09/15/2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
September 15, 2020
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 20-69, issued by the Office of Governor Ron
DeSantis on March 20, 2020, municipalities may conduct meetings of their
governing boards without having a quorum of its members present physically or
at any specific location, and utilizing communications media technology such as
telephonic or video conferencing, as provided by Section 120.54(5)(b)2, Florida
Statutes.
Present: Chair Michael Boutzoukas, Vice Chair Christopher J. Anuszkiewicz, Board
Member Mary A. Lau, Board Member Mike Flanery, Board Member John Quattrocki,
Board Member Brian Barker, Board Member Jordan Behar
Absent: Alternate Board Member Elizabeth Van Scoyoc
Also Present - Jay Daigneault—Attorney for the Board, Michael Fuino —Assistant City
Attorney, Gina Clayton — Planning & Development Director, Patricia O. Sullivan — Board
Reporter
A. CALL TO ORDER, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Chair Michael Boutzoukas
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Michael Boutzoukas, Vice Chair Christopher Anuszkiewicz and Board Members
Mary Lau, Mike Flanery, John Quattrocki, Brian Barker and Jordan Behar attended the
meeting using communications media technology. Also participating in the meeting
were Attorney for the Board Jay Daigneault, Assistant City Attorney Michael Fuino,
Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton, and Board Reporter Patricia Sullivan.
Live participation occurred in Council Chambers at the Main Library.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
B. ROLL CALL:
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS: June 16 & September 3,
2020
Member Lau moved to approve the minutes of the June 16, 2020 Community
Development Board meeting as submitted in written summation. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Behar moved to approve the minutes of the September 3, 2020 Community
Development Board Special meeting as submitted in written summation. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2020-09-15 1
D. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD RE ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None
E. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Item 1-7)
1. Case: FLD2009-08026A (Parcel A) — 309 Coronado Dr.Level Two Application
Owner(s)/Applicant: Key Clearwater, LLC.
Representative: Housh Ghovaee; Northside Engineering, Inc. (300 South Belcher
Road, Clearwater, FL, 32765, phone: 727-709-0943; email:
housh(o)northsideengineering.net)
Location: 1.105 acre located at the southwest corner of Third Street and Hamden
Drive.
Request: The Community Development Board is reviewing proposed amendments
to approved Level II Flexible Development applications FLD2009-08026
(Parcel/Hotel A) and FLD2009-08027 (Parcel/Hotel B) in the Tourist (T) District and
the Small Motel District of Beach by Design for the property located at 309 Coronado
Drive (formerly 301, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive and 316 and 326 Hamden Drive).
No changes are proposed to the existing buildings. The project amendment requests
allowable flexibility from parking and adds a Commercial Dock (accessory)/Marina
Facility (non-accessory) use to the existing overnight accommodation use
(Community Development Code Sections 2-803.D, 3-601.C.3 and 3-603).
Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Board of County Commissioners
and Clearwater Beach
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Senior Planner
AND
2. Case: FLD2009-08027A (Parcel B) — 309 Coronado Dr.Level Two Application
Owner(s)/Applicant: Key Clearwater, LLC..
Representative: Housh Ghovaee; Northside Engineering, Inc. (300 South Belcher
Road, Clearwater, FL, 32765; phone: 727-709-0943; email:
housh(cDnorthsideengineering.net)
Location: 0.821 acre located on the east side of Coronado Drive, south side of
Third Street and the west side of Hamden Drive approximately 100 feet north of
Brightwater Drive.
Request: The Community Development Board is reviewing proposed amendments
to approved Level II Flexible Development applications FLD2009-08026
(Parcel/Hotel A) and FLD2009-08027 (Parcel/Hotel B) in the Tourist (T) District and
the Small Motel District of Beach by Design for the property located at 309 Coronado
Drive (formerly 301, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive and 316 and 326 Hamden Drive).
No changes are proposed to the existing buildings. The project amendment requests
allowable flexibility from parking and adds a Commercial Dock (accessory)/Marina
Facility (non-accessory) use to the existing overnight accommodation use
(Community Development Code Sections 2-803.D, 3-601.C.3 and 3-603).
Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Board of County Commissioners
and Clearwater Beach.
Community Development 2020-09-15 2
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Senior Planner
Member Behar moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning,
land use/rezoning applications, land development, general planning, code amendments,
landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Senior Planner Mark Parry provided a PowerPoint presentation of the Staff Reports.
Cases FLD2009-08026A and FLD2009-08027A will return for Board approval of an
additional modification after the applicant satisfies a Condition of Approval by
reestablishing the two original parcels that had been combined into one parcel with the
Pinellas County Property Appraiser.
Attorney Katie Cole, representing the applicant, said the request was to modify the
previous approval by adding a common dock to serve the two branded hotels. She said
the applicant accepted the Conditions of Approval and Staff Report. She said Terri
Skapik, Housh Ghovaee and Shawn Gracey were present in person or via
communications media technology to represent the applicant.
Member Lau moved to approve Cases FLD2009-08026A and FLD2009-08027A based
on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and here by
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with
conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call,
the vote was:
Ayes: 7 - Chair Boutzoukas, Vice Chair Anuszkiewicz, Board Member
Lau, Board Member Flanery, Board Member Quattrocki, Board
Member Barker and Board Member Behar
Motion carried.
3. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2020-05015 — 716 Bayway Boulevard (unit 1, slip 1)
Owner(s)/Applicant: David R. Philips.
