Loading...
03/18/2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES CITYOFCLEARWATER March 18, 2008 Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair Richard Adelson Board Member Thomas Coates Board Member Dana K. Tallman Board Member – departed 3:22 p.m. Jordan Behar Board Member Frank L. Dame Board Member Norma R. Carlough Alternate Board Member Absent: Doreen DiPolito Board Member Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Michael Delk Planning Director Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director Catherine Porter Long Range Planning Manager Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: February 19, 2008 Member Dame requested that paragraph six on page 17 of the February 19, 2008 Community Development Board meeting minutes read: “Member Dame stated after hearing Mr. Foley’s testimony that his client would not accept a rezoning to C, he did not wish to change his motion to deny the application.” Member Dame moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development Board meeting of February 19, 2008, as amended. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. D. WELCOME NEW BOARD: Richard Adelson Board members welcomed new members Norma Carlough and Richard Adelson and reviewed their backgrounds. E. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chair and Vice-Chair Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes stated according to Board Rules of Procedure, next month is the annual election for Chair and Vice-Chair. For this meeting, however, the board needs to elect a Vice-Chair in the interim. Member Tallman moved to elect Member Coates as Vice-Chair for this meeting. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Community Development 2008-03-18 1 F. CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1 – 2): 1. Level Three Application Case: REZ2007-10001 – 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard (Unfinished business from the February 19, 2008 meeting: pending motion) Owner/Applicant: D. A. Bennett Company. Representative: Harry S. Cline and Michael C. Foley, Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. (P.O. Box 1669, Clearwater, FL 33757; Telephone: 727-441-8966). Location: Approximately 2.94 acres located on the southeast side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 2,900 feet south of Clearwater Pass Bridge. Atlas Page: 303B. Request : Application for a Zoning Atlas amendment from the Business (B) District to the Tourist (T) District. Existing Uses: Retail Sales and Services, Restaurant and Office. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Shelley Kuroglian, President, 1821 Springwood Cir S., Clearwater, FL 33763); Sand Key Civic Association (Mike Dooley, President, P.O. Box 3014, Clearwater, FL 34630). Presenter: Steven Everitt, Planner II. It was suggested that Case TA2008-01001 Amendments to the Community Development Code, be taken out of order, as it is relevant to Case REZ2007-10001. Ms. Grimes said the public hearing regarding Case REZ2007-10001 was closed at the February 19, 2008 CDB (Community Development Board) meeting. The board’s Rules of Procedure require a concurring vote of four board members to pass a motion. However, the board’s vote regarding this case at the February meeting resulted in a tie, and the vote was continued to today’s meeting. All evidence and testimony presented at the February 19, 2008 CDB meeting is to be considered. No additional evidence or information will be presented today. Chair Fritsch recused himself and left the dais, stating that he was advised by the board attorney that since his residence is within 15 house numbers of the northernmost portion of the subject property, either party might allege that he stands to gain or lose regarding the value of his property. Ms. Grimes requested that Member Dame read his motion from the February 19, 2008, CDB meeting regarding Case REZ2007-10001, and directed board members to page 17 of the minutes of that meeting. She reported that although Member Behar and Member Adelson were not present at the February CDB meeting, they were both advised to review the entire record. She requested both members confirm that they reviewed the entire record and that they are prepared to vote today. Members Behar and Adelson confirmed they reviewed the entire record and are prepared to vote regarding Case REZ2007-10001. Member Dame read his motion from the February 19, 2008, meeting regarding Case REZ2007-10001: “Member Dame moved to recommend denial of Case REZ2007-10001, based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and at today’s hearing, and hereby make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: that the rezoning will change the character of the neighborhood, will increase density, and may Community Development 2008-03-18 2 further aggravate the already nonconforming state evacuation requirements, and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the application does not comply with City Code Section 2-801 in that approving the Tourist District zoning will not provide perhaps a safe and attractive tourist destination for the existing community and does not conform to Section 4-602F.3, in that the amendment does conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and the City.” Ms. Grimes reported that Member Dame’s motion was duly seconded at the February meeting. In response to a question, she said that once the board makes a motion and seconds it, there could be some additional discussion by the board. She cautioned the board not to hear additional evidence today regarding the case. She said if the board has any questions, they could review the February 19, 2008 minutes. Discussion ensued. A suggestion was made to recommend approval of the case with a condition that if the property owner were to tear down the commercial uses and build a hotel, that the hotel include an area for commercial uses that is oriented toward the community. It was remarked that the Level One Approval process permits commercial uses on the property. However, as there is no guarantee that the property owner would offer commercial uses on the site in the future, the only way to ensure those uses would continue to exist would be to include a condition of approval in the board’s motion. It was remarked that the application before the board is not to decide what can be developed on the site. The board must decide whether or not this property should be zoned T (Tourist), based on current Code. Redevelopment of the property would require that the developer submit site plans, etc. as part of the development review process. It was remarked that HDR (High Density Residential), C (Commercial), and T designations are available and consistent with the FLUP (Future Land Use Plan), the Comprehensive Plan, and the current use. Code only provides for a T zoning district in RFH (Resort Facilities High). It was remarked that current zoning does not promote commercial uses. It is not advantageous for a developer to develop a site with commercial uses under current RFH zoning, as additional density is not available. It was remarked that the Code was written as a guideline to ensure that the City preserves the character of its communities and includes the flexibility to include conditions of approval. It was remarked that the distinction between T and C zoning is that T zoning provides for maximum allowable heights of 100 feet; C zoning provides for maximum allowable heights of 50 feet. It was felt that due to current evacuation problems in the area that a C zoning would be more appropriate for this property. It was suggested that the board let Council decide the disposition of this application, as the board cannot solve the disjoint between what is wanted and the Code. Ms. Grimes noted that a vote is required regarding Member Dame’s motion. Member Adelson moved to recommend approval of a T zoning, with a condition that if the owner of the property were to come in with a plan for a hotel, that the hotel would include a reasonable area of square-footage that would be dedicated to neighborhood commercial that would be oriented towards the community, not internally. The motion died due to the lack of a second. Discussion ensued regarding Member Dame’s motion to recommend denial of the request. It was felt that zoning the subject property T would not support the needs of the community or the City. It was felt that there are limitations in the Code that need to be revised. In response to a question regarding whether or not the board could modify the motion to recommend a C zoning, although there is no C zoning in the current Code, Ms. Grimes said the board must abide by the Rules of Procedure in making a recommendation to the Council Community Development 2008-03-18 3 regarding this case. She said the board’s recommendation may include modifications or recommendations to the proposed application. The board also could recommend to Council that an application for a Code amendment for C zoning be considered. She said policy decisions regarding whether or not the Code should be changed is not part of this application. She said at the February CDB meeting, the applicant’s representative indicated he would not accept a C zoning. Upon the vote being taken to recommend denial of the application, Members Coates, Behar, Dame, and Adelson voted “Aye”; Member Tallman and Alternate Member Carlough voted “Nay.” Chair Fritsch abstained. Motion carried. 2. Case: APP2007-00005 – 755 Eldorado Avenue (Continued from the meeting of February 19, 2008) Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Robert and Sharron Morgal (755 Eldorado Ave., Clearwater, Florida 33767; phone: 813-903-0604). Location: 0.143-acre parcel at the northeast corner of Eldorado Avenue and Bohenia Circle. Atlas Page: 249A. Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District. Request: An appeal from a Level One (flexible standard development) denial decision pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-501.A.3, that a requested reduction to the side (east) setback from five feet to zero feet (to pavers) as a Residential Infill Project is inconsistent with the Flexibility Criteria as set forth in CDC Sections 2-203.C.2 and 2-203.C.5. Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Shelley Kuroglian, President, 1821 Springwood Cir S., Clearwater, FL 33763); and Clearwater Beach Association (President Joe Keyes, 100 Devon Drive, Clearwater, FL 33767). Presenter: Neil Thompson, Development Review Manager. Member Behar moved to accept Neil Thompson as an expert witness in the fields of development code, transportation system planning, system development changes, and comprehensive plans. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Development Review Manager Neil Thompson presented the request. This is an appeal from a Level One denial decision pursuant to Section 4-501.A.3 that under CDC Section 2- 203.C, a reduction to the side (east) setback from five feet to zero feet is inconsistent with the Standards and Criteria established for a Residential Infill Project on the subject property in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district. This 0.143-acre site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Eldorado Avenue and Bohenia Circle on Clearwater Beach. Stop Work Order Case SWO2007-08003 and Case SWO2008-01022 were initiated in response to construction occurring on the subject property without permits, including the installation of brick pavers within the required side yard (east) setbacks and Bohenia Street right-of-way. On August 6, 2007, the City received a complaint that construction was occurring on the subject site without permits. Inspections on August 8 and 13, 2007 confirmed the work being performed. The Code Enforcement inspector contacted the owners and agreed to close the enforcement case if the owners agreed to obtain “after the fact” permits for the work being performed. A building permit was issued August 13, 2007 for the construction of a gas barbeque with associated gas and electrical lines. Consideration of the installation of brick pavers within the required building setback required a Flexible Standard Development Community Development 2008-03-18 4 Residential Infill Application. The application, FLS2007-08042 with supporting materials was filed August 31, 2007 and was found to be complete September 5, 2007. The application was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on October 4, 2007, and found insufficient, failing to meet the applicable requirements and standards. The specific requirements and standards not met were: 1) Engineering Condition: No structures permitted to be constructed within a utility easement. For building permits to be issued for the installation of the pavers, there would need to be no private utilities present and an application to vacate the easement filed with the City, and 2) Planning Conditions: a) Section 2-203.C.2. