights-of-way to the proposed buildings) be placed underground and installation of
conduit(s) along the entire length of the site's street frontages be completed prior to the
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 14) That Traffic Impact Fees be determined
and paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy issuance; 15) 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); 16) That there be no jet ski or other like
watercraft rental businesses at this location; 17) That boats moored at any docks be for
the exclusive use by the residents and/or guests of the condominiums; 18( That all
applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to seawall
setbacks; and 19) That all signage meet Code and be architecturally-integrated into the
design of the site and building.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the request would not change the zoning;
The COB has been requested to approve the site plan only. No nonconforming uses would be.
created. By their approval, the COB would indicate this use and site plan are appropriate in this
zoning district. However, staff feels this process is an inappropriate way to address land uses and
intensity, which are policy issues that should be determined by the City Council. The COB's role
is to implement City Council policy through site plans. Staff feels the applicant wishes to avoid the
lengthy rezoning and plan amendment process.
Harry Cline, representative, said Code permits 24 units at this site. He said this use is
permitted and does not require rezoning or changing the land use. He said the neighborhood has
agreed the project is compatible with the area. The applicant has purchased 60 feet of land from
the Clearwater Marine Science Center to expand to the north. The applicant will not maximize
allowed density on the site.
Member Plisko reported he was absent from the last meeting, did not hear the full
presentation, and would abstain from voting. Ms. Dougall-Sides said members can vote if they
have reviewed the minutes. Member Plisko declined.
Member Johnson moved to approve Item #F12, Case FLD2004-06042 for 279 Windward
Passage, with the 19 Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded.
Members Doran, Moran, Milam, Johnson, and Alternate Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye";
Member Gildersleeve voted "Nay"; Member Plisko abstained. Motion carried.
Member Dennehy moved to approve Item #F1, Case ANX2004-0701 0 for 1705 Thomas
Drive, Item #F2, Case FLD2004-06046 for 205,209, and 214 Brightwater Drive, with Conditions
of Approval as listed, Item #F3, Case FLD2004-07049 for 674 Bayway Boulevard, with Conditions
of Approval as listed, Item #F4, Case FLD2004-07051, with Conditions of Approval as listed, and
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
32
.
.
.
Item #F9, Case FLD2004-09064 for 2775 State Road 580, with Conditions of Approval as listed.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
G. RECONSIDERED ITEM (Item 1):
1.
Level Two Application
Case: FLD2004-02013 -100 Coronado Drive and 201,215 and 219 South Gulfview
Boulevard (Related to DVA2004-00001)
Requester: City of Clearwater.
Request: Reconsideration, for the only purpose of attaching conditions of approval, of
(1) Flexible Development approval to Terminate the Status of a Nonconformity for
density within the Tourist District, under the provisions of Section 6-109.C; (2) Flexible
Development approval to permit 350 overnight accommodation units and 75 attached
dwellings as a mixed use (with increase in density of 250 hotel rooms from the Beach by
Design density pool), with a reduction to the front (east along Coronado Drive) setback
from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the front (south along proposed
Second Street) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the front
(west and north along South Gulfview Boulevard) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to
building), an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 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),
deviations to allow stacked parking, allow access to a major arterial street and allow a
building within the required sight visibility triangles at the intersection of Coronado Drive
and proposed Second Street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under
the provisions of Section 2-803.C, and to eliminate the required foundation landscaping
along Coronado Drive and proposed Second Street, as a Comprehensive Landscape
Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and (3) the vacation of a portion the
right-of-way for Gulfview Boulevard between Coronado Drive and proposed Second
Street, the vacation of the First Street right-of-way between Coronado Drive and
Gulfview Boulevard, the dedication of right-of-way for proposed Second Street between
Coronado Avenue and Gulfview Boulevard and the dedication of right-of-way for
Coronado Drive between proposed Second Street and Gulfview Boulevard.
Owner/Applicant: K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC.
Representative: Patrick M. O'Connor (2240 Belleair Road, Suite 160, Clearwater, FL
33764; phone: 727-539-6800).
Location: 2.739 acres 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@qte.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
33
.
.
.
The Flexible Development application was approved by the CDB on July 20, 2004
without any conditions. The CDB decided on September 21,2004, to reconsider its prior
approval for the purpose of attaching conditions to implement the project. These three items all
must be approved by the City Council in order for the project to go forward. These three
additional items necessary to complete the project includes: 1) Approval of the Development
Agreement; 2) Approval of the vacation of certain rights-of-way; and 3) Approval of a land swap.
Staff has discussed these conditions with the previous applicant's representative, who did not
object to adding them.
The Planning Department recommends approval of the reconsideration, for the only
purpose of attaching conditions of approval, of: 1) Flexible Development approval to Terminate
the Status of a Nonconformity for density within the Tourist District, under the provisions of
Section 6-109.C; 2) Flexible Development approval to permit 350 overnight accommodation
units and 75 attached dwellings as a mixed use (with increase in density of 250 hotel rooms
from the Beach by Design density pool), with a reduction to the front (east along Coronado
Drive) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the front (south along
proposed Second Street) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the front
(west and north along South Gulfview Boulevard) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to building),
an increase to the building height from 35 feet to 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), deviations to allow stacked
parking, allow access to a major arterial street and allow a building within the required sight
visibility triangles at the intersection of Coronado Drive and proposed Second Street, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.C, and to
eliminate the required foundation landscaping along Coronado Drive and proposed Second
Street, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G;
and 3) the vacation of a portion the right-of-way for Gulfview Boulevard between Coronado
Drive and proposed Second Street, the vacation of the First Street right-of-way between
Coronado Drive and Gulfview Boulevard, the dedication of right-of-way for proposed Second
Street between Coronado Avenue and Gulfview Boulevard and the dedication of right-of-way for
Coronado Drive between proposed Second Street and Gulfview Boulevard.
Conditions of Approval: 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 is subject to the City Council approval of the declaration of
surplus right-of-way and trade with the developer.
Patrick O'Connor, applicant, had no objections to the conditions.