Representative: Jake Jansen; Docks, Inc. (6634 92nd Avenue North, Pinellas Park,
FL, 33782; phone: 727-536-6234; email: 0ake(a)docksincorporated.com)
Location: 0.402 acre located on the north side of Bayway Boulevard approximately
150 feet east of the Parkway Drive.
Request: The Community Development Board is reviewing a proposed boatlift in
association with an existing multi-use dock greater than 500 square-feet in area with
a side (west) setback of 4.5 feet in the Tourist (T) District and the Clearwater Pass
District of Beach by Design for the property located at 7016 Bayway Boulevard, Unit
17 Slip 1. No changes are proposed to the existing building, site or docks. The
project requests allowable flexibility from setbacks (Community Development Code
Section 3-601.C.3).
Community Development 2020-09-15 3
Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Board of County Commissioners,
Clearwater Beach and Clearwater Pointe Condo.
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Senior Planner
Member Anuszkiewicz moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning,
land use/rezoning applications, land development, general planning, code amendments,
landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Senior Planner Mark Parry provided a PowerPoint presentation of the Staff Report.
Attorney Brian Aungst, representing the applicant, said adding a boat lift to the existing
dock and slip would alter its classification to a commercial dock. He said the applicant
accepted the Conditions of Approval. He said Sandpiper's Cove and the owner of the
condo closest to the dock had submitted letters of support. He said a representative of
Docks Inc. was present to represent the applicant.
Member Behar moved to approve Case FLD2020-05015 based on evidence in the
record, including the application and the Staff Report, and here by adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as
listed. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
Ayes: 7 - Chair Boutzoukas, Vice Chair Anuszkiewicz, Board Member
Lau, Board Member Flanery, Board Member Quattrocki, Board
Member Barker and Board Member Behar
Motion carried.
4. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2016-11037A/PLT2020-07004 — 400 N. Myrtle Ave. and 410/711/777
Maple Street
Owner(s)/Applicant: City of Clearwater
Representative: Neale Stralow; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.; 501 E Kennedy
Blvd, Suite 1010, Tampa, FL, 33602; phone: 727-409-6450; email:
nstralow(a-)vhb.com).
Location: 7.84 acres located on the southwest corner of Maple Street and North
Myrtle Avenue.
Request: The Community Development Board is reviewing a proposed amendment
to an approved Level II Flexible Development application (FLD2016-11037) and a
preliminary plat (PLT2020-07004) in the Downtown (D) District and the Old Bay
Character District of the Downtown Plan for the property located at 400 North Myrtle
Avenue and 410/711/777 Maple Street. Site changes are limited to the addition of
0.41 acre of vacated East Avenue right-of-way to the property, reduction in area and
relocation of Building 05 from the northeast quadrant of the site to the southeast
quadrant of the site, the shifting of Building 06 slightly to the south, the relocation of
the dumpster enclosure from the northwest quadrant of the site to the southeast
Community Development 2020-09-15 4
quadrant, the re-orientation of parking spaces located at the northeast quadrant of
the site and the addition of six parking spaces centrally along the east side of the
site. The project was originally approved pursuant to Community Development Code
Sections 2-903.D, 3-807.E and 3-1202.G).
Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of County
Commissioners.
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Senior Planner
Members Anuszkiewicz and Barker declared conflicts of interest.
Member Behar moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning,
land use/rezoning applications, land development, general planning, code amendments,
landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly
seconded. Board Members Lau, Flanery, Quattrocki and Behar and Chair Boutzoukas
voted "Aye"; Members Anuszkiewicz and Barker abstained. Motion carried.
Senior Planner Mark Parry provided a PowerPoint presentation of the Staff Report and
noted Condition of Approval #7 had been modified to read, "That, prior to the issuance
of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Gas Department provide funding for the placement
of up to 14 but no less than 12 wayfinding signs to be located in the Downtown Planning
area as part of the current Wayfinding program and that the details regarding the
specifics, installation timeline(s) and methodology(ies) be finalized and approved by City
staff."
Neale Stralow and Kevin Bynum, representing the applicant, and Clearwater Gas
System Assistant Director Brian Langille were present via communications media
technology. Mr. Stralow said the project, approved in 2017, had been constructed; site
modifications and addition of the vacated right-of-way to the site occurred during
construction. He said the existing CSX railroad tracks continued to be protected by an
easement. He said the Development Review Committee had approved the site changes
and revision of Condition of Approval #7.
Member Lau moved to approve Case FLD2016-11037A/PLT2020-07004 based on
evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and here by adopt
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of
approval as listed, including modified Condition of Approval #7. The motion was duly
seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
Ayes: 5 - Chair Boutzoukas, Board Member Lau, Board Member
Flanery, Board Member Quattrocki, Board Member Barker and
Board Member Behar
Abstained: 2 - Vice Chair Anuszkiewicz and Board Member Barker
Motion carried.
Community Development 2020-09-15 5
5. Case: FLD2020-05013 — 696 S Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner(s)/Applicant: 696 S Gulfview Blvd LLC.
Representative: Bret Krasman; Krasman & Associates, Inc.; PO Box 422, Dunedin,
FL, 34697; phone: 727-647-9080; email: bret(a-)ksaengr.com).
Location: 0.236 acre located on the northwest corner of South Gulfview Boulevard
and Parkway Drive.