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviation from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards, and b) Section 2-203.C.5. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. Findings of Fact: 1) The site in question is located within the LMDR district; 2) Pavers were installed in a required side setback and utility easement without a permit; 3) Consideration of a side setback reduction to zero feet in the LMDR district requires a Flexible Standard Development Residential Infill application; 4) There are private utilities present in the rear utility easement on the property; 5) There has been no application made to vacate the easement; and 6) The application materials submitted did not provide explanations how Residential Infill Flexibility Criteria Section 2-203.C.2 and 5 is achieved. Conclusions of Law: 1) Structures are not permitted within a utility easement; 2) The applicants failed to demonstrate how the inability to install pavers in a required side setback would make the residential development of the site impractical; 3) The applicants failed to demonstrate how the installation of pavers at a zero setback is compatible with adjacent uses; therefore 4) The Flexible Standard Development Residential Infill application was denied. A letter of denial for FLS2007-08032 – 755 Eldorado Avenue was mailed to the applicants on December 13, 2007. The appellants filed this appeal on December 20, 2007. Section 4-501.A.2 of the CDC states that the CDB has the authority to hear appeals from orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative official in the administration of the CDC. Section 4-502.A provides that an appeal of orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made by an administrative official in the administration of the CDC 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 to the applicant and the appellants by mail 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 accordance 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 CDC, in order to grant an appeal, (overturn or modify 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 CDC; 2) The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the CDC; and 3) The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. In response to a question, Mr. Thompson said the applicant received a notice from Progress Energy stating they have no objection to vacation of the easement. He said he is unsure of how informed Progress Energy is at this time, as there are utilities present in the Community Development 2008-03-18 5 easement. He said Code states that pavers are structures. It was remarked that the definition of a structure is something that is attached to the ground. Mr. Thompson said sod or landscaping is intended to be in the buffer zone. Green space provides separation and provides for adjacent uses to be compatible. Pavement and other similar items can create stormwater and drainage issues for adjacent properties. It was remarked that the utility company could request that the property owner remove items placed in easements; otherwise the utility company has the right to remove them. It was remarked that the Code is overly broad and results in unintended consequences, as the definition of structure means any object anchored to the ground, constructed or installed by human kind. That definition means that there can be no structures of any kind in an easement. In response to a question, Mr. Thompson said stones and other elements could be placed in an easement, as part of an overall landscaping plan if approved according to Code. He said the structure on the subject property involves an easement and a right-of-way. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides stated the board’s role is to determine if staff’s decision regarding this case misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the CDC. She stated staff feels they correctly interpreted the provisions of the Code. She said Mr. Thompson has concluded that pavers are structures. Mr. Thompson said the Flexible Standard Development Residential Infill process provides that an applicant may apply for approval to place structures in the required setback. However, the applicant chose not to pursue the process. Alex Plisko, representative, stated staff and the applicant made mistakes regarding this application. He said the property owners contacted one of the gas companies referred to them by City staff to install the gas lines for the barbecue grill after receiving the fence permit in July 2007. The contractor told the homeowners that no permit was necessary and installed the gas lines for a barbecue grill. In response to a neighbor’s complaint, Code Enforcement personnel visited the site, and informed the homeowners that they could not install pavers without permits and stated that if the homeowners applied for and obtained an “after the fact” permit for installation of the pavers, they would not enforce Code regarding the installation of the barbecue grill. Mr. Plisko said the homeowners were working with City staff but did not follow through with the infill process. He said the pavers that were installed in the front yard swale to the center and water drains onto the street. When the homeowners went to the DRC, staff told the homeowners there were no problems with the installation of the pavers. He said there is no evidence that the Planning Department ever visited the property during DRC’s review of the application, nor did they ever state that the aerial photograph provided was inadequate to demonstrate that there was paving in setbacks throughout this neighborhood. Mr. Plisko cited addresses of homes with solid pavement from property line to property line, including in the City rights-of-way. He said if the homeowner removed the pavers, crushed shell, rocks or gravel would be permitted. Mr. Plisko said pavers are easier to maintain and do not allow vegetation to grow through them, that the majority of the paving is behind the fence, and that the barbecue grill is built in the easement and setback. He said although the Building Department did not forward the homeowners’ application to the Planning Department for review, a permit was issued for the barbecue grill. He said the City erred by issuing the permit and by not assisting the homeowners. He said staff’s statement that the aerial photograph does not depict paving on other properties extending into setbacks or from property line to property line is incorrect, as there is paving within a 300-foot radius of this property and throughout the neighborhood that extends from private property lines to the streets. In response to a question, Mr. Thompson said he was unsure how long ago the pavers at the addresses cited by Mr. Plisko were installed. Mr. Plisko said the homeowners’ pavers are in harmony with the neighborhood, that the property is well landscaped and maintained, that the Community Development 2008-03-18 6 pavers do not impact the health, welfare, or safety of the neighbors, and water drains into the street, not onto adjacent properties. Discussion ensued with comments that most of the paved areas Mr. Plisko referred to relate to driveways and sidewalks that involve egress, that the pavers on the subject property were installed for aesthetic reasons, that as the gas lines for the barbecue grill were installed in the utility easement future issues could occur should access to the easement be required, and that pavers are safer than shell or rocks surrounding the barbecue grill. Mr. Plisko said materials that are behind the fence do not encroach on the neighbors. He said the applicants’ pavers are in question due to the fact they are in the in the setback, which is also an easement. He stated although they are in harmony with the character of the neighborhood, the homeowners are willing to remove the pavers from the front yard. They can install crushed shell landscaping in the front from the gate to the east and from the fence to the south. However, they prefer to keep the pavers around the barbecue grill. He said the homeowners do not plan to request a vacation of the front yard easement. He submitted letters from all four utilities stating they do not object to vacating the easement. Mr. Delk said the issue before the CDB today is whether or not staff misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the CDC. He said crushed shell and stone are generally used in planters and are not acceptable forms of groundcover. However, those elements can be part of an overall landscaping plan. Ms. Dougall-Sides said to grant the applicant’s appeal would set a precedent. She said it has been a longstanding, standard procedure to require that applicants complete the process of vacating the utilities in an easement. She said the Engineering Department objects to the applicant’s request. Mr. Plisko said the Code does not prohibit landscaped shell in the easement. He said he has practiced in the City for years and has never had to remove items placed in easements. He said vacating easements would present numerous problems throughout the City. Four people spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Plisko responded to a neighbor’s concern stating it is acceptable practice to access an adjacent homeowner’s property if an easement straddles two adjacent properties. In response to a question, Mr. Thompson said the homeowners have not applied for a vacation of the easement. He said they installed pavers in a required setback and easement without permits. The easement and setback are coincidental to each other. He said that is why it is important for homeowners to obtain permits so that problems do not arise. He confirmed that a vacation is needed to install a structure in an easement. Discussion ensued with comments that the intent of “structure” with respect to setbacks and easements as defined in the Code needs to be revisited. It was remarked that in order to overturn the City’s finding, the board must find that all the criteria in Section 4-504.C of the CDC applies. It was remarked that this request required a vacation of the easement, which did not occur. Therefore, the board must deny the appeal. It was suggested that this item be put on hold until the Code is revised. It was felt that if the definition of a structure were more defined, the request would not be before the board. In response to a question, Mr. Thompson said the barbecue grill also is out of compliance. However, the issue today is the pavers. Mr. Plisko stated that it is not the applicant’s fault that City staff issued a permit for the barbecue grill. Community Development 2008-03-18 7 Member Coates moved to deny the appeal, Case APP2007-00005, and affirm staff’s 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 adopt staff’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Tallman, Behar, Dame, Alternate Member Carlough, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Adelson voted “Nay.” Motion carried. G. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting (Items 1 – 2): 1. Level Two Application Case: FLD2007-12040 – 610 and 612 Druid Road, 609 and 611 Pine Street, and 715 South Fort Harrison Avenue Owners: Gabash LLC. Applicant: Adam Rosen, MD. Representative: Jay Myers, Myers & Associates Architecture (9170 Oakhurst Road, Suite 3B, Seminole, Florida 33776; phone: 727-595-7100; fax: 727-595-7138; e-mail: myersarch@ix.netcom.com). Location: 0.98-acre parcel located between Pine Street and Druid Road, approximately 550 feet east of South Fort Harrison Avenue. Atlas Page: 295B. Request: Flexible Development (FLD) approval to construct a 15,498 square-foot medical clinic within the Downtown (D) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, pursuant to CDC Section 2-903.C. Proposed Use: Medical Clinic. Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Shelley Kuroglian, President, 1821 Springwood Cir S., Clearwater, FL 33763); and Harbor Oaks Neighborhood Association (President Bob Fritz, 320 Magnolia Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33756). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. The 0.98-acre subject property is located between Pine Street and Druid Road, approximately 550 feet east of Fort Harrison Avenue. The subject property currently consists of four detached dwellings, which are nonconforming uses within the Downtown (D) District. The subject property also consists of a portion of the adjacent Regions Bank property (0.12 acre), which is presently occupied by a portion of the perimeter landscape buffer of that property. On December 31, 2007, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted for the subject property. Under the development proposal the four existing, nonconforming, single-family detached dwellings will be demolished, and a 15,498 square-foot medical clinic with associated off-street parking will be constructed. It is noted that the D District does not specifically authorize the medical clinic use, which is why the request had been made as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the CDC is discussed below. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable FAR within the South Gateway character district is 1.0; therefore the 0.98-acre subject property is permitted a maximum of 42,789 square-feet of gross floor area. Community Development 2008-03-18 8 The development proposal is for only 15,498 square-feet (0.35 FAR); thus the proposal is in compliance with the above requirement. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum building height within the South Gateway character district is 50 feet. The proposed building measures approximately 29.5 feet from the average existing grade, which is in compliance with the above requirement. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-903, within the D District, Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects shall have their minimum off-street parking requirement determined by the Community Development Coordinator based upon the specific use and/or the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual standards. It is noted that medical clinics are not a specifically authorized use within the D District; therefore no minimum off-street parking requirement can be transferred from the development standards of the Minimum Standard, Flexible Standard or Flexible Development application types upon which the development proposal’s off-street parking requirement can be based. However, the use is specifically authorized in other zoning districts where it requires between two and five off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross floor area. The development proposal provides for 54 off-street parking spaces, which equates to 3.48/1,000 GFA and has been determined to be satisfactory. Solid Waste Containers and Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 201.D.1, all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate, wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation. The proposed outside mechanical equipment (air conditioning) is located within an enclosure that is located behind a raised planter area on the south side of the building. The enclosure will acceptably screen the mechanical equipment in compliance with the above provision. The proposed solid waste container is located at the northeast corner of the property adjacent to Pine Street, and will be screened by a six-foot high, concrete block enclosure. The gates for the enclosure are proposed to be chain-link with privacy slats; however this will need to be revised to be a material other than chain-link as the material is not permitted in the D District. The requirement has been attached as a condition of approval. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy all on- site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the any of the individual subject properties. The subject property is located within the South Gateway character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan identifies the South Gateway character district as a transitional area between the Downtown Core and the lower density residential areas to the southeast, and the office and industrial areas to the southwest. With regard to those properties not located on Fort Harrison Avenue, the plan encourages the retention and renovation of existing offices and the redevelopment of underutilized properties with urban-scale residential development. Community Development 2008-03-18 9 The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with regard to various elements associated with new construction in the Downtown. A review of these guidelines within the Plan was conducted and applicable items were identified as listed below. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that parking lots adjacent to rights-of-way shall be screened with either a landscaped buffer or a solid wall or fence three feet in height. Given the dynamics of the subject property, it would be difficult to be developed without parking between the building and the rights-of-way. As such, a landscaped buffer will screen the proposed off-street parking. However, as proposed, the landscaping would not appear to meet the applicable height criterion of three feet. Therefore, the proposed landscaping will need to be modified prior to the issuance of any building permits so that it accomplishes this requirement. Additionally, the Guidelines state that the use of interlocking pavers, brick or other similarly textured materials for parking lot surfacing and/or accents should be incorporated into the site design. The proposal meets this requirement with the inclusion of decorative pavers accents at the site driveways. Based upon the above and subject to the condition of approval being met, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that it is appropriate to provide clearly defined, safe, direct, convenient and landscaped pedestrian pathways between streets, parking areas and buildings. The proposal meets this requirement with the inclusion of clearly defined walkways connecting to the building from both of the adjacent rights-of-way. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that it is appropriate to provide open spaces which function as transitions between the public sidewalks and streets and the use of the property; that clearly defined entrances into open spaces with direct access from adjacent streets and adequate buffering from vehicular traffic should be provided; and that formal or informal seating appropriate to the scale and function of the open space be provided. The proposal includes the provision of a public plaza at the south side of the buildings with its entrance defined through the provision of a pavilion that is architecturally consistent with the principal building. Further, the open space contains a raised planted and benches that will make the space open and inviting to the pedestrian. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall be oriented toward the street and that the orientation of the front façade along the streetscape shall contribute to pedestrian interest in the area. Given the dynamics of the subject property, the location of a typical front façade along the primary street frontage (Druid Road) is not easily accomplished. The substantial grade changes on the site that slope from west to east and from north to south, would result in roughly an eight to ten-foot difference and considerable difficulties in accommodating the required handicap accessible route into the building at that front entrance. Therefore, the site has been designed with a pedestrian oriented entrance along Druid Road via the proposed pavilion and public plaza. These elements will contribute to the pedestrian interest in the area, which is in compliance with the above Guideline, and supports the location of the principal entrance to the building along the east elevation is supportable. In addition to the above, buildings may be located farther from the build-to line in order to provide a courtyard, steps, entryway, arcade, plaza or other pedestrian-oriented design feature which maintains the build-to line. The aforementioned pavilion and public plaza accomplish this, Community Development 2008-03-18 10 as the pavilion is located ten feet back from the property line and the majority of the plaza at 20 feet. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall have a distinct “base,” “middle” and “cap.” The proposed building has a clearly defined “base,” “middle” and “cap” consistent with the above, with the “middle” and “cap” defined by the rooflines and the “base” defined by raised planters and by water tables delineated through the use of stone veneer. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that windows shall be appropriately sized for the scale and style of the building, and that windows shall create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern. The windows, as proposed, create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern along both levels of the building through the incorporation of windows that are correctly sized to accentuate the architectural style of the building. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that multiple rooftops on varying levels on large buildings help to break-up the vertical mass of a building. The proposal substantially steps back the second level of the building and utilizes multiple rooftops, which accomplish the purpose of this Guideline. The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the number and type of building colors should be appropriate for and consistent with the architectural style. The proposed building colors are appropriate for the architectural style of the building and consist of light gray (Cool Gray, 7118-1 Porter) for the principle building façade, off-white (Cloud White, 7153-1 Porter) for the building trim, and indigo (Indigo, 6444-2 Porter) for building accents. The building will also include substantial stone veneer elements, which will support the architectural style and color of the building. A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the development proposal has been determined to be consistent with the following Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies: Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. Vision: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. Vision: The elimination of blighting conditions and the revitalization of the existing and expanded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown. Objective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the Goals, Objectives and Policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the design guidelines and the Downtown (D) District. Objective 2I: Redevelopment and public improvements shall create and contribute to pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. Community Development 2008-03-18 11 Objective 3D: Redevelopment is encouraged to create a vibrant Downtown environment containing a variety of building forms and styles that respect Downtown’s character and heritage. Policy 1: The Downtown Design Guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for renovation, redevelopment and new construction in Downtown with which all projects must be consistent. Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in which it is located. Policy 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the pedestrian environment through site and building design. Policy 9: Projects located at or near the border of the Downtown Plan area shall use effective site and building design features to ensure an appropriate transition and buffer between the different areas. The following policies governing development within the South Gateway character district have been reviewed and have been determined to not be applicable to the development proposal: Policy 1: The visual connection of the South Gateway should be strengthened with the Harbor Oaks Historic District through streetscaping elements and building design. Policy 2: Residential development fronting on South Fort Harrison Avenue may only be permitted if part of a mixed-use development. Policy 3: Curb cuts shall be discouraged on the South Fort Harrison Avenue frontage where alternative access can be provided. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of February 7, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the CDB. Findings of Fact: The Planning Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the CDC, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following Findings of Fact: 1) That the 0.98-acre subject property is located between Pine Street and Druid Road, approximately 550 feet east of Fort Harrison Avenue; 2) That the subject property is located within the D District and the Central Business District (CBD) FLUP category; 3) That the subject property is located within the South Gateway character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 4) That the proposed building must comply with all applicable Design Guidelines set forth in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and 5) That the proposed use is not a specifically authorized use in the Downtown (D) District and must therefore comply with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria. Conclusions of Law: The Planning Department, having made the above Findings of Fact, reaches the following Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Design Guidelines as set forth in Community Development 2008-03-18 12 the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2) That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the South Gateway character district; 3) That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Section 2-903; 4) That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per CDC Section 2-903.C; and 5) That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A. Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development (FLD) request to construct a 15,498 square- foot medical clinic within the D District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, pursuant to CDC Section 2-903.C. Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the submittal of a building permit application, a Minor Lot Adjustment must be approved by the Planning Department with regard to that portion of the adjacent Regions Bank property (0.12 acre) being incorporated into the balance of the subject property; 2) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department; 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed; 4) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Fire Department shall be addressed; 5) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the gates for the solid waste enclosure are to be revised to be a material other than chain-link that is consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 6) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the landscape plan shall provide for a three-foot high landscape buffer to screen the parking lot from adjacent rights-of-way; 7) That prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site; 8) That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 9) That any/all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; and 10) That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the architectural elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by staff. In response to a question, Planner Robert Tefft said the applicant is purchasing a portion of 714 Ft. Harrison Avenue. See pages 20 and 21 for motion of approval. 2. Case: FLD2007-11035 – 1280 Cleveland Street Level Two Application Owners: GTE Florida, Inc. and General Telephone Company of Florida. Applicant: Doug Dale, Verizon Corporate Real Estate. Representative: James Shimberg, Holland & Knight (100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 4100, Tampa, FL 33602-3644; phone: 813-227-6412; fax: 813-314-5108; e-mail: jim.shimberg@hklaw.com). Community Development 2008-03-18 13 Location: 3.33 acres located on the north side of Cleveland Street between Betty Lane and Fredrica Avenue. Atlas Page: 287B. Request: Flexible Development approval (1) for the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (1.27 FAR existing/proposed; where 0.55 FAR permitted today) and for building height (86 feet existing; where 50-foot height permitted today) in the Downtown District (East Gateway Character District), under the provisions of Section 6-109; (2) to permit the improvement of the existing site and parking areas for a "utilities/infrastructure facility" use in the Downtown District, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C; and (3) to permit Nonresidential Off-Street Parking in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with deviations to reduce the side (north) setback from 10 to five feet (to pavement) and to allow the placement of landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence/wall along the north and south sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F. Existing Use: Utility/Infrastructure Facility. Neighborhood Associations: Skycrest Neighbors (President JoAnna Siskin, 121 N. Crest Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33755); and Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Shelley Kuroglian, President, 1821 Springwood Cir S., Clearwater, FL 33763). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. The 3.33 acres is located on the north side of Cleveland Street between N. Betty Lane and N. Fredrica Avenue. The property has been developed with the utility/infrastructure facility for some time, as well as the accessory parking lot on the north side of the building. The buildings and a portion of the accessory parking lot is zoned D District, while the majority of the accessory parking lot to the north of the main building is zoned MHDR District. It is the owners’ desire to split off the northern portion of the parking lot that is no longer needed and sell it for residential development. The properties to the south across Cleveland Street are zoned D District and are developed with an overnight accommodation use and a utility/infrastructure facility. The properties directly east of the subject property across Fredrica Avenue are currently developed with an automobile service station and parking lot zoned C District (approved by the CDB on January 15, 2008, under FLD2007-09029 to be redeveloped with a new building with retail sales and services on the ground floor and offices on the second floor) and detached dwellings zoned MHDR District north of the existing parking lot. The properties directly west of the subject property across N. Betty Lane are currently developed with an overnight accommodation use zoned D District and attached and detached dwellings zoned MHDR District. The impetus for this proposal is the owners’ desire to split off the northern portion of the parking lot that is no longer needed and sell it for residential development. The land area to be retained for the Verizon utility/infrastructure facility will be 145,135 square-feet (3.33 acres). Two buildings presently exist on the property. The main building currently has 185,184 square-feet of gross floor area at a height of 86 feet measured from the eastern property line. There is a smaller, one-story building of 1,665 square-feet to the north of the main building. This one-story building is proposed to be demolished and enveloped into the main parking lot. The FAR, based on the land area to be retained for the Verizon utility/infrastructure facility and the gross floor area of the main building, is 1.27. This property is located within the East Gateway Character District of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The adoption of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was effective February 3, 2004. The intensity standards adopted for the East Gateway Character District sets a maximum FAR of 0.55 and a maximum height of 50 feet for office uses (which this is most similar to). As such, this existing Verizon utility/infrastructure Community Development 2008-03-18 14 facility is nonconforming to both FAR and Height. The use of the property utility/infrastructure facility in the D District is provided as a Flexible Standard Development use; therefore, the use is not nonconforming, only the use characteristics of Floor Area Ratio and height. Policy 11 of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan encourages the relocation of nonconforming uses and prohibits the use of Termination of Status of Nonconformity within the Downtown Plan area. Since this is not a nonconforming use, it has been determined that this request is in conformance with Policy 11. In order to provide for the sale of the existing parking lot to the north for future residential development prior to the submission for a site development building permit to construct the site improvements, a Release of Unity of Title and Minor Lot Adjustment application will be required to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Through the development review process, it was determined that the location of public improvements along Cleveland Street actually are located on private property due to a jog in the property line location. As part of this proposal, prior to the issuance of a site development building permit, the owner will need to deed as additional right-of-way, or dedicate as a right-of-way easement, to the City of Clearwater the southern 10 feet for that part of Lots 7 – 10 along Cleveland Street for those existing (or future) public improvements presently located on the Verizon property. As part of this application, the applicant proposes to upgrade parking lots to City standards and improve the property to landscaping requirements. The majority of the property where the main building is located and much of the parking lot is zoned D District. The very northern portion of this request and the eastern portion of the site adjacent to N. Fredrica Avenue is zoned MHDR District. This application includes a Flexible Development application to provide for the improvement for that portion of the property in the D District and a Flexible Development application to provide for the improvement of the nonresidential off-street parking lot in the MHDR District. In the D District, there are no required setbacks, however, vehicular use areas must be screened from view. In the MHDR District, the required setbacks for nonresidential off-street parking lots are 25-foot front and five-foot side. There is no parking requirement for utility/infrastructure facilities in the D District. The applicant had prepared a Parking Demand Study, which determined a parking need for 105 parking spaces. This proposal includes the provision of 145 parking spaces, which will more than meet their identified parking need. There is an existing parking area on the west side of the main building adjacent to Cleveland Street and N. Betty Lane. Existing parking spaces within this small parking area are located within the N. Betty Lane right-of-way. This proposal includes the removal of parking spaces from this area, retaining this paved area as a equipment service area, removal of the pavement from the right-of-way and sodding this area and cutting back the pavement five feet from the property line to install landscaping to screen this vehicular use area. This new edge of pavement will need to be curbed to protect the proposed landscaping from vehicular encroachment. The primary parking lot on the north side of the main building will include the removal of the small, one-story building to allow for the improvement of the parking lot, cutting back the pavement to a 10-foot setback from N. Betty Lane to install landscape screening for the parking lot within the D District and cutting back the pavement to meet the required 25-foot front setback from N. Betty Lane and installing landscape screening for the parking lot within the MHDR District. Driveways on N. Betty Lane for the subject property will be aligned with the east/west drive aisles in the redesigned main parking lot. The driveways and parking lot design will provide adequate access for both garbage truck and fire truck maneuvering into and through the site. The applicant is providing the required five-foot setback (to pavement) along the north side of the property. There is a discrepancy in the Code between this required side setback standard in Table 2-404 and the flexibility criteria of Section 2-404.C.2, where the required five-foot side setback (which they are meeting) is smaller than the criteria side setback requirement of 10 feet. Community Development 2008-03-18 15 The applicant is requesting a deviation to provide only the required setback of five-feet along the north property line, as well as requesting a deviation to the flexibility criteria to place the required landscaping on the inside of the required fence rather than the outside of the fence. This deviation request also applies to the south side of the property adjacent to the residential out- parcel at 22 N. Fredrica Avenue, where the required fence is proposed along the property line and the landscaping is proposed on the inside of the fence. Placement of the landscaping on the inside of the required fence ensures maintenance of the landscaping by the property owner and aids with site beautification. An existing double dumpster enclosure presently located partially within the N. Betty Lane right-of-way is proposed to be removed and a new double dumpster enclosure meeting City standards will be constructed just north of the main building on the east end of the main parking lot. The main parking lot will be upgraded to comply with City design standards with the required interior parking lot landscaping. The east side of the main parking lot adjacent to the residential out-parcel at 22 N. Fredrica Avenue (zoned D District) will be improved with a hedge and trees for the screening of the parking lot, with existing nuisance trees removed. There is also a small parking lot on the north side of the main building accessed off N. Fredrica Avenue. The landscape area between this small parking lot and the adjacent detached dwelling at 22 N. Fredrica Avenue will be improved with a continuous hedge and trees to screen this parking area from the detached dwelling. Foundation landscaping will be installed along the edge of the building along N. Fredrica Avenue and Cleveland Street, which will aid in softening the building façade and improve the street appearance of this otherwise blank-wall building. Termination of Status of Nonconformity: The development proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for FAR (1.27 FAR existing/proposed; where 0.55 FAR permitted today) and for building height (86 feet existing; where 50-foot heights permitted today) in the D District (East Gateway Character District). The adoption of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was effective February 3, 2004. The intensity standards adopted for the East Gateway Character District sets a maximum FAR of 0.55 and a maximum height of 50 feet for office uses (which this is most similar to). As such, this existing Verizon utility/infrastructure facility is nonconforming to both FAR and Height. The use of the property utility/infrastructure facility in the D District is provided as a Flexible Standard Development use; therefore, the use is not nonconforming, only the use characteristics of FAR and height. This building has existed at this location at its present floor area and height for some time. From a planning perspective, it is important to provide for additional residential development on the unused northern parking lot. It is highly unlikely that this Verizon building will be reduced in floor area or height anytime soon, and as such, its existing status in the neighborhood is established. Improvement of the parking lots serving this existing facility and the installation of foundation landscaping adjacent to Cleveland Street and N. Fredrica Avenue will improve the appearance of the property and its relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. The criteria for Termination of Status of Nonconformity, as per Section 6-109 of the CDC and outlined in the table below, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off-street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance with the Code will be met with this development proposal. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the D District, but there are perimeter buffers required in the MHDR District. Parking lots and vehicular use areas are required to be screened from view by walls, fences or landscaping by the Design Guidelines of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The equipment service area on the west side of the main building, the main parking lot to the north of the main building and the small parking lot accessed off N. Fredrica Avenue are being improved to meet the screening requirement of the Design Guidelines and the perimeter buffer requirements in the MHDR Community Development 2008-03-18 16 District. There is a masonry wall on the south side of the driveway for the small parking lot accessed off N. Fredrica Avenue that will either be reduced in height to 30 inches or removed completely and landscaping installed to provide such screening and to meet the sight visibility triangle requirements. There are no nonconforming signs or outdoor lighting on this site. The accessory dumpster enclosure presently located partially within the N. Betty Lane right-of-way will be removed as part of this proposal. In the D District, the allowable ISR is governed by the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. While the Downtown Redevelopment Plan does not state a maximum ISR, since there are no setback requirements, it is presumed the maximum ISR is 1.0. Pursuant to Section 2-401.1 of the CDC, the maximum allowable ISR in the MHDR District is 0.85. The overall existing ISR is 0.86 and the proposed ISR is 0.80, which is consistent with the Code provisions. There are no minimum lot area and lot width requirements in the D District. Pursuant to Table 2-404 of the CDC (MHDR District), there are no minimum lot area and lot width requirements for “nonresidential off-street parking.” In the Downtown District there are no required setbacks. Pursuant to Table 2-404 of the CDC for “nonresidential off-street parking” in the MHDR District, the minimum front setback is 25 feet and the minimum side setback is five feet (there is no rear setback for this property). The proposal is complying with the minimum front setback requirement in the MHDR District along N. Betty Lane and N. Fredrica Avenue, as well as the minimum side setback along the north property line. There is a discrepancy in the Code between the required side setback standard in Table 2-404 and the flexibility criteria of Section 2-404.C.2, where the required five- foot side setback (which they are meeting) is smaller than the flexibility criteria requirement of 10 feet. The applicant is requesting a deviation to provide the required setback of five-feet along the north property line, which is acceptable. This property is located within the East Gateway Character District of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The adoption of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was effective February 3, 2004. The intensity standards adopted for the East Gateway Character District set a maximum height of 50 feet for office uses (which this is most similar to). The main building currently is at a height of 86 feet measured from the eastern property line. As such, this existing Verizon utility/infrastructure facility is nonconforming to height. The applicant is requesting to terminate this nonconforming use characteristic to allow the building to remain as is (see discussion under Termination of Status of Nonconformity above). There is no parking requirement for utility/infrastructure facilities in the D District. The applicant had prepared a Parking Demand Study, which determined a parking need for 105 parking spaces. The proposal includes the provision of 145 parking spaces. The proposal includes upgrading the driveways, parking areas and vehicular use areas to meet Code provisions for design and landscaping (see also discussion under Development Proposal above). Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the CDC, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Except for an equipment area on the west side of the building that is screened by a six-foot high wall, all mechanical equipment is on the roof. There is a paved equipment service area on the west side of the building that will be improved to City standards. This equipment service area is for equipment that is located within the building. The development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor mechanical equipment. Community Development 2008-03-18 17 Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the CDC, to minimize hazards at driveway intersections on N. Betty Lane and N. Fredrica Avenue, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The proposed site and landscape design meet this requirement. Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the CDC, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. There exists overhead utility lines along the east side of N. Betty Lane adjacent to this site and running north/south through the site serving the residential out-parcel at 22 N. Fredrica Avenue. The submitted site plan includes a note that all utilities will be placed underground. The site plan also indicates for the overhead utility lines that run north/south through the site serving the residential out-parcel at 22 N. Fredrica Avenue to be removed and that utilities will be relocated to serve the dwelling from N. Fredrica Avenue. In a telephone conversation with the property owner of 22 N. Fredrica Avenue, concern was expressed as to how that would be effected and that it not be at his expense. To ensure the overhead utilities within the N. Betty Lane are placed underground, any approval of this request should include a condition of approval for such. Additionally, a condition of approval should be included to ensure the relocation of utility service to 22 N. Fredrica Avenue be acceptable to that property owner and not be at his expense. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Downtown District, but there are perimeter buffers required in the MHDR District. Parking lots and vehicular use areas are required to be screened from view by walls, fences or landscaping by the Design Guidelines of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The equipment service area on the west side of the main building, the main parking lot to the north of the main building and the small parking lot accessed off N. Fredrica Avenue are being improved to meet the screening requirement of the Design Guidelines and the perimeter buffer requirements in the MHDR District. Section 3-1202.D.1 for perimeter buffers of a nonresidential use adjacent to a detached dwelling requires shrubbery attain six feet height within three years along the north side of the existing detached dwelling. This should be included as a condition of approval. The proposal includes the installation of interior landscaping in excess of Code requirements to break up the pavement of the main parking lot to allow for shading of the pavement. Vertical concrete curbing is required on-site to protect landscape materials and areas from vehicular encroachment. The proposal indicates such curbing except along the edges of the equipment service area on the west side of the building, which should be required as a condition of approval. The landscape design represents a dramatic visual improvement to this site, one that will provide visual interest and shade to the parking areas, as well as substantially enhancing and upgrading the neighborhood appearance. Live oak, crape myrtle and weeping yaupon holly trees will be planted adjacent to or within the parking lot. Travelers Palm, fishtail palm and weeping yaupon holly trees will be planted within foundation landscape areas. Crape myrtle trees will be planted within the Cleveland Street right-of-way as street trees. The proposed on-site landscaping complies with and exceeds Code requirements. An existing double dumpster enclosure presently located partially within the N. Betty Lane right-of-way is proposed to be removed and a new double dumpster enclosure meeting City standards will be constructed just north of the main building on the east end of the main parking lot. The access driveways and parking lot has been designed for trash truck maneuvering. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department. Community Development 2008-03-18 18 There are no existing or proposed freestanding signs for this property. There are two small attached signs on the building, one on the south side and one on the west side, that are to remain as is. No additional attached signage is proposed. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meetings of December 6, 2007, and February 7, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the CDB, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: 1) The 3.33 acres is located on the north side of Cleveland Street between N. Betty Lane and N. Fredrica Avenue; 2) The property owner owns the entire block between Cleveland Street, Drew Street, N. Betty Lane and N. Fredrica Avenue, except the residential out-parcel at 22 N. Fredrica Avenue; 3) It is the owners’ desire to split off the northern portion of the parking lot that is no longer needed and sell it for residential development; 4) The buildings and a portion of the accessory parking lot is zoned D District, while the majority of the accessory parking lot to the north of the main building is zoned MHDR District; 5) The property has been developed with the utility/infrastructure facility for some time, as well as the accessory parking lot on the north side of the building; 6) The land area to be retained for the Verizon utility/infrastructure facility will be 145,135 square-feet (3.33 acres); 7) The main building currently has 185,184 square-feet of gross floor area at a height of 86 feet measured from the eastern property line; 8) The FAR, based on the land area to be retained for the Verizon utility/infrastructure facility and the gross floor area of the main building, is 1.27; 9) The intensity standards adopted for the East Gateway Character District sets a maximum FAR of 0.55 and a maximum height of 50 feet for office uses (which this is most similar to); 10) The existing Verizon utility/infrastructure facility is nonconforming to both Floor Area Ratio and Height; 11) The development proposal includes a request for Termination of Status of Nonconformity for FAR (1.27 FAR existing/proposed; where 0.55 FAR permitted today) and for building height (86 feet existing; where 50-foot height permitted today) in the D District (East Gateway Character District); 12) The applicant proposes to upgrade their parking lots to City standards and improve the property to landscaping requirements; 13) There is no parking requirement for utility/infrastructure facilities in the D District. The applicant had prepared a Parking Demand Study, which determined a parking need for 105 parking spaces. This proposal includes the provision of 145 parking spaces, which will more than meet their identified parking need; 14) The primary parking lot on the north side of the main building will include the removal of the small, one-story building to allow for the improvement of the parking