Alternate Member Dennehy moved to approve Item #G1, Case FLD2004-02013 for 100
Coronado Drive and 201,215, and 219 South Gulfview Boulevard, with Conditions of Approval as
listed. The motion was duly seconded. Members Doran, Moran, Milam, Johnson, and Alternate
Board Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Gildersleeve and Plisko voted "Nay." Motion
carried.
H. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1.
Level Three Application
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
34
.
.
.
Case: DVA2004-00001 -100 Coronado Drive and 201, 215 and 219 SouthGulfview
Boulevard (Related to FLD2004-02013)
Owner/Applicant: K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC.
Representative: Patrick M. O'Connor (2240 Belleair Road, Suite 160, Clearwater, FL
33764; phone: 727-539-6800).
Location: 2.739 acres 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 K & P Clearwater Estate, LLC (the property owner) 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: dmacnavCO>.att.net);
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Doug Williams, President, 2544 Frisco Drive,
Clearwater, FL 33761; phone: 727-725-3345; email: DiwCO>.ote.net).
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
On September 21,2004, the CDB, the agent for the new owner of the property, K & P
Clearwater Estate, LLC, requested a continuance of this item to October 19, 2004.
As of the writing of this staff report, the new owner has not submitted revisions to the
pending Development Agreement nor to the pending Flexible Development application to which
the CDB is requested to add conditions of approval as a separate agenda item at this meeting.
Therefore, the staff recommendation of denial for the Development Agreement remains the
same as outlined previously in this staff report.
The CDB heard this case originally at their August 17, 2004, public hearing. At that time,
the CDB continued the case to September 21, 2004, for two issues to be explored. The
Planning Department and the City Attorney have reviewed these two issues and the following
responses are noted: 1) Evaluate and confirm that the issues in the Development Agreement
are in compliance with the City Charter.
City Response: The City Attorney confirms there are no issues in the Development
Agreement that conflict with the City Charter, and 2) Evaluate the developer's proposal
to provide more public parking by allowing the hotel parking not in use to be used by the
general public.
City Response: The city staff and the developer and his team met to discuss several
items in the Development Agreement. The developer explained further his concept for
the additional parking to mean that MORE parking is not proposed to be located within
the building, but rather if and when parking required by Code for the hotel is not used
due to the hotel's occupancy, then the hotel management would make the unused
parking spaces available to the general public for a fee. City staff has evaluated this
suggestion, which comprises an operational decision rather than a change to the design.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
35
.
.
.
The potential availability of additional parking at uncertain times and duration cannot be
monitored nor enforced by the City. However, a minor revision has been made to the
Agreement to allow this activity (See Section 2.03 of the Agreement).
One additional issue has arisen since the CDB's meeting in August. The City no longer
will support the developer's proposal for a pedestrian bridge across Gulfview Boulevard. The
City no longer supports this proposal due to the potential for this structure to block views along
Gulfview Boulevard/Beach Walk and the potential for requests for additional bridges along
Gulfview Boulevard.
The City's original recommendation of denial of the Development Agreement remains in
effect with the additional concern noted above regarding the proposed pedestrian bridge.
The properties total 2.427 acres and are located south of and between South Gulfview
Boulevard and Coronado Drive. The properties are developed with various 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 located across Gulfview Boulevard to the west. All existing structures (buildings and
pavement) within the site area will be razed for the 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 the vacation of the eastern portion of Gulfview Boulevard and
the 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
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 of the declaration of surplus right-of-way
and trade with the developer of land of vacated South Gulfview Boulevard for this project,
subject to the 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, both the vacations of First Street and the South Gulfview Boulevard and the
relocation of South Gulfview Boulevard are critical to this project and the Beach Walk project.
Development Agreement Proposal: 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 Development Agreement sets forth the following main provisions:
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
36
.
.
.
1) The proposed Development Agreement (OVA) requires the applicant to construct a hotel
with a minimum of 350 rooms and a maximum of 450 rooms (OVA Section 2.03.1.c). The
companion Flexible Development application (FLD2004-02013) is for a 350-room hotel and
75 attached dwellings (condominiums). The Development Agreement provides that
additional Flexible Development review will be necessary should the developer elect to
deviate from the site plan as currently proposed (OVA 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 (OVA
Section 3.01.3). Length of stay/occupancy of the hotel rooms will not exceed 30 days (OVA
Section 2.03.4). Rentals of the attached dwellings (condominiums) will meet Code
provisions limiting short-term rentals (OVA 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 (OVA
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 (OVA 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 element
of the proposed structure (OVA 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 Exhibit B-1. These require, as a minimum, four'-
diamond rating from membership in AAA or the Mobile Travel Guide, ORa minimum three-
diamond rating from the same organizations, with the inclusion of hotel upgraded
improvements and facilities set forth in the agreement (see also OVA 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 (OVA Sections
1.01.35 and 5.03.1). Exhibit L provides for the Land Exchange Agreement, with regard to
the declaration of surplus land (see also OVA 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 (OVA 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 responsible for funding the costs associated with his front
footage in relation to the total frontage of the Beach Walk project (OVA 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 (OVA Section
1.01.24 and Exhibit K). The specific location of the landing needs to be determined and
acceptable to the City. It must be located and designed to accommodate appropriate
American's 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 (OVA Section 5.03.7 and Exhibit K).
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
37
.
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 (OVA Section
5.03.7 and Exhibit K). 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 onthe companion site plan application
FLD2004-02013), as part of the Beach Walk (OVA Section 5.03.4).
8) Within the proposed hotel parking garage, 15 parking spaces will be available for public
use (OVA 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.
9) 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 (OVA Section 2.03.5.d and Exhibit E).
10) 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 (OVA Section 2.03.5.e and Exhibit F).
.
11) The City will coordinate the design and construction of the relocated South Gulfview
Boulevard and Beach Walk improvements (OVA Section 5.03.2).
12) 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.
13) The Development Agreement expires ten years following the effective date (date
approved by City Council) (OVA Sections 1.01.13 and 16.18.1).
The COB has been provided with the most recently negotiated Development Agreement,
submitted and dated 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 COB is required to review the proposed Development
Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council.
.