Request: The Community Development Board is reviewing a proposed 3,456
square foot restaurant in the Tourist (T) Zoning District and Clearwater Pass
Character District of Beach by Design for the property located at 696 South Gulfview
Boulevard. The proposal includes a height of 13 feet from base flood elevation, zero
off-street parking spaces and requests allowed flexibility to setbacks and parking
(Community Development Code Section 2-803. D.).
Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Board of County Commissioners
and Clearwater Beach.
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP, Senior Planner
Member Behar moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning,
land use/rezoning applications, land development, general planning, code amendments,
landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Senior Planner Mark Parry provided a PowerPoint presentation of the Staff Report
noting a Condition of Approval that prior to issuance of the final Certificate of
Occupation, the site shall pass a landscape final for all required landscaping.
Bret Krasman, representing the applicant, said plans would be submitted outlining the
site's heavily landscaped buffer.
Member Anuszkiewicz moved to approve Case FLD2020-05013 based on evidence in
the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and here by adopt the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of
approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
Ayes: 7 - Chair Boutzoukas, Vice Chair Anuszkiewicz, Board Member
Lau, Board Member Flanery, Board Member Quattrocki, Board
Member Barker and Board Member Behar
Motion carried.
6. Case: FLD2020-04010 — 327 David Avenue Level Two Application
Owner: City of Clearwater, Florida
Applicant: Creative Contractors
Representative: Robert Pergolizzi, Gulf Coast Consulting (13825 ICOT Boulevard
Suite 605, Clearwater, FL 33760; phone: 727-524-6090; email:
pergo@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com)
Community Development 2020-09-15 6
Location: 5.67 acres located on the east side of David Avenue approximately 425
feet north of the intersection with Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing a proposed
14,262 square-foot office project with a proposed floor area ratio of 0.058 in the US
19 Zoning District and Regional Center subdistrict for the property located at 327
David Avenue, with companion case TA2020-03003 (text amendment to the
Community Development Code Appendix B - US -19 Zoning District and
Development Standards). The project will be 20 feet in height and includes 45 off-
street parking spaces and requests allowable flexibility from design standards for
setbacks, landscaping, sidewalks, cross access connections to abutting parcels, LID
bio-retentions swales, building entry general, fagade design, and building entry as a
special project type (Community Development Code Section B-704.A, as amended).
Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Board of County Commissioners,
and Island in the Sun MHP LLC.
Assigned Planner: Vinod Kadu, LEED AP, Senior Planner
Member Behar declared a conflict of interest.
Member Quattrocki moved to accept Vinod Kadu as an expert witness in the fields of
site plan analysis, historic preservation, urban design, architecture, zoning, site plan
review, general planning, development standards, transit oriented planning & design,
and sustainable design & development. The motion was duly seconded. Board
Members Anuszkiewicz, Lau, Flanery, Quattrocki and Barker and Chair Boutzoukas
voted "Aye"; Member Behar abstained. Motion carried.
Senior Planner Vinod Kadu provided a PowerPoint presentation of the Staff Report.
Attorney Ed Armstrong, representing the applicant, said Alan Bornstein was present. He
said the project would effectuate a land swap between Creative Contractors and the
City of Clearwater.
Member Lau moved to approve Case FLD2020-04010 based on evidence in the record,
including the application and the Staff Report, and here by adopt the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as listed.
The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
Ayes: 6 - Chair Boutzoukas, Vice Chair Anuszkiewicz, Board Member
Lau, Board Member Flanery, Board Member Quattrocki and
Board Member Barker
Abstained: 1 - Board Member Behar
Motion carried.
7. Case: FLD2020-05011 — 1176 Mandalay Point Road Level Two Application
Owner(s)/Applicant: Arnold F. Bellini, III and Lauren Bellini
Representative: Jeff Smith; Davis Bews Design Group (150 State Street East,
Oldsmar, FL, 34677; phone:727-639-3788; email: ieffs(a-)davisbews.com
Community Development 2020-09-15 7
Location: 0.835-acre located primarily on the west and a small portion on the east
side of Mandalay Point Road approximately 1,200 feet north of Eldorado Avenue
Request: The Community Development Board (CDB) is reviewing a proposed
detached dwelling as a Residential Infill Project seaward of the Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL) in the Low Density Residential (LDR) District and a portion of
the parcel in the Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District for the property located at
1176 Mandalay Point. The project will be 30 feet (from Base Flood Elevation) in
height, includes two off-street parking spaces and requests setback flexibility for
construction seaward of the CCCL (Community Development Code Sections 2-
104.D and 3-905).
Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Board of County Commissioners
Assigned Planner: Melissa Hauck-Baker, AICP, Senior Planner
Member Anuszkiewicz moved to accept Ellen Crandall as an expert witness in the fields
of zoning, annexations, land use/rezoning applications, comprehensive planning, site
plan analysis, and land development code. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Planning Manager Ellen Crandall provided a PowerPoint presentation of the Staff
Report noting a Condition of Approval required State approval of construction seaward
of the CCCL (Coastal Construction Control Line). In response to a question, she said
staff recommendations were based on current flood maps.
Jeff Smith, representing the applicant, was present to answer questions.
Member Anuszkiewicz moved to approve Case FLD2020-05011 based on evidence in
the record, including the application and the Staff Report, and here by adopt the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of
approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
Ayes: 7 - Chair Boutzoukas, Vice Chair Anuszkiewicz, Board Member
Lau, Board Member Flanery, Board Member Quattrocki, Board
Member Barker and Board Member Behar
Motion carried.