lot, cutting back the pavement to a 10-foot setback from N. Betty Lane to install landscape screening for the parking lot within the D District and cutting back the pavement to meet the required 25-foot front setback from N. Betty Lane and installing landscape screening for the parking lot within the MHDR District; 15) The applicant is requesting a deviation to provide only the required setback of five-feet along the north property line, as well as requesting a deviation to the flexibility criteria to place the required landscaping on the inside of the required fence rather than the outside of the fence. This deviation request also applies to the south side of the property adjacent to the residential out-parcel at 22 N. Fredrica Avenue, where the required fence is proposed along the property line and the landscaping is proposed on the inside of the fence; 16) Foundation landscaping will be installed along the edge of the building along N. Fredrica Avenue and Cleveland Street, which will aid in softening the building façade and improve the street appearance of this otherwise blank-wall building; 17) The landscape design represents a dramatic visual improvement to this site, one that will provide visual interest and shade to the parking areas, as well as substantially enhancing and upgrading the neighborhood appearance; 18) There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development 2008-03-18 19 Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for Termination of Status of Nonconformity as per Section 6-109 of the CDC; 2) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Table 2-902 for the D District and Tables 2-401.1 and 2-404 of the CDC; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-903.C of the CDC; 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-404.F of the CDC; 5) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the CDC; and 6) That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible Development application: 1) For the Termination of Status of Nonconformity for FAR (1.27 FAR existing/proposed; where 0.55 FAR permitted today) and for building height (86 feet existing; where 50-foot height permitted today) in the D District (East Gateway Character District), under the provisions of Section 6-109; 2) To permit the improvement of the existing site and parking areas for a "utilities/infrastructure facility" use in the D District, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-903.C; and 3) To permit Nonresidential Off-Street Parking in the MHDR District with deviations to reduce the side (north) setback from 10 to five feet (to pavement) and to allow the placement of landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence/wall along the north and south sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-404.F, with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1) That, prior to the submission for a site development building permit to effect the site changes, a Release of Unity of Title and Minor Lot Adjustment application be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department; 2) That, prior to the issuance of a site development building permit, the owner deed as additional right-of-way, or dedicate as a right-of-way easement, to the City of Clearwater the southern 10 feet for that part of Lots 7 – 10 along Cleveland Street; 3) That the shrubs along the north side of the existing detached dwelling attain six feet height within three years; 4) That the existing overhead utility lines which run along the east side of Betty Lane be placed underground prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion on the site improvements building permit; 5) That the relocation of the existing overhead utilities serving 22 N. Fredrica Avenue be in a manner and location acceptable to, and at no expense to, that property owner; 6) That, prior to the issuance of a site development building permit, the site and landscape plans be amended to show vertical curbing along the edge of pavement for the equipment service area on the west side of the building adjacent to Cleveland Street and N. Betty Lane; and 7) That, prior to the issuance of a site development building permit, compliance with all requirements of General Engineering, Stormwater Engineering and Traffic Engineering be met. It was remarked that the amount of landscaping is great. However, some of the landscaping is susceptible to frost and needs to be maintained. Planner Wayne Wells confirmed the types of plants surrounding the fence. He said staff addressed a citizen’s concern that he not be impacted financially with the rerouting of electricity to his home. Member Dame moved to approve Cases FLD2007-12040 and FLD2007-11035 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the applications and the Staff Reports, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law stated in the Staff Reports, with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. H. LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 – 3): Community Development 2008-03-18 20 1. Case: CPA2008-01001 - Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department. Request : Amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Clearwater, adopting alternative densities and intensities for overnight accommodations consistent with the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide FLUP; eliminating the Resort Facilities Overlay (RFO) Future Land Use category; providing for an objective and policies supporting tourism; and minor editorial changes. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Shelley Kuroglian, President, 1821 Springwood Cir S., Clearwater, FL 33763). Presenter : Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Ms. Dougall-Sides reported that the next three items are legislative items and do not require the board accept Mr. Tefft as an expert witness. Mr. Tefft reviewed the request. At its meeting of October 24, 2007, the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) adopted Pinellas County Ordinance 07-50. This ordinance amended the “Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide FLUP” (AKA Countywide Plan Rules), by establishing alternative density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations within several Future Land Use categories. The adoption of these alternative standards came about in the interest of supporting a viable tourist industry and establishing economic parity for overnight accommodation uses. Further, the standards themselves were formulated through an economic analysis on the relationship between land costs for hotels and the land costs for condominiums, and the disparity between the two. The amendment requires the adoption of these alternative density and intensity standards by local government, and that they would be subject to the establishment of additional applicable requirements, including design guidelines, a coordinated approach to transportation concurrency management, and additional use restrictions. Tourism is a substantial element of the City’s economic base and the continued support, maintenance and enhancement of this important economic sector should be of primary concern to the City. While overnight accommodations within the City are primarily situated on Clearwater Beach, the tourism industry is found throughout the City. These proposed amendments would affect those properties not located on Clearwater Beach that are governed by the provisions of Beach by Design. Goal 2 of the Future Land Use Element states, in part, that the City shall utilize innovative and flexible planning practices in order to redevelop blighted areas and encourage infill development. This amendment to the Comprehensive Plan establishes Objective 2.6, which identifies tourism as a substantial element of the City’s economic base and states the need to support, maintain and enhance this economic sector. The supporting Policies 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3 encourage the development and redevelopment of overnight accommodation uses as well as the adoption of higher densities and intensities that would support their development. Through this objective and policies the City will be better positioned to further this goal of the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development 2008-03-18 21 This amendment also proposes the adoption of the alternative density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations that have been established by the CPA through amendment to the Countywide Plan Rules. These alternatives affect the RFH, Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R), Commercial Limited (CL), Commercial General (CG) and Industrial Limited (IL) Future Land Use categories, and would affect approximately 1,900 acres citywide. The alternatives in the RFH category are the most intense, allowing between 75 and 125 units per acre and a FAR between 2.0 and 4.0 depending upon property size. The other category alternatives allow a maximum density of 45, 60 or 75 units per acre and a FAR of 1.0, 1.2 or 1.5. Through the adoption of these alternatives, the City will be in compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.6.2. The amendment also incorporates a few other relatively minor changes, including the deletion of the Resort Facilities Overlay (RFO) FLUP classification, which was incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan in 2005. The RFO classification has never been implemented and would no longer be required within the Comprehensive Plan. The other minor changes incorporated into this amendment include the addition of the overnight accommodations use a primary use within the IL Future Land Use category; and correction of a few grammatical and punctuation errors. Pursuant to CDC Section 4-603.F., no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards: 1. The amendment will further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals, policies and objectives contained in the Plan. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are consistent with existing goals in that the amendments will further those flexible planning practices in redeveloping blighted areas and encouraging infill development. 2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment will add a new objective and three supporting policies to the Future Land Use Element that promotes the continued support of the tourism industry in the City. The amendment also adopts alternative density and intensity standards consistent with the “Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide FLUP,” which are supported by the aforementioned objective and policies being added. As such, the amendment would not be inconsistent with other provisions of the Plan. 3. The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. The proposed amendments will affect properties citywide; however the amendments will not alter the uses to which those properties may be put. Therefore, the uses available to the properties are compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. 4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. The proposed amendments will affect properties citywide; therefore the adequacy of available public facilities will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis as development proposals seek to make use of those alternative density and intensity standards. It is noted that adequate Community Development 2008-03-18 22 public facilities exist to serve development at the existing density and intensity standards, and it is anticipated that adequate public facilities will exist to accommodate development at the alternative density and intensity standards. It is further noted that no capacity issues are anticipated with either wastewater or potable water service. The City has a wastewater capacity of approximately 28.5 MGD compared to a recent peak historic flow (past five years) of 20.04 MGD. The City’s average consumption of potable water is 13 MGD, and the City has facilities that can produce 4 MGD. The balance of the potable water service comes from Tampa Bay Water via interconnects with Pinellas County, and there is no cap on the agreement for purchased water. 5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. Any redevelopment that should occur as a result of the proposed amendments must still comply with impervious surface ratio standards, as well as drainage and water quality standards. Further, the proposed amendments do not permit increases in the permanent population in any coastal high hazard area. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. 