Although the City and the 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
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
38
.
by Design. If the requested number of units were reduced, the size of the building would also
be reduced and it is feasible to meet the design requirements of Beach by Design. Staff is also
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 of a Development Agreement between K & P Clearwater
Estate, LLC (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: The number of pool units requested is excessive and creates a design
that does not meet the Design Guidelines within Beach by Design.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said no substantive discussion with the
applicant had occurred regarding elements in the development agreement, however, a meeting
regarding outstanding issues had taken place although no negotiations occurred.
Mr. O'Connor, representative, said the applicant recognizes the development agreement
is incomplete. The applicant will work with staff before the next meeting. He recommended the
CDB recommend denial of the agreement, as it is incomplete.
.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said should the City Council deny the
application, the applicant's reapplication is limited. She suggested the CDB identify concerns
along with the motion.
Discussion ensued, with comments that this is a great opportunity to get more public
parking, the mechanisms of the development agreement will advance this project to its
completion, and a concern was expressed with the development's underlying concept.
Alternate Member Dennehy moved to recommend denial of Item #H1, Case DVA2004-
00001 for 100 Coronado Drive and 201,215 and 219 South Gulfview Boulevard of the
Development Agreement between K & P Clearwater Estates, LLC and the City of Clearwater.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
I. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 2):
1.
Case: FLD2004-05035 - 202 Windward Passage
Owner: High and Dry Marina, Inc.
Applicant: Sal Haider, Windward Passage Condominiums, LLC.
Representative: Bill Woods, Woods Consulting, Inc. (322 Ridge Road, Palm Harbor, FL
34683: phone: 727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email:
billwoods@woodsconsultina.ora).
Location: 1.83 acres located on the north side of the western terminus of Windward
Passage.
Atlas Page: 267B.
Zoning District: High Density Residential (HDR).
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
39
.
Request: Flexible Development to permit a multi-use dock with a reduction to the side
(east) setback from 42.9 feet to 18.7 feet, under the provisions of Section 3-601.
Proposed Use: Construction of a multi-use dock for 20 slips totaling 4,720 square-feet,
with each dock measuring 50 feet in length from a 10-foot wide boardwalk adjacent to
the seawall (in association with an approved 55-unit condominium project).
Neighborhood Association: Island Estates Civic Association (John Bosmosky, P.O.
Box 3154, Clearwater, FL 33767); Dolphin Cove Condominium Association (255 Dolphin
Point Road, Clearwater, FL 33767; phone/fax: 727-442-7880); 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.
The 1.83-acre site on the north side of the western terminus of Windward Passage
currently is developed with a high and dry marina, with an approximately 40-foot high building.
On May 18, 2004, the CDB approved FLD2003-11059, with six conditions, to develop the
upland portion of this site with 55 attached dwellings (condominiums). Eight existing floating
docks, which under the prior approval were to be retained, are unchanged.
.
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 10 docks, totaling 4,720 square-feet for 20 slips for use by
the owners/tenants of the townhomes, with the exception of slips 19 and 20 on the western end
to be transient slips for visitors or for residents to load and unload personnel or equipment.
These two transient slips should be restricted in use within the condominium documents, be
restricted to allow visitor boats to moor for a period of time not to exceed 72 hours, and not
allow live-aboards.
The proposal is to construct the ten docks measuring 50 feet in length each from a 10-
foot wide boardwalk adjacent to the seawall. Tie poles will meet Code requirements. The
easternmost dock is proposed 18.7 feet from the east property line, while the westernmost dock
is proposed 44 feet from the west property line. A minimum side setback of 42.9 feet is required
for the docks. Each slip is a minimum of 15 feet wide and would be acceptable for boatlifts.
The boardwalk adjacent to the seawall will be used as an area for dock boxes, electric
pedestals, hose racks and fire extinguisher cabinets. Code dock provisions limit the width of
docks to a maximum of 75% of the lot width, or 321.75 feet in this case. The proposed overall
dock width is 74.1% of the lot width (318 feet). Code provisions restrict dock length to a
maximum of 75% of the lot width (321.75 feet). The docks are proposed to be a total of 60 feet
in length each from the seawall (including the 10-foot wide boardwalk adjacent to the seawall).
SWFWMD requires a minimum three feet of water depth at mean low water. All of these
slips have at least this water depth, with most of the slips greatly exceeding this depth (to as
much as an eight-foot depth). The width of the waterway at this location ranges between 260 to
325 feet. These docks do not exceed the 25% of the waterway width. There are no issues
regarding sea grasses or navigation with the proposal and the other criteria for docks have been
met. A sparse bed of Manatee grass is along the eastern property boundary.
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.
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
40
.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on September 9, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit a multi-use dock with a reduction to the side (east) setback
from 42.9 feet to 18.7 feet, under the provisions of Section 3-601, for the site at 202 Windward
Passage, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 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.
Conditions of Approval: 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 only one boat per slip be permitted and that slips 19
and 20 be "transient" slips for visitors to the condominiums or for use by the residents to load
and unload personnel or equipment only. Live-aboards shall not be permitted. The
condominium documents shall restrict use of these two slips and the length of time of mooring
not to exceed 72 hours, with documentation submitted to the Planning Department of such
restriction and recordation; 3) That dock-supported signage be permanently installed containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the vicinity;
and 4) That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit and Corps of Engineer's Permit,if
applicable, be submitted to the Planning Department prior to commencement of construction.
.
Beverly Buysee, Assistant Harbormaster, said staff reviewed the property and found no
hazards to navigation. She said the probability of two boats backing up at the same time is
minimal, as navigation rules require sound signals before marine vessels are put in reverse.
In response to a question, Planner Wayne Wells said the Hi and Dry Marina owns the
bottom land.
Bill Woods, representative, submitted his and Terri Skapik's resumes. He said he had a
friendly discussion with a nearby resident regarding his concerns.
Alternate Member Dennehy moved to accept Bill Woods as an expert in the field of
environmental marine design, engineering and permitting, dredge and fill and permitting, and
Terri L. Skapik as an expert in the field of hydrogeology. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
Mr. Woods said he has completed more than 120 projects. He said this project meets all
City Code, Army Corps of Engineers, and FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental
Protection) requirements. He reviewed a drawing of the proposed boat slips indicating the
design will permit boats to pull out simultaneously.