F. APPEAL: (Item 1)
1. Case: APP2020-00001— 849 Bruce Avenue
Owner(s)/Applicant: Emily and David Haase
Representative: Ms. Katherine E. Cole, Hill Ward Henderson (600 Cleveland
Street, Suite 800, Clearwater, FL 33755, phone: 727-259-6791; email.
katie.cole@hwhlaw.com)
Location: 0.16-acre property located on the east side of Bruce Avenue at the corner
of intersection with Gardenia Street.
Request: An appeal, pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-
501.A.4., of the denial of a proposed pool and deck as principal structure of a single-
Community Development 2020-09-15 8
family home in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) zoning district for the
property located at 849 Bruce Avenue. The proposed pool will be 13 inches in height
from the existing grade. The project requests allowable flexibility from front setback
requirements under Community Development Code Section 2-203(C) and Section 3-
204.(H).
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, Board of County
Commissioners and Clearwater Beach.
Assigned Planner: Vinod Kadu, LEED AP, Senior Planner
Member Behar moved to accept Vinod Kadu as an expert witness in the fields of site
plan analysis, historic preservation, urban design, architecture, zoning, site plan review,
general planning, development standards, transit oriented planning & design, and
sustainable design & development. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Senior Planner Vinod Kadu provided a PowerPoint presentation of the Staff Report. The
City had denied approval of the applicants' request to reduce the front setback up to five
feet from the Gardenia Avenue right-of-way for construction of a principal structure
(swimming pool and deck) 13 inches in height.
Mr. Kadu said to grant an appeal, overturn or modify the decision being appealed, the
Code required that the Board shall find that based on substantial competent evidence
presented by the applicant or other party that every one of these criteria is met: 1)
decision being appealed had misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted Code provisions;
and 2) Board's decision will be in harmony with general intent and purpose of Code; and
3) Board's decision will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare.
Mr. Kadu said pursuant to CDC Section 2-203.C, the proposed setback reduction for a
pool as a primary structure did not meet flexibility criteria for a Residential Infill project:
6) The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project
will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
Applicants did not provide any evidence on how the pool would upgrade the immediate
vicinity;
7) The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
Applicants did not provide any evidence that the project's form and function would
enhance the community character of the immediate vicinity; and
8) Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking access or
other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and
the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole
Applicants did not provide any evidence that the project in the property's front setback
would benefit the community character.
Community Development 2020-09-15 9
Mr. Kadu said City development rules had not changed since denial of a similar request
in 2003. The hedge within the sight visibility triangles needed to be lowered to comply
with Code. Staff did not misconstrue or incorrectly interpret the Code and the applicants'
request was not in harmony with the Code's general intent and purpose.
Planning Manager Ellen Crandall said the immediate vicinity did not have a pattern of 5-
foot front setbacks; none of the properties in the immediate vicinity submitted by the
applicants had front setbacks less than 10 feet. The subject property was a corner lot
with 2 fronts and 2 sides and had been developed with 5-foot side setbacks in the rear.
Ms. Crandall reviewed Code classification of swimming pools and associated decks:
1) 12 inches or less above grade = accessory structures - prohibited between a house
and right-of-way, and
2) greater than 12 inches or more above grade = principal structures - permitted
between a house and right-of-way if adhered to established setbacks.
Planning & Development Director Gina Clayton said as part of the original owner's
construction application, the City had not approved a pool in the general location now
requested; the house was built without space for a swimming pool.
Attorney Katie Cole, representing the applicant, said Attorney Jamie Maier also was
present. She said the swimming pool could be constructed at grade if the property was
not a corner lot. She requested the application and all submitted materials be
incorporated into the record of this hearing.
Attorney Cole provided a PowerPoint presentation. She said when the site was
developed, the former property owner/applicant had eliminated the swimming pool from
the building permit request and constructed the house without one; the City had not
denied approval of the swimming pool. She said property owners Emily and David
Haase had talked with staff about incorporating a swimming pool on their property with
a landscape buffer along the secondary street Gardenia Avenue, removing pavers from
the Bruce Avenue side, relocating the driveway from Bruce Avenue to Gardenia
Avenue, and maintaining the sight visibility triangles. She said North Clearwater Beach
residences commonly had swimming pools. She said the only place on the property
available for family recreational activities was along Gardenia Avenue.
Attorney Cole said the property owners had submitted a site plan and competent
substantial evidence with their application. She said staff had misconstrued the Code,
by stating the triple frontage lot cited by the applicant as an example of a swimming pool
within 5-foot front setbacks had different benefits than double frontage lots even though
the Code made no such distinction. She said staff had misinterpreted the Code's
reference to the immediate vicinity by discounting many of the property owners'
submitted examples of 5-foot front setbacks in North Clearwater Beach and limiting their
review to properties almost abutting the subject property rather than considering the
entire small Clearwater Beach community between Acacia Street and the Carlouel
subdivision. She said the North Clearwater Beach community featured an eclectic
Community Development 2020-09-15 10
pattern of development with many side streets, small lots, and large valuable homes
that required additional amenities such as swimming pools.
Attorney Cole said the City's written denial was being appealed as it failed to meet the
City's burden of providing competent substantial alternative evidence in support of the
denial. She said the Code authorized property owners to submit permit applications
annually and for staff to consider those submissions independently. She said staff had
ignored or disagreed with the competent substantial evidence Mr. and Ms. Haase had
submitted. She said the application should have been approved as the project was in
harmony with the Code and would increase the value of the home and neighborhood.