6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendments will affect properties citywide; however, as noted previously, the amendments will not alter the uses to which those properties may be put. Therefore, the amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate areas of those properties that may choose to utilize the provisions of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendment to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identifies tourism as a substantial element of the City’s economic base and states the need to support, maintain and enhance this economic sector through the addition of a new objective and supporting policies within the Future Land Use Element. The amendment also adopts alternative density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations consistent with the Countywide Plan Land Rules. The proposed amendment will further the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with other provisions of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, will not result in inappropriate or incompatible uses, will not adversely affect the natural environment or impact the use of property in the immediate area, and sufficient public facilities exist to implement the proposed amendment. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance 7924-08 that amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Twelve people spoke in opposition to the amendments, requesting the barrier islands be excluded. Four people spoke in support of the amendments, stating areas of the City could be considered on an individual basis. Discussion ensued with comments: 1) In the past, the City limited density and encouraged development on Clearwater Beach and now there are very few mom and pop or medium sized hotels. There is now a need for increased density in tourist areas; 2) Density in the C district should not be increased; 3) T zoning allows for more height and density than C zoning; 4) The City should be considered as a whole; 5) No areas of the City should be excluded from the amendment; 6) It is important to have a balance of tourism, private enterprise, etc.; 7) A resident’s comment that Sand Key pays $30 million in taxes to the City was in error, as the lion’s share of it is allocated to the School Board and to the County; the City Community Development 2008-03-18 23 receives approximately $7 million in taxes from Sand Key property owners; 8) That increased densities are needed; to limit densities in specific areas could exclude hotels and business that would help support the tax base in a community; 9) The current Code does not provide safeguards regarding too much density in residential areas; and 10) There might be other areas of the City, other than barrier islands, that have concerns regarding increased density. Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said over 1,400 acres in the City zoned C could be impacted by this ordinance. She said the US19 corridor and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard have a significant number of hotels. Applications for increased density include safeguards and require approval by the CDB and Council. Member Tallman moved to recommend approval of Case CPA2008-01001 based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Adelson, Coates, Tallman, Behar, Alternate Member Carlough, and Chair Fritsch voted “Aye”; Member Dame voted “Nay.” Motion carried. The meeting recessed from 3:22 to 3:44 p.m. 2. Case: Amendment to Beach by Design Special Area Plan Level Three Application Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department. Request: Amendments to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines, Section V. Catalytic Projects, Subsection B. Community Redevelopment District Designation, that establishes editorial consistency with regard to the name of the existing 600-unit density pool as the “Destination Resort Density Pool.” Additionally, amendments that organize the existing text of this Subsection into a new Subsection B. 1. entitled “Destination Resort Density Pool” and creates a new Subsection B. 2. establishing a Hotel Density Reserve and criteria for allocating the reserve. Amendments are also proposed to Section VII. Design Guidelines, to clarify density limits of 50 units per acre may be exceeded through the Destination Resort Density Pool or Hotel Density Reserve consistent with Section V. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Shelley Kuroglian, President, 1821 Springwood Cir S., Clearwater, FL 33763). Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Mr. Tefft presented the requested. In 2001, the City adopted Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. This special area plan set forth a series of revitalization strategies for Clearwater Beach and established eight distinct character districts to regulate land use, location of uses and generally the scale of development. Beach by Design also established a pool of 600 hotel rooms that were to be made available to certain specifically designated properties in order to stimulate desired catalytic resort projects. While this pool was successful in stimulating desired resort projects such as Sand Pearl, Aqualea, and Kiran Grande, Clearwater Beach still suffered a loss of numerous mid-size, mid- priced hotel rooms to a thriving condominium market from 2002 until 2006/07, and the loss of these rooms became a significant issue for both Clearwater Beach and the City as a whole. The loss of hotel rooms was due, in part, to the relationship between land costs for hotels and land costs for condominiums. A study prepared by Dr. Owen Beitsch in October 2006, found that a one-acre property purchased for $1,000,000 for condominium development requires a much lower density and provides a much greater return on investment than does the same Community Development 2008-03-18 24 property purchased for the same price, but for a hotel development. The return on investment for a condominium is also immediate, whereas a hotel returns its investment slowly over a longer period of time. While the condominium market is no longer as strong as it has been, the past demand for condominium product has driven land value so disproportionately high that hotels cannot economically compete under the current comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Current land valuations and caps on densities, in tandem with existing operations that generate adequate revenues, have created a situation where land costs have made new hotel development prohibitive absent some focused intervention that brings values more in line with those needed to support new development. In short, it has been determined that if the existing hotel stock on Clearwater Beach is to be revitalized when densities that invite reinvestment are needed. Dr. Beitsch’s study further indicated that condominium development could support on average a land value that is 7 times higher per unit than hotel development. Accordingly, hotels would need roughly 5 to 7 rooms for every condominium unit in order to compete with potential condominium development in terms of economic viability. Based upon the existing density for condominiums at 30 units per acre, hotels would require a density of between 150 and 210 rooms per acre to be an economically viable alternative to condominiums. While the Countywide Planning Authority (CPA) amended the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide FLUP (Countywide Plan Rules) adopting alternative density and intensity standards for hotels in certain future land use categories, those amendments would only provide approximately 2.5 to 4.1 hotel rooms for every condominium unit, dependant upon the size of the subject property. As stated previously, Dr. Beitsch’s study found that hotel density must be 5 to 7 times that of condominium density; therefore the amendment to the Countywide Plan Rules would not adequately address the issue of economic parity. As Clearwater Beach is designated as a Community Redevelopment District on the Pinellas Planning Council’s Countywide Future Land Use Map, the City has the option to have different density provisions from those set forth in the Countywide Plan Rules. Therefore, the City hired DKS & Associates to conduct a traffic analysis in order to determine the maximum density that could be achieved within the established Level of Service (LOS) standards for the transportation network. The study revealed that upon excluding those properties where it can be safely assumed that redevelopment is unlikely, and those properties where approved development proposals already exist; approximately 18 acres of land has a reasonable potential for redevelopment under a higher maximum density for hotel use. The study further assumed that an additional 7.57 acres of land had potential for residential (condominium) redevelopment at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre, and that an increase of 30,000 square-feet of commercial floor area could occur. Based upon these assumptions, hotel development at the highest density necessary to achieve economic parity (210 rooms per acre), when added to the traffic associated with the existing and approved development trips, would result in the overburdening of the existing transportation infrastructure. Further analysis concluded that an across-the-board density of 90 hotel rooms per acre could be accommodated given the performance of minor mitigation/improvements to the existing transportation infrastructure. While, increasing hotel density to 90 rooms per acre for all properties within Beach by Design would provide a substantial increase upon existing hotel density, this would only result in Community Development 2008-03-18 25 an increase that would provide three hotel rooms for every condominium unit and the prescribed economic parity would not be achieved. Therefore, it is proposed to capture the development potential that could exist between 50 and 90 hotel rooms per acre (1,385 hotel rooms) within a Hotel Density Reserve that could be allocated on a project-by-project basis to enable hotel development to achieve economic parity and to provide for the development of new mid-size, mid-priced hotels. The allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve would be made by approval of the City Council as part of a development agreement with those allocations being strictly controlled. In order to be eligible to draw units from the Reserve, a development would have to incorporate, meet, and/or abide by several criteria, which are set forth in full in the ordinance, and a selection of those criteria follows: Those properties and/or developments that have acquired density from the Destination Resort Density Pool are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve. Those properties and/or developments that have had density transferred off to another property and/or development(s) through an approved Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) application by the City after December 31, 2007, are not eligible to have rooms allocated from the Reserve. The lot size of the subject property must be at least 0.75 acres (32,670 square-feet). A maximum of 100 hotel rooms may be allocated from the Reserve to any development with a lot size between 0.75 and 2.5 acres. Those developments with a lot size greater than 2.5 acres may use the Reserve to achieve the difference between 50 and 90 hotel rooms per acre. Accessory uses inconsistent with amenities typical of a mid-priced hotel shall require compliance with the base FAR requirements of the RFH Future Land Use category. The maximum building heights of the various character districts cannot be increased to accommodate hotel rooms allocated from the Reserve. When both the allocation of hotel rooms from the Reserve and the transfer of development rights (TDR) are utilized as part of a development, only hotel rooms brought in to the project through the TDR process are eligible to be constructed above the otherwise maximum building height, but only provided that all TDR criteria are met. In addition to the above, the existing capacity and demand for both potable water and wastewater was examined and a determination was made that no capacity issues are anticipated with either. The City’s average consumption of potable water is 13 MGD, and the City has facilities that can produce 4 MGD with the balance of the potable water service being provided from Tampa Bay Water via interconnects with Pinellas County, and there is no cap on the agreement for purchased water. The recent peak historic flow (past five years) for wastewater is 20.04 MGD and the City has a wastewater capacity of approximately 28.5 MGD. However, some wastewater system improvements will be needed at some point, but the costs associated with those improvements would have to be born by the private sector. The proposed Ordinance 7925-08 amends Beach by Design to clarify all references to the existing “pool” as referring to the Destination Resort Density Pool, to clarify the existing increased height provisions and their relationship to the Destination Resort Density Pool, and to Community Development 2008-03-18 26 establish the Hotel Density Reserve and its associated criteria. Within the ordinance document, text that is underlined indicates proposed language and text containing strikethroughs indicate deletions. CDC Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a selected list of goals, objectives and policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to Beach by Design: Objective 1.2 Population densities (included in the Coastal Management Element and the Future Land Use Map) in coastal areas are restricted to the maximum density allowed by the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, except for specific areas identified in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines, and shall be consistent with the Pinellas County Hurricane Evacuation Plan and the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan and shall be maintained or decreased. Goal 2 The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development. Objective 2.1 The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient and/or obsolete areas shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment and special area plans, the construction of catalytic private projects, city investment, and continued emphasis on property maintenance standards. Policy 2.1.1 Redevelopment shall be encouraged, where appropriate, by providing development incentives such as density bonuses for significant lot consolidation and/or catalytic projects, as well as the use of transfer of developments rights pursuant to approved special area plans and redevelopment plans. Policy 5.1.1 No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of City services (traffic circulation, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable levels. However, development orders may be phased or otherwise modified consistent with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently with the impacts of development. In addition to the above, the following objective and policies are proposed with the companion Ordinance No. 7924-08, which amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. These would also be furthered by the proposed amendments to the Beach by Design: Objective 2.6 Tourism is a substantial element of the City’s economic base and as such the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important economic sector. Policy 2.6.1 The City supports and encourages the continued development and redevelopment of overnight accommodation uses. Community Development 2008-03-18 27 Policy 2.6.2 The City supports the adoption of higher density/intensity standards for overnight accommodation uses such that a sufficient supply shall be available within the City provided that concurrency standards are met. 2. The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the CDC and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed amendment to Beach by Design will further the purposes of the CDC in that it will be consistent with the following purposes set forth in CDC Section 1-103: Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment (CDC Section 1-103.B.1). Strengthening the City’s economy and increasing its tax base as a whole (CDC Section 1-103.B.3). The proposed amendment to Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines are consistent with and furthers the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the CDC. Further, the proposed amendment will assist in overcoming the constraints upon hotel development on Clearwater Beach due to the economic disparity with condominium development, as well as facilitating the restoration of lost mid-size, mid-priced hotels. The Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance 7925-08 that amends Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines. In response to a question, Mr. Tefft said this amendment only applies to the Beach by Design area of Clearwater Beach. Discussion ensued with comments that consideration should be given to reducing the .75-acre minimum lot size to accommodate smaller hotels, which do have a place in the economy. Mr. Tefft said under existing height maximums, staff concluded that there could be 120 rooms on a 0.85-acre site meeting parking requirements, setbacks, at 100 feet heights, with no additional height required. Three people spoke in support of the amendment. Discussion ensued with comments that it is difficult to consolidate properties on the beach yet the minimum lot size to access the pool is 0.75 acres. Mr. Tefft said staff reviewed the feasibility of building a mid-rise, mid-priced hotel with 120 – 150 rooms. Staff concluded that it is not possible to build a mid-priced hotel with required parking and setbacks on properties less than 0.75 acres. It was felt that if minimum lot sizes were lowered to 0.5-acre lots, that developers would not build what is not profitable and economics would determine the feasibility of the size of the hotel that could be built. It was remarked that although smaller parcels with less hotel units might result in higher priced rooms and there isn’t a large market for it, the beach would benefit from some smaller to mid-sized hotels. Mr. Delk said most of the data staff analyzed supports 100 to 120-room hotels. Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Item H2, Amendments to Beach by Design Special Area Plan, based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions Community Development 2008-03-18 28 of Law stated in the Staff Report, with the modification to reduce the minimum lot size to a half acre. Member Coates requested the motion be amended to remove the minimum lot size completely. Member Dame accepted the suggested amendment and restated his motion to recommend approval of Item H2, Amendments to Beach by Design Special Area Plan, based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report, and at today’s hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report, with the modification to remove the minimum lot size completely on the low end with all other conditions as presented. The motion was duly seconded. Upon the vote being taken, Members Adelson, Coates, Behar, and Alternate Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Chair Fritsch voted “Nay.” Member Tallman was absent. Motion carried. The Chair stated that he voted against the motion, as he remembered situations that occurred with development on Brightwater Drive, and had concerns regarding the lack of a minimum lot size. 3. Level Three Application Case: TA2008-01001 - Amendments to the CDC Applicant: City of Clearwater, Planning Department. Request : Amendments to the CDC regarding numerous provisions including the amendment of the High Density Residential (HDR) and Commercial (C) Districts to reflect consistency with the RFH Future Land Use category consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; the adoption of alternative densities and intensities for overnight accommodations within the Commercial (C), Tourist (T), and Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) Districts consistent with the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide FLUP; the amendment of the flexibility criteria for the overnight accommodations use within the Commercial (C), Tourist (T), and Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) Districts; the amendment of the Flexible Standard Development flexibility criteria for the indoor recreation/entertainment use within the Commercial (C) District; the amendment of the Commercial (C) District to provide flexibility criteria for the Flexible Development indoor recreation/entertainment use; minor editorial revisions to Tables 2– 1304 and 2-1404; the amendment of the OSR District to remove the Flexible Standard Development overnight accommodations use and its associated flexibility criteria; and the amendment of the definitions section with regard to overnight accommodations. Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Shelley Kuroglian, President, 1821 Springwood Cir S., Clearwater, FL 33763). Presenter : Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. Mr. Tefft reviewed the request. The proposed amendments to the CDC are associated with an amendment being proposed to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that would adopt alternative density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations consistent with the “Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide FLUP” (AKA Countywide Plan Rules). As such, several of the proposed amendments are being brought about to ensure consistency between the CDC and the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. In addition, however, are a few amendments that are editorial in nature or are refinements to existing CDC sections. The following is a summary of the proposed amendments organized by CDC Article. The proposed Ordinance 7926-08 is also attached and includes each of the amendments. Community Development 2008-03-18 29 Within the ordinance document, text that is underlined indicates proposed language and text containing strikethroughs indicate deletions. Article 2. Zoning Districts Consistency with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan (Pages 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 of Ordinance) This ordinance adds the RFH Future Land Use category to the list of Countywide FLUP Designations compatible with the HDR and C Districts. The Clearwater Comprehensive Plan already identifies these compatibilities. This ordinance also amends the maximum development potential tables associated with the C, T, and IRT Districts so that they are compatible with the adopted alternative density and intensity standards for overnight accommodations (proposed with Ordinance 7924-08). The C District would allow an alternative density of 45 units per acre (compared to a base of 30) where there is an underlying FLUP designation of either CL or R/O/R; and of 60 units per acre (compared to a base of 40) where CG FLUP designations exist. The C District, as well as the T District, would also allow, as an alternative to the base density of 50 units per acre, between 75 and 125 units per acre (depending upon property size) where it coincides with a FLUP designation of RFH. With regard to the IRT District, an alternative density of 75 units per acre (compared to a base of 50) would be possible, but would still be subject to the master development plan requirements of the Countywide Plan Rules. Indoor Recreation/Entertainment (Pages 3, 5 and 6 of Ordinance) This ordinance adds a flexibility criterion addressing lot area and/or width to the Flexible Standard Development (FLS) indoor recreation/entertainment use within the C District as none presently exists for the permissible lot area and lot width deviations. This ordinance also adds flexibility criteria addressing lot area and/or width, height, setbacks and parking to the Flexible Development (FLD) indoor recreation/entertainment use within the C District as no criteria presently exist for this use. Overnight Accommodation Flexibility Criteria (Pages 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Ordinance) This ordinance adopts revised and consistent flexibility criteria for the overnight accommodation use in the C, T, and IRT Districts. For the most part, the revisions only restate criteria for clarity or to improve upon the original intent; however two new criteria are being added. One criterion requires that if a development proposes to make use of adopted alternative density/intensity standards, then they would need to enter into a development agreement with the City. The other criterion requires that overnight accommodations located within a Coastal Storm Area would need to have a hurricane evacuation plan. Open Space/Recreation District (Pages 11 and 12 of Ordinance) This ordinance removes the FLS overnight accommodation use from the OSR District. This use is being removed for a couple of reasons. First, the Future Land Use category that is compatible with the OSR District does not allow overnight accommodation density. Second, the use is only to be as an accessory use to private clubs; however private clubs are not permitted in the OSR District. As such, the overnight accommodation use needs to be removed. Community Development 2008-03-18 30 There is also a minor correction being done with this ordinance to Table 2-1404 of the OSR District to remove the erroneous word “Standard” from the title. Article 8. Definitions and Rules of Construction Overnight Accommodations & Overnight Accommodation Unit (Pages 12 and 13 of Ordinance) This ordinance adopts a definition for the term “overnight accommodation unit” and a revised definition for the term “overnight accommodation”. The adoption of these definitions is so that the City is consistent with those definitions set forth in the Countywide Plan Rules. CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS: CDC Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following: The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a selected list of goals