Member Gildersleeve moved to approve Item #11, Case FLD2004-05035 for 202
Windward Passage, with Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and
carried unanimously.
2.
Case: FLD2004-06044 - 115 North Keystone Drive
Owner/Applicant: David and SharonCote (111 North Keystone Drive, Clearwater, FL
33755; phone: 727-455-2130; fax: 727-461-1649).
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
41
.
Location: 0.162 acre located at the southeast corner of N. Keystone Drive and Grove
Street.
Atlas Page: 288B.
Zoning District: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
Request: Flexible Development approval for (1) the Termination of Status of
Nonconformity for density for the purpose of adding a three-car garage, under the
provisions of Section 6-109, and (2) the expansion of attached dwellings with a reduction
to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to building) and a reduction to the
side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building), as a Residentiallnfill Project,
under the provisions of Section 2-203.C, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along
the south property line from 10 feet to five feet, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape
Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Construction of a three-car attached garage in association with an
existing nonconforming attached dwelling (duplex).
Neighborhood Association: Keystone Manor (Ken Strickland, 1634 Laura Street,
Clearwater, FL 33755); 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.
.
The 0.162-acre, 51-foot by 137.5-foot site is at the southeast corner of North Keystone
Drive and Grove Street, and currently is developed with a nonconforming attached dwelling
structure (duplex), located toward the western portion of the lot. There are presently two
driveways off of Grove Street on either side of the duplex providing one off-street parking space
per unit. Surrounding uses are primarily detached dwellings. There isa nonconforming duplex
located one half block to the east at 1666 Grove Street (also zoned Low Medium Density
Residential [LMDR] District). Additionally, there is a nonconforming attached dwelling of three
dwelling units located on the northwest corner of Grove Street and North Duncan Avenue (116
N. Duncan Avenue; zoned LMDR District). There are a number of attached dwellings
(duplexes) located to the north along both sides of Drew Street (zoned Medium Density
Residential District).
As a nonconforming use (duplex), Section 6-103.B does not permit the expansion of the
use, but only provides for normal maintenance and repair. The applicants propose to construct
a 32-foot wide by 26-foot deep, three-car garage on the east side of the duplex, connecting the
garage by a 12-foot wide by 20-foot deep breezeway to the duplex, for the purpose of providing
the required 1.5 off-street parking spaces per unit. In order to accomplish their proposal, the
applicants have requested to Terminate the Status of Nonconformity to make the duplex a
conforming use, which would then allow for the proposed garage expansion. Since the proposal
attaches to the principal structure, the addition does not have any restriction on size (different
than accessory structures that are restricted to 10 percent of the principal structure floor area).
The proposed garage is 22 feet in height to the peak of the roof, within the 30-foot maximum
height of Minimum Standard Development in the LMDR District. The applicants desire to allow
for storage over the garage parking.
.
Under the Termination of Status of Nonconformity provisions, there are four required
improvements: 1) Installation of perimeter buffers. As attached dwellings adjacent to detached
dwellings and local streets, 1 O-foot wide landscape buffers are required. The site meets the 10-
foot buffers adjacent to both streets and along the east side of the property. The applicant has
requested to reduce the setback/buffer along the south property line to five feet in width, which
is adjacent to the applicant's home; 2) Improvement of off-street parkina lots. The applicant is
attempting to improve the off-street parking circumstances of the property through this proposal;
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
42
.
.
.
3) Removal of nonconformina sians. outdoor liahtina or other accessory structures. There are
no nonconforming signs or outdoor lighting on the premises. There is an existing storage shed
in the southeast corner, at undetermined setbacks (only a five-foot side setback is required from
both the east and south property lines). The proposal includes the removal of this shed; and 4)
Use of Comprehensive Sian Proaram and Comprehensive Landscape Proarams to satisfy
reauirements. There is no need for a Comprehensive Sign Program, as there are no signs.
The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscape Program to satisfy the 10-foot buffer
requirement along the south property.
Nonconforming attached dwellings (duplexes and triplexes) are located at 116 N.
Duncan Avenue (triplex zoned LMDR; one block to the east) and 1666 Grove Street (duplex
zoned LMDR; 1/2 block to the east). The applicant has indicated in their submittal information
that 1625 Laura Street is a duplex, yet City and Property Appraiser records indicate the use to
be a single-family dwelling. There are a number of attached dwellings on both sides of Drew
Street one block to the north, but these attached dwellings are located in the Medium Density
Residential District.
The applicant also has requested to reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 20
feet and to reduce the side (south) setback and buffer from 10 feet to five feet. Given the
north/south lot dimension of 51 feet and the required setbacks totaling 35 feet, there is
insufficient area to construct a garage that could house any vehicles (only 16 feet left after
setback requirements). The reduction to the front setback will allow vehicles to park outside of
the garage and not overhang the property line. The reduction to the side (south) setback will
allow for a sufficient depth of garage for vehicles to park within. There already is a heavy
landscape buffer existing along the south property line. The existing structure is located 10.6
feet from the Grove Street front property line. Addition of the garage and breezeway would not
appear to have any negative impact on surrounding property values (surrounding property
values within Y:z block range between $69,900 and $122,600, with the majority up to the mid-
$80's; subject property value currently is $72,500).
To ensure the use of this addition is for the use of the residents of the duplex, any
approval should be conditioned on restricting use of the garage and storage area to the
residents of the duplex. While retaining the existing western driveway, the eastern, existing
driveway is assumed to be removed. Approval should be conditioned on removal of this
eastern, existing driveway. To ensure use of the breezeway by the residents of the duplex,
sidewalk access should be provided from the units. The applicant proposes additional
landscaping on the property. Code requirements for proposed trees will need to be met.
The redevelopment of this site, with enhanced landscape improvements, will improve the
appearance of this site and the surrounding area. All applicable Code requirements and criteria
including, but not limited to, General Applicability criteria (Section 3-913) and Residentiallnfill
Project criteria (Section 2-404.F) have been met.
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application and supporting materials
on May 6, 2004. The Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development
application for (1) the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for density for the purpose of
adding a three-car garage, under the provisions of Section 6-109, and (2) the expansion of
attached dwellings with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to
building) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to building), as a
Residentiallnfill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-203.C, and a reduction to the
landscape buffer along the south property line from 10 feet to five feet, as part of a
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
43
Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for the site at
. 115 North Keystone Drive, with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval: 1) The proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a
Residentiallnfill Project per Section 2-404.F; 2) The proposal is in compliance with other
standards in the Code including the General Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913; 3) The
proposal complies with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Landscape
Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G; and 4) The development is compatible with
the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts.
Conditions of Approval: 1) That use of the garage and storage area above be restricted
to resident use of the duplex only; 2) That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the site
plans indicate the existing, eastern driveway be shown to be removed; 3) That, prior to the
issuance of a building permit, the site plans indicate sidewalk access be provided from the units
to the breezeway; and 4) That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the landscape plan be
revised to indicate trees meeting Code size requirements.
Mr. Wells said staff received many letters and e-mails related to this request, including
three letters in support and one letter in opposition, to the application.
.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the Code does not include a definition of
"breezeway." He said there is no entrance into the garage from the breezeway. A breezeway
normally joins two areas, but that is not required. The breezeway provides an area for
residents' use although it does not physically connect via a door to the duplex. Mr. Wells said
the Code does not limit the requested size of the attached garage, however, adding another unit
would violate this approval.
David Cote, applicant, said as neighbors mistakenly had thought the garage would line
up with the duplex and block views, he outlined the proposed structure with stakes. He said the
shed and the driveway to the right will be removed. One driveway to the unit will remain on the
left side. He stated many homes within two blocks of this site have two-story garages. He
plans a vaulted storage area above the garage. He felt the project is in character with the
neighborhood. In response to a question, Mrs. Cote said she has no intention of constructing
an apartment above the garage. She said the one driveway will have a sidewalk. The driveway
on Keystone will remain.
Linda Zubek requested party status.
Alternate Member Dennehy moved to grant Linda Zubek party status. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to a request, Ms. Tarapani said neighborhood associations cannot have
party status.
Elaine Hartman requested party status.
Alternate Member Dennehy moved to grant Elaine Hartman party status. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
.
Donald Knight requested party status.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
44
.
Member Gildersleeve moved to grant Donald Knight party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Six people spoke in opposition to the request.
Mr. Cote said the structure is for tenant use only and will not restrict views or block
windows.
Mrs. Cote said one tenant has requested to sign a six-year lease. She said the structure
will provide safe, covered parking and attract quality tenants. Tenants currently have very little
storage. Car doors could hit each other in a two-car garage. She said the small stall will house
lawn maintenance equipment.
Mr. Cote did not feel it necessary to partition the structure. He did not know how to
partition the top portion of the structure. It was remarked the plan submitted is a rough draft and
has not been finalized. In response to a question, Mr. Cote. said the breezeway will have
laundry facilities and serve as a porch. He acknowledged a permit is required to install laundry
facilities. He said a sidewalk will meet the sidewalk to the front door.
In response to a question, Mr. Cote said he has no ulterior motives. He said a year ago
he had purchased and re-sold a few automobiles. He stated he is not in the automobile
business. His business is in Dade City. He stated bucket trucks on his property are for
personal use to trim trees. He lives in the property south of the subject property, and has a one-
car, attached garage.
.
Mrs. Cote said she performs title work for some local area auto dealerships, but does not
have a dealer's license. She suggested, if necessary, that tenants could use the laundry
facilities on designated days. Mr. Cote said the tenants would prefer to walk around the building
to do their laundry rather than go down the street.
In response to a question, Mr. and Mrs. Cote stated they had read staffs recommended
conditions, including the condition that indicates use of the garage and storage area above be
restricted to residents' use only. Mr. Wells suggested a condition could be modified to require
the owners to use the third bay to store only maintenance equipment.
Concern was expressed that this nonconforming duplex would have a breezeway that
serves as a laundry area. Ms. Tarapani said this request would make the use conforming.
In response to a question, Mr. Cote said he could not store maintenance equipment on
his personal property. Mr. Wells said even if the owner wishes to use the breezeway to provide
laundry facilities, that use would require CDB approval. In response to a question, Mr. Cote
said the breezeway would be screened.
One person spoke in favor of the application.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the structure would be set back ten feet
from the property line.
.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said 30 feet in height is permitted in this zoning
district. He said this structure could be built up to 30 feet high, or if the roof is pitched, up to the
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
45
.
midpoint of the roof. He said the setback from the front property line on Grove Street, will be 35
feet.
Mr. Cote said many duplexes are in the neighborhood. He said he will use quality
materials for the project and it will blend into the rest of the structure and neighborhood. He
said the goal is to make the structure appear as if it had been there since 1950. He said he is
doing his best to keep the area quaint. He said the project will not look as large as neighbors
expect. He does not intent to obstruct anyone's views.
Discussion ensued with comments that a two-car garage would fit better in the
neighborhood, and concern the owners wish to store all their maintenance materials in this
structure.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the CDB could limit the structure to a two-
car garage within the setbacks, but the applicants would still need approval of the termination of
nonconformity. Discussion ensued with comments that if the size of the garage is reduced, the
proportions also would need to be discussed, and this corner lot is already constrained with two
yards and no rear yard. Ms. Tarapani said the board appears to suggest that the structure be
limited to resident use only, and not allow the storage of maintenance equipment. It was
remarked the applicants need a storage area for their maintenance equipment. Ms. Tarapani
said the board the CDB could suggest a condition requiring remoVal of the shed. The applicant
has the option of keeping the current shed or building a new one. An accessory shed is
acceptable. Concern was expressed the applicants want to store their maintenance equipment
on the proposed structure for use at other properties. They would be running a business from
the site.
.
It was suggested the applicant return with a redesign of the structure including details
regarding the laundry room, etc., as not all the facts regarding use of the structure have been
submitted.
Alternate Member Dennehy moved to continue Item #12, Case FLD2004-06044 for 115
North Keystone Drive to November 16, 2004. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 6:22 to 6:29 p.m.
J. CONSIDERATION OF LEVEL 1 APPEAL (Item 1):
1.
Case: APP2004-00006 - 1310 Cleveland Street
Owner: Manal Oil, Inc.
Representative: Stephen R. Fowler, AlA, Fowler Associates Architects, Inc. (1421 Court
Street, Suite D, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-449-2021; fax: 727-447-5339;email:
fowlerarch(Q>.aol. com).
Location: 0.25 acre at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and North Fredrica
Avenue.
Atlas Page: 287B.
Zoning District: Commercial (C).
Proposed Use: Expansion of an automobile service station.
Request: Appeal of an administrative determination denying the expansion of the retail
sales portion (convenience store) of a nonconforming automobile service station, under
the provisions of Sections 4-501.A.2 and 4-503.
.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
46
.
Neighborhood Association(s): Gateway Neighborhood (Paul Charles, 1367 Park
Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 813-205-8779); 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.
This 0.25-acre corner lot on the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and North Fredrica
Avenue contains a 312 square-foot, single-story commercial building, a fueling island with two
pumps, and a canopy over the pumps. Access presently is provided from two driveways off
Cleveland Street and one driveway from Frederica Avenue. The property is zoned Commercial
(C) District.
.
This case is an appeal of an administrative determination denying expansion of the retail
sales portion (convenience store) of a nonconforming automobile service station. The site had
been developed as an automobile service station in the past and was vacant for two to three
years. On May 7,2002, a Development Order was issued approving Flexible Standard
Development FLS 02-01-02 to establish an automobile service station with two pump islands.
The automobile service station was reopened in August 2002. On March 18, 2003, the
Community Development Board approved a Flexible Development application (FLD2003-
01003) with five conditions to permit the addition of a canopy over existing gasoline pumps and
signage for an existing automobile service station with a reduction in the front (south) setback
from 25 feet to five feet (to canopy) and a reduction in the front (south) setback from five feet to
zero feet (to sign), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. This site is located
in the East Gateway District of the newly adopted Downtown Plan (effective upon adoption by
the Countywide Planning Authority on February 3,2004). Automobile service stations are now
listed as a prohibited use within the East Gateway District. As such, the existing automobile
service station is now deemed a nonconforming use.
On May 26, 2004, the applicant filed, on behalf of the property owner, a request to
expand the automobile service station (FLD2004-05038) to permit the addition of a second
gasoline pump island, expand the canopy and relocate and expand the retail sales building to
the northeast corner of the property. Contained in the "incomplete" letter for this new request is
the prohibition by Section 6-103.B of the Code of the expansion of nonconforming uses.
Additionally, Policy 11 of the new Downtown Plan states that the use of the Code tool known as
"Termination of Status as a Nonconformity" is not permitted within the Downtown Plan area.
By letter dated September 17, 2004, the Community Development Coordinator issued a
letter determining that the use of the property is an automobile service station, and that the
expansion of any portion of the use constitutes the expansion of the use. It is this determination
that the appellant is appealing.
APPEAL PROCESS:
.
The appellants filed this appeal on September 24, 2004. Section 4-501.A.2 of the
Community Development Code states that the COB has the authority to hear appeals from
orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative official in the
administration of the Community Development Code. Section 4-502.A provides that an appeal
of orders, requirements, decisions, or determinations made by an administrative official in the
administration of the Community Development Code may be initiated within seven days of the
date of the order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative official.
Notice of the date of such meeting shall be provided the applicant and the appellants by mail
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
47
.
and by telephone. Pursuant to Section 4-504.B, the CDB shall review the application, the
recommendation of the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public
hearing on the application in accord with Section 4-206 (notice and public hearings) and render
a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-206.D.5 granting the appeal, granting
the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal.
Pursuant to Section 4-504.C of the Community Development Code, in order to grant an
appeal, (overturning or modifying the decision under appeal), the CDB shall find that, based on
substantial competent evidence presented by the applicant or other party, all of the following
criteria are met: 1) The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the
provisions of the Community Development Code; and 2) That the decision will be in harmony
with the general intent and purpose of the Community Development Code; and 3) Will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare.
Stephen R. Fowler, representative, said the 306 square-foot retail facility cannot
accommodate current customers. He said the applicant proposes to construct a 1,368 square-
foot facility on the back of the property. He said the applicant is not proposing to add pump
islands. He said the applicant is proposing improved landscaping, improved stormwater
management and traffic circulation, and to meet the needs of disabled customers. In response
to a question, Mr. Fowler said he felt this request is a separation of uses. He said currently,
there is insufficient room to sell soda, water, etc. This business provides a service for
neighborhood residents. The applicant has provided for double-wall gas tanks. He said the
property owner wishes to improve the site.
.
Discussion ensued with a comment that the request would improve the site, however,
the applicant must prove that staff misinterpreted or misconstrued the Code. Mr. Wells said
staff has not reviewed the applicant's plans, which would expand only the retail portion of the
business.
Mr. Fowler said the retail portion of the business is a permitted use in Downtown. He-
said the gasoline sales is anxcilliary to the retail operation. The business' main revenue comes
from soda, cigarettes, etc.
One person spoke in opposition to the application.
Development Review Manager Frank Gerlock said this is not an application for a
convenience store. It was remarked the Code clearly states this use is nonconforming in the
Downtown, regardless of whether or not the use improves the site.
Member Milam moved to deny Item #J1, Case APP2004-00006 for 1310 Cleveland
Street. The motion was duly seconded. Members Doran, Gildersleeve, Plisko, Milam,
Johnson, and Alternate Member Dennehy voted "Aye"; Member Moran voted "Nay." Motion
carried.
K. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS:
Proposed Meeting to Discuss the Application of the Downtown Design Guidelines
.
The November 16,2004, meeting was scheduled for 1 :00 p.m., to hold a one-hour
discussion of the Downtown Design Guidelines prior to regularly scheduled business.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
48
.
.
.
Christmas Luncheon
Consensus was to schedule the Christmas Luncheon on December 14, 2004, at 12:00
noon. The location is to be determined.
Other Business
Consensus was to schedule meetings at 1 :00 p.m. beginning January 2005.
Staff will provide the board with new notebooks containing lists of updated expert
witnesses and staff, rules of procedure, conflict of interest forms, meeting procedures, etc.
Staff will suggest dates for COB member training sessions.
It was requested that COB members be provided business cards for use when visiting
sites on the agenda, to prevent neighbor concerns regarding trespassing. It was felt name tags
would be preferable, as Code prohibits ex-partee contacts and members cannot discuss the
merits of a case with anyone.
It was requested that staff minimize the number of dock applications that come before
the COB.
Staff suggested the COB clarify concerns when the board requests staff action related to
case staff had recommended be denied.
Staff was thanked for mailing the meeting agendas earlier.
Staff will check new CRUM signage on Missouri. Avenue to ensure it conforms with
Code.
L. ADJOURNMENT -
The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m.
Community Development Board 2004-10-19
49
CITY
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
J(L CD'1 "'u~/ry pfl# "/.1~ tAIL.
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
CITY a COUNTY a OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME O~'77k SUBDIVI ON: C l.t;;'AI2.W It ~
MY POSITION IS:
COUNTYIJ 6' (LA 7
a ELECTIVE
APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
t. I, '
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 priNate gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of comQlunity 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-ltiw. A "business associate- mean~any person or entity engaged ,in ()r carrying, on a ,business
enterprise .With the 9fficer 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.
a~~:INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
. 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 f~rm must be reae! publicly.at the, !le~ meeting l:jfter 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 f~rm and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible forr~cording the rhiri\Jtes of the
meeting, who must inCorporate 'the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other rtlembers of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. ' I
.......
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I,
Ate"x. f(;I$KoJ tL ,herebydisclosethaton
t::)c:::(of:>e;rl- (i
,20~
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured 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,
X inured to the special gain or loss of Ii t>lVAI. 0 fO '-(.14 ~I<..
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-A ~C; ~ '- f? Zo c 1- 0 e, c:) "S(.c, t c::; ~ C::)
~06 ('l...AOo I9v6N--It;
~'( A~~H '~T'l/I2..49~ rl/eiVl 1m ~ PltcJvfPIS"O
ffl..of~~ l/oNJi4e,- S51l.U/'-6> ,0 ~~
f'OI..-LJQ~/<- S/ f?~~/~C€ AI Tl-I/S LoGI9Y7cJlV)
Date Filed
10 111 / 01
I /
~-SJ
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
FORM8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
T NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
L-1"7/-;~ A~ c;.o,.,""('(A.!,lf PS ~(sIA//&:JIfJ~
A. ) THE BOARD, COUNCil, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
~" V INGUJI<; WHICH I SERVE ISAUNITOF:
CITY COUNTY )!cITY 0 COUNTY
? ~1Q~f.V~ NAMEO~L1T~UBD~SION:
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS:
c.rfol6BY2.. I -ZO()4
MAILING ADDRESS
o OTHER lOCAL AGENCY
o ELECTIVE
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 PriQoirtill b' whiC;;h he or she [s retaine~); to the special private gain or 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 independe.nt special tax districts elected on ao~e-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity. .
For purposes of this law, a ;'r9IatiVe" incrudes' Only the officer's father, mother, son,' daugtlter, husband, wife, brot!1er, 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 part,ner, joint venturer" coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national orregionai 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
AKEN:
. 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 r~ad,.publielY',at the next meeUng aft!!r 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'mj'mltes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the niinu'tes. 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,
ALe~ fl.(C,1?O
, hereby disclose that on
OC;to6fS'^- I' ,20~:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured 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.A~ pc-O 2.oof~otfZ - 7.-7 ~ UV/,uI!J&.tJ""".o
ftJ/'5pt~6 /1110 pl29Vrb~fvY l!;ei5W f/'l.-~~
---
AI A p..1(;; t;:Tl N G. :c u/ IIJ~ NO' .&c.T.
'?/AI'U
IVC'~
/h'QvlS' ~
CA7G I r.
f t.A {...;(-
(; L~7l51t?
:r:.. O,/:)
ff(~ T7P 1(..'1
ft}o-;- TO
~ 77/fI
lfOyt;;.
Date Filed
II It ft 10 r
I I
M~
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. 112000
PAGE 2
I
.
,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: October 19" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
Level Two
1. Case: FLD2004-05035 - 202 Windward Passage
~ no
yes
2. Case: FLD2004-07049 - 674 Bayway Boulevard
yes
X no
.
3. Case: FLD2004-07051 - 130 Brightwater
yes 7<-.. no
4. Case: FLD2004-06044 - 115 Keystone Drive
yes )(. no
5. Case: FLD2004-04027 - 400 Mandalay Avenue
x.. yes no
6. Case: FLD2004-07055/SGN2004-08001 601 Old Coachman Road
yes ~ no
7. Case: FLD2004-07052 - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230,300 &
304 Coronado Drive (Related to DV A2004-00002)
)( yes no
8. Case DV A2004-00002 -229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 &
304 Coronado Drive (Related to FLD2004-07052)
)<. yes no
9. Case: FLD2004-07050/TDR20040-090t2 - 600 Bayway Boulevard
~
yes
no
10. Case: FLD2004-08058 2201 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
+-yes no
,
11. Case: FLD2004-08056 1000 Eldorado Avenue
yes
no
eoNfL.l~
12. Case: APP2004-00006 -1310 Cleveland Street
~ yes no
Signature:
S:\Planning Departrnent\C D B\CDB, pro erty investigation check list.doc
Date: /0 {t '1 /01
2
" ...
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: October 19" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties,
1. Case: FLD2004-02013 -100 Coronado Drive & 201,215 and 219 South
yes
/
no
Gulfview Boulevard
2.
Case: DV A2004-00001-100 Coronado Drive & 201,215 and 219 South
Gulfview Boulevard , ..;
yes no
3.
Case: FLD2004-03018 - 669 Bay Esplanade /'
yes ~no
4.
Case: FLD2004-06046 - 205,209 and 214 ~htwater Drive
yes no
5.
Case: FLD2004-02010 - 503 Marshall Str/,
yes no
6.
Case: FLD2004-06042 - 279 Windward p~e
yes no
7.
Case: FLD2004-09064 - 2775 State Road;
yes no
8. Case: ANX2004-07010 - 1705 Thomas DriVj
yes
Signature:
S:\Planning De
1___
no
2
Date:
,.
"
t
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: October 19., 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
Level Two
1. Case: FLD2004-0503).,- 202 Windward Passage
yes V no
2. Case: FLD2004-0707674 Bayway Boulevard
yes no
3. Case: FLD2004-070Y 130 Brightwater
yes no
4. C~LD2004-06044 - 115 Keystone Drive
yes no
5. C~D2004-041- 400 Mandalay Avenne
es no
6. Case: FLD2004-070:7N2004-08001 601 Old Coachman Road
yes no
7. Case: FLD2004-07052 - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230,300 &
304 Coronado Driv7elated to DV A2004-00002)
yes no
8. Case DV A2004-00002 -229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230,300 &
304 Coronado Drive ~elated to FLD2004-07052)
yes /' no
9. Case: FLD2004-077TDR20040-09012 - 600 Bayway Bonlevard
yes no
10. Case: FLD2004-08058 ~01 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
yes vi no
\
,
a
11. Case: I~D2004-08056 1000 Eldorado Avenue
j yes no
12. Case: APP2004-106 -1310 Cleveland Street
yes no
.....,/
Date:
2
"
,
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: October 19" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
Level Two
1. Case: FLD2004-05035 - 202 Windward Passage
~yes no
2.
2004-07049 - 674 Bayway Boulevard
no
3.
2004-07051 - 130 Brightwater
no
4. Case: ~2004-06044 - 115 Keystone Drive
V yes no
5. C7:D2004-04027 - 400 Mandalay A venne
yes no
6.
2004-07055/SGN2004-08001 601 Old Coachman Road
no
7. Case: FLD2004-07052 - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 &
304 Coronado Drive (Related to DV A2004-00002)
~es no
8. Case DV A2004-00002 -229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 &
304 9>>'onado Drive (Related to FLD2004-07052)
~yes no
9. Case: FLD2004-07050/TDR20040-09012 - 600 Bayway Boulevard
Lyes no
10. C::;:D2004-08058 2201 Gnlfto Bay Boulevard
yes no
11. Case: FLD2004-08056 1000 Eldorado Avenue
/ yes no
12. CtPP2004-00006 - 1310 Cleveland Street
es no
Signature:
S:\Planning D
Date:/t1-IYt'1
ent\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
2
.
.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: October 19" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
Level Two
1. Case: FLD2004-05035 - 202 Windward Passage
+yes no
2. ca~: FyLD2004-07049 - 674 Bayway Boulevard
es no
3. Case: FLD2004-07051 - 130 Brightwater
~es no
4. cas~ ~D2004-06044 - 115 Keystone Drive
es no
5. Case: FLD2004-04027 - 400 Mandalay Avenue
~es no
6. Case: FLD2004-07055/SGN2004-08001 601 Old Coachman Road
fes
no
7. Case: FLD2004-07052 - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230,300 &
30roronado Drive (Related to DV A2004-00002)
yes no
8. Case DV A2004-00002 -229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 &
304 Coronado Drive (Related to FLD2004-07052)
~es no
9. ca~ FLD2004-07050rrDR20040-09012 - 600 Bayway Boulevard
yes no
10. Case: FLD2004-08058 2201 Gulf to Bay Boulevard
~yes no
.
.
11. Case: FLD2004-08056 1000 Eldorado Avenue
~es no
12. ca~ APP2004-00006 - 1310 Cleveland Street
yes no
Signa~ ~ _.
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, p1upclty investigation check list.doc
Date:
2
I~(q[~
- .,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: October 19" 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the
following properties.
1. Case: FLD2004-02013 - 100 Coronado Drive & 201,215 and 219 South
Gulfview Boulevard
-Les
no
2.
Case: DV A2004-00001-100 7onadO Drive & 201,215 and 219 Sonth
Gulfview Boulevard
yes no
3.
Case: FLD2004-03018 - 6691. ay Esplanade
yes no
Case: FLD2004-06046 - 205, ~ and 214 Brightwater Drive
yes no
Case: FLD2004-02010 - 503 trshan Street
yes no
Case: FLD2004-06042 - 2791indward Passage
yes no
4.
5.
6.
7.
Case: FLD2004-09064 - 277 :tate Road 580
es no
.n
8. Case: ANX2004-07010 -1705 Thomas Drive
-ie,
no
Si_~ ~ ,
S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc
Date: I () lti Iii
2
I.
.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Meeting Date: October 19~ 2004
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following
properties.
Level Two
1. ca7LD2004-05035 - 202 Windward Passage
yes no
2. ca~D2004-07049 - 674 Bayway Boulevard
yes no
3. Case:!LD2004-07051 - 130 Brightwater
V yes no
4. ca~D2004-06044 - 115 Keystone Drive
yes no
5. C~D2004-04027 - 400 Mandalay Avenue
6. cat~2004-07055/SG:2004-0800 1 601 Old Coachman Road
es no
7. c:~elLD2004-07052 - 229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230,300 &
3lfcoronado Drive (Related to DV A2004-00002)
yes no
8. Case DV A2004-00002 -229 and 301 South Gulfview Boulevard and 230, 300 &
3~4 toronado Drive (Related to FLD2004-07052)
~yes no
9. cv/ FLD2004-07050/TDR20040-09012 - 600 Bayway Boulevard
10. ca~~2004-08058 22:: Gulf to Bay Boulevard
yes no
.
.
11. ca~D2004-080561000 Eldorado Avenue
yes no
12. Case: ~2004-00006 -1310 Cleveland Street
--LL.res no
Signature:
S:\Planning Depa
Date: f? 11
B, property investigation check list.doc
2
,