Property owner David Haase said he and his wife had 2 children and owned the house
for 7 years. He said they had spent significant time, effort and money over the years on
the pool project, including gathering neighbors' signatures of support.
Property owner Emily Haase said they had submitted many letters and emails of
support. She said the community character of North Clearwater Beach was single-family
home with swimming pools. She said their application met criteria in the Code and
should have been approved.
In response to a question, Attorney Cole said the Florida Supreme Court's Snyder
decision had established Florida's quasi-judicial processes for applicants to submit
competent substantial evidence; the homeowners had met that criteria. She said the
City's response lacked Findings of Fact re alternative or competing evidence in support
of the denial; staff writing that they disagreed with or ignored submitted evidence did not
meet that criteria. She said North Clearwater Beach had many swimming pools in
setbacks, some garages with 0-foot setbacks, and some primary structures within 5 to
10 feet of front rights-of-way.
Discussion ensued with comments that landscaping enhanced community character,
installation of a swimming pool would require removal of significant property
landscaping including royal palms, the proposed location of the swimming pool would
be visible by walkers and drivers when the hedge is lowered to meet sight visibility
triangle requirements and North Clearwater Beach swimming pools could not be seen
from the street. It was noted that landscaping would screen views of the proposed
swimming pool from the street if it was moved to the west outside the sight visibility
triangle.
In response to questions, Attorney Cole said swimming pools required 48-inch
screening to meet safety requirements. She said within sight visibility triangles, the
maximum height for landscaping and fencing was 30 inches; palm trees within the sight
visibility triangles had to be removed. She said location of a gate to the pool depended
on landscaping and safety measures. She said the Code did not address visibility of
structures from the street; some North Clearwater Beach rear yard swimming pools
were visible from the street.
Community Development 2020-09-15 11
Attorney Cole showed PowerPoint photos of North Clearwater Beach properties with
principal structures and swimming pools within 3.5 to 5 feet from the right-of-way. She
said 37 Bohenia Circle, a property not considered by staff because of its triple frontage
lot, had a swimming pool less than 5 feet from 2 rights-of-way and visible from 2 streets.
In response to a question, Attorney for the Board Jay Daigneault said the Board's
decision could include modified conditions.
Ms. Crandall said staff had applied the Code consistently, as written. The immediate
vicinity had no pattern of 5-foot front setbacks. Staff did not review the Bohenia Circle
property due to its location outside the subject property's immediate vicinity; that
property's swimming pool was approved prior to the 1999 adoption of the Development
Code. Multiple criteria identified a property's immediate vicinity which did not mean
abutting. She reviewed Residential Infill criteria, stating the applicant had requested
more flexibility than the maximum 10 feet listed in the criteria table. She said the request
was beyond the scope that Code intended to be considered for principal structures in
front setbacks.
Three residents telephoned their support of the appeal and stated the swimming pool
project would enhance neighborhood property values.
Attorney Cole said the basis for the appeal was that staff misconstrued and
misinterpreted the Code regarding the immediate vicinity, which should encompass
North Clearwater Beach excluding Carlouel and Mandalay Point, the pattern of
development on North Clearwater Beach, which should have considered submitted
examples of structures in front setbacks and recreational activities in side yards, and
permitted uses of double and triple frontage lots which do not differ in the Code. She
said staff had ignored the competent substantial evidence submitted by the applicants
and had not provided contrary evidence; the applicants first heard of Staff's setback
measurements at today's meeting. She said the project will be in harmony with the
general intent and purpose of Code as it was consistent with home upgrades in the
vicinity. She said the Haases would accept a condition to move the swimming pool to
the west if the Board approved that condition.
Discussion ensued with comments that a swimming pool would make the house livable,
enhance the neighborhood, views of the swimming pool from the street should not be
problematic, the hedge would provide sufficient screening, and the Code allowed 5-foot
setbacks and provided the ability to modify the size of front setbacks. It was stated the
Code did not identify "immediate vicinity" which should encompass North Clearwater
Beach which was unique in comparison with mainland Clearwater neighborhoods. It
was commented it was difficult to identify North Clearwater Beach's development
pattern developed over many years with double and triple frontage corner lots and
primary structures within 5-foot setbacks. It was noted that neighbors supported the
project. It was commented the project would reflect the community aesthetic as long as
the pool was not visible from the street.
Community Development 2020-09-15 12
It was commented that staffs decision was consistent with the Code as written and
correctly denied the applicants' request for twice as much flexibility as listed in the
Residential Infill criteria table. It was stated that staff's ruling was not unreasonable. It
was felt the applicant had requested a larger set -back than was reasonable and had
requested the adjustment without good cause.
Attorney Daigneault reviewed the three Code requirements for the Board to grant an
appeal and encouraged them to define how the decision met each requirement.
Discussion ensued regarding a condition of approval re the pool location and
landscaping requirements.
Attorney Cole said the Haases were amendable to screening the pool according to
Code requirements.
Member Behar moved to grant the appeal, Case APP2020-00001, and reverse the
Staffs development order denying the application based on the evidence and testimony
presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing and hereby issue
the Conclusions of Law that the application complies with the Code and a Condition of
Approval: 1) The proposed swimming pool will be moved to the west from the current
proposed location to be located entirely outside of the sight visibility triangles. The pool
area shall be screened with landscaping and a fence so that the pool area is not visible
from the street. The fence shall be no more than 48 inches in height and no less than 48
inches in height. The fence shall have a 3 -foot wide landscaping buffer on the street
side of the fence with landscape material that shall be a minimum 48 inches tall and
shall be consistent with the fence code and sight triangle visibility code. The motion
was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was:
Ayes: 5 - Vice Chair Anuszkiewicz, Board Member Flanery, Board
Member Quattrocki, Board Member Barker and Board Member
Behar
Nays: 2 - Chair Boutzoukas and Board Member Lau
Motion carried.
G. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS: None.
H. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Attest:
rd Reporter
Community Development 2020-09-15
Chair—Community iev-IopmentBoard
13
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME
A4NU5 tW t Z c cx�e- du -14411i
MAILING ADDRESS J
11007 I, ,R Mt-.Av AU6_
COUNTY
NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE
CAWAMU PDtruta
rrc,,\ zepir , B
THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COM , SSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
.Z
iCH I SERVE ISA UNIT OF
CITY D COUNTY
0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
S E -F7 �S 2x 2.)
NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION'
MY POSITION IS:
7 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FiLE FORM 8B
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 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 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
would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on
a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained
(including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a
relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under
Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited
from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative' includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate° means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
in addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are
abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the
minutes 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 are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise
participating 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.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2)
CE FORM 8B - EFF. 112013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.AC.
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting. who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
(�� I ��D,I.S�CLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I.C4 ` 4S -Te �1,- uS k &t1&')LZi, hereby disclose that on girl 20 ZD
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more)
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 I'L-A/- 411,A i _ -t-�, iaSt , tj13 D 1 D .<`.
whom t am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of which
is the parent subsidiary, or sibling 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:
t)44,1x,F -
4\4:1-t.20 p , Ti- L .tit ' 4X4.. 44? -4.0.744-1- ke-be.4) .2)A.) -ill. E ,
F7453er. •Fbe— F LD 2191 ! -- I tb S 7q Z_z>zO — 4
4C)b g --T-11 I4APIA- APD 4tV/ 7 1177?. -7 (�,p1.�, ` 'T'�• S
, by
If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys. a public officer,
who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way
as to provide the public with notice of the conflict.
J1jzcrtD
Date File
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO — E 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 8B - EFF 1112013
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F
PAGE 2
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF 'VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY; MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
QST hF.M--='1:RST AME—M DDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCt4 COM,Mls ION, AUTHORITY, O COMMITTEE
1DRESS lJf THE SOME), COUNG4I COMMISSION, XUTHORTTY OR COMMtTTEE•ON
SiS � /7 e/V
cu ( S A j e, WHICH t SERVE IS A UNiT OF:
/ # TY O COUNTY
NAME OF POi.LjtrL SUSDMVISIO
ik,r
N
ITE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRE
q1 • !
NTY
MY POSITION iS:
0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
e.�l"'G�R- Pte`
0 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
'his 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
vrirnission, authority, or committee. it applies equally to members of advisory and non -advisory bodes who are presented with a votinr
onflict of Interest under Section 112.3143. Florida Statutes,
'our responsibilities under the taw when faced with voting on a measure in which -you have a conflict of interest wiII vary greatly -depending
n whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
omp!eting the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
urea fe his or her special private gam or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea
_,--t :h inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
the special private gain or loss of a business _associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
33.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
poet+,,
Dr purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
other -In-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or canying on a business
lterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
e not listed an any national or regional stock exchange).
LECTED'OFFICERS:
addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly's'tating 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,
PPOiNTED OFFICERS:
though you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
st disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to Influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
' you t or at your direction.
INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECiSION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
\. ,'i:
You musi,CC7rptete and file this form ibefore making any itternpt to 11;itJ nee it1L with the persOr! resr,onsiblc- for recording. the.
nlir.ute5 al the 7;3!aino, inccioor te Rte tonn in ti:- t..,r!11,,ed ;rother ,,5'40::1,e.
1/2r.',(."-`) �_ ..._..
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the. other members of the agency.
rr The fora most be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
rOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of yourconfiict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days afterthe vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form most be provided Immediately to the other members of tho
agency, and the form must be read publicly at thenext meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
hereby disclose that on �p f /5 PO 2 0
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
Aired 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 in f --,-},,,„f--,-},,,„ b: whom I am fetai4ed or Em /o ----"L'6,--4-1-',4V y
w
ti ye
f
inured to the special gain or Toss of which
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(r' The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
My e-P7/0ye..er, Awt✓l 5' Assoc, -a es
5 n t/v anI f/ f- -‘r f'/ prf eG77
9//‘ 20
Date Filed 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,
Et OVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
'IL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CEFOEF :; <`vr,
IF <RkMM :B IVIEMORANDUK.OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
__COUNTY, � NIC PAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS_
1$T NAME ---FIRST NAME—M DDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD COUNciL, commi5SICN; AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE
BEHAR, JORDAN, TODD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
XOF;CSs THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORt T Y. OR COMMlT T EE'ON
990 BAY ESPLANADE wH[CHISERVE ISAUNIT OF:
%CITY D COUNTY Q OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
NAME OF POUT AL SUBDIVISION:
T1/
CLEARWATER
COUNTY
PINELLAS
JE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
9/15/2020
MY POSITION IS:
0 ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
`his form .is for u'se. by any person serving at the county, city, .or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council
lorrirni"ssion,authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non -advisory bodiea who are presented with a votinc
onflict of interest under Sectibn 112.3143. Florida Statutes,
`our responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a Measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending -
•n whether you hold anelective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention tothe instructions on this formbefore
ompteting the reverse side and tiling the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public: office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
ures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
_,:-( :h inures to the special gain or loss ofa principal (other than a governmentagency) by whom he or sheis retained (including the
organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or sheis retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
the special private gain or loss of a business :associate_ Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec: 163.356 or
33.357, F,S.,.and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
opacity.
ar purposes of this law, a "relative' includes only the._officer's father, mother, son, daughter. husband, wife,..brother, sister, father-in-law,
other -in-law, sort -in-law;. and: (laughter -in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on .a business
iterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of prvpert.y,or corporate shareholder (where tile shares of the corporation
-e not listed an any national or regional stock exchange).
LECTED OFFICERS:
addition to abstaining from voting in the: situations described above,.you.must disclosethe conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by pubticiy`atating te the assernbly the nature of your interest in the rneasure on which you
ate abstaining -from voting; and
WITHIN 15 PAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this Corm with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, whoshould incorporate the form in the minutes.
•
PPOINTED OFFICERS:
though you must abstain from voting in the -sitgations described above, you otherwise. may participate in these .matters, However, you
ust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to: influence the decision, wheiner orally or in writing .and whether made
' you or at your direction.
. ,NTEND.TO MAKE.A:NY ATTEMPTTQ INFLUENCE THE D.ECIS:1.QN PRIOR TQ THE MEETING AT 'WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
You must ccrp`etean1 tale this form (before making any at empt tf inf i1Jenqtt •rl:isicn) viii the per53it re^nsbiofor rrc.ri i-ir,i,: ttA
rninwes of'MU iri cocoorate the 'loan in LI t.., fri li'ulES (G0:i[iftJEn . n cUicr
i %'F.; -Et: E.
APPOINTED OFFICERS (cOritInued)
A copy of the form must be provitfd immediately to the other members of the agency.
The for must no read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
O() MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUEf+10E.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 filp. it within 15 days after thevote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporatethe form in the minutes.. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
JORDAN BEHAR 9/15/2020
hereby disclose that.on 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 by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of which
is the parentorganizationor subsidiary of a.. principal which has retained me.
The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest, in. themeasure is as follows:
�Lp Sao - 4 410i0
,audd A//'
9/16/2020
Date r=iled-ignature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA. STATUTES §192.317, 'A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
OVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR 7
'iL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,OOg.
:cr 'FORM .ELB - (':', •.s2ce-'
p AI?L.
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Gina Clayton, Planning and Development Director
COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items September 15, 2020
DATE: September 11, 2020
Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following:
Unapproved minutes of June 16, 2020 and September 3, 2020.
Level Two Applications (Items 1-7)
1. Case: FL D2009 -08026A (Parcel A) & FL02009-08027A (Parcel B) — 309 Coronado Drive
Assigned Planner: Mark Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: ' No:
2. Case: FLD2020-05015 — 716 Bayway Boulevard (unit 1, slip 1)
Assigned P�ianner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: f No:
3. Case: FLD2016-11037A/PLT2020-07004 —400 North Myrtle Avenue and 410/711/777 Maple Street
Assigned Pjenner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: j No:
4. Case: FLD2020-05013 —696 South Gulfview Boulevard
Assigned PI nner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: V No:
5. Case: FLD2020-0401 0 — 327 David Avenue
Assigned anner: Vinod Kadu Lead AP, Senior Planner
Yes: _1 No:
6. Case: FLD202G-05011 — 1176 Mandalay Point Road
Assigned Pinner: Melissa Hauck Baker, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
Appeal Case Items (1)
1. Case: APP2Q20-00001-849 Bruce Avenue
Assigned tanner: Vinod Kadu Lead AP, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
I have conduced a per •n
Signature:
Print Name: (7.1-44
k 0
vestigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Prepared by: Sherry L. Watkins. Administrative Assistant
Date:/6/2-0.2
T r _) C CLE Rfir``i TF R
ax 4748, t7,!1 •.itiC -S R. i'iu;rl,t '.!..)758,4748
€.S li1110 St itivitT!t' i\} FUL Cu, 1t)t)$[L',3_17)6
'Ft PiiitAti F 27) 362 1.367
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Gina Clayton, Planning and Development Director
COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items September 15, 2020
DATE: September 11, 2020
Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following:
Unapproved minutes of June 16, 2020 and September 3, 2020.
Level Two Applications (Items 1-7)
1. Case: FLD2009-08026A (Parcel A) & FLD2009-08027A (Parcel B) — 309 Coronado Drive
Assigned Planner: Mark Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
2. Case: FLD2020-05015 — 716 Bayway Boulevard (unit 1, slip 1)
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
3. Case: FLD2016-11037A/PLT2020-07004 — 400 North Myrtle Avenue and 410/711/777 Maple Street
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Prry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
4. Case: FLD2020-05013 — 696 South Gulfview Boulevard
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
5. Case: FLD2020-04010 — 327 David Avenue
Assigned Planner: Vinod u Lead AP, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
6. Case: FLD2020-05011 — 1176 Mandalay Point Road
Assigned Planner: Melissa Hau k Baker, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
Appeal Case Items (1)
1. Case: APP2020-00001— 849 Bruce Avenue
Assigned Planner: Vinod Kadu Lead AP, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
l have conducted a personal inve; ation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Oi/ZD
Si_ nature:
Print Name:
rt: 1 a `
Prepared by: Sherry L. Watkins, Administrative Assistant
Date:
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Q.e.vavv VJER PLANNING & Dei LLopmLNr, POST OFTICE Box 4748, C L EAR xmR, FLui2IDA 33758-4748
ML NK:W U SLID ic.tss BUILDING, 1UU SOUDI MYRTLE A\ exp A ER, 15 R1D.i 33756
YH EPHONI (727) 562-4567
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Gina Clayton, Planning and Development Director
COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items September 15, 2020
DATE: September 11, 2020
Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following:
Unapproved minutes of June 16, 2020 and September 3, 2020.
Level Two Applications (Items 1-7)
1. Case: FLD2009-08026A (Parcel A) & FLD2009-08027A (Parcel B) — 309 Coronado Drive
Assigned Planner: Mark Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: X No:
2. Case: FLD2020-05015 — 716 Bayway Boulevard (unit 1, slip 1)
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: X No:
3. Case: FLD2016-11037A/PLT2020-07004 — 400 North Myrtle Avenue and 410/711/777 Maple Street
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: X No:
4. Case: FLD2020-05013 — 696 South Gulfview Boulevard
Assigned Planner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: X No:
5. Case: FLD2020-04010 — 327 David Avenue
Assigned Planner: Vinod Kadu Lead AP, Senior Planner
Yes: X No:
6. Case: FLD2020-05011 — 1176 Mandalay Point Road
Assigned Planner: Melissa Hauck Baker, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: X No:
Appeal Case Items (1)
1. Case: APP2020-00001— 849 Bruce Avenue
Assigned Planner: Vinod Kadu Lead AP, Senior Planner
Yes: X No:
I have condu
Signatur
Print N
iordan behar
he personal site visit to the following properties.
Date: 9/15/2020
Prepar'd by: Sherry L. Watkins, Administrative Assistant
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Gina Clayton, Planning and Development Director
RECEIVED
OCT 2 0 2020
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
COPIES: Michael Fuino Assistant City Attorney; Attorney Jay Daigneault, Susan Chase, Documents and
Records Specialist / Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items September 15, 2020
DATE: September 11, 2020
Community Development Board Packets being distributed contain the following:
Unapproved minutes of June 16, 2020 and September 3, 2020.
Level Two Applications (Items 1-7)
1. Case: FLD2009-08026A (Parcel A) & FL.D2009-0802';\ (Parcel B) — 309 Coronado Drive
Assigned P ner: Mark Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
2. Case: FLD2020-05015 — 716 Bayway Boulevard (unit 1, slip 1)
Assigned PI ner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
3. Case: FLD2016-11037A/PL 12020 07004 — 400 North Myrtle Avenue and 410/711/777 Maple Street
Assigned PI ner: Mark T. Parry, AICD Senior Panner
Yes: 1 No:
4. Case: FLD2020-05013 — 696 South Gulfview Boulevard
Assigned Pinner: Mark T. Parry, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
5. Case: FLD2020-04010 — 327 David Avenue
Assigned P .nner: Vinod Kadu Lead AP, Senior Planner
Yes: No:
RECEIVTD
OCT 2�1 2[2
OFFICIAL REC s AND
LEGISLATIVE S... �" DEPT.
6. Case: FLD2020-05011 - 1176 Mandalay Point Road
Assigned Plan Melissa Hauck Baker, AICP Senior Planner
Yes: No:
Appeal Case Items (1)
1. Case: APP2020-00001- 849 Bruce Avenue
Assigned Pla r: Vinod Kadu Lead AP, Senior Planner
Yes:
I have conduct
Signature: A - /
Print Nam . f O ' / ` Lc
No:
15eccdiSt e_
gation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Date: l0
Prepared by: Sherry L. Watkins, Administrative Assistant
Meeting Date Caller:
.,
r "
Citizen Comment Card
y� r
J " l
City:
Telephone Nuer:
Speaking under citizens to be heard re
items not on the agenda? �j
Agenda items) to which you wish to speak,
!fek'p ;'eridRYMN�di.'b"l�a�'y.WAfMm;%n n'rd n nb k.u'»aMM�F:AVkM� (fiW, rli JE kvvJ �md„Yi3M ='Af'�,
S
i i mi ii I I n�rl��l V„'
p i
7"Y'�1`�fi Y�r,d!i,J;� iY;l��m ',�,lfl�o2'u ��41(,� hr'lirN+riu(�!��1��,�"�G�'�;o?u✓ !',,, �,�„ , r,r�ll��!r,
Af
41
MeetingDate. �� �;'
r
r
i
Uili
itA� ���%� ��� �
Citizen Comms nt Card
Name. � ... ;� �� � ��' I t
lJ
Ci ty:
7 f r
Telephone Number:
Speaking under citizens to be heard re
items not omn the agenda?
Agenda item(s) to which you wish to speak:
r
"'196E,rd.;'M✓/nYavrr l,+r&9d IVPDM�.m,r w.Y„ ,a� r,1Y,,�5u�i.',,,N,rV�uN(��'T^rrrel f, ,r�N,p ,,,FP Y J� ,ollY , ,.yrr.�r r Vii, r
11"ma,
,�r 1, '(P�$..�rr ,fig '
F-I
Meeting Date: Caller:
LI
PI N,
Citizen Comment Card
Name:
city.
Telephone Number:
Speaking under citizens to Ibe heard re
items not on the agenda?Q
Agenda item(s) to which you wish to speak:
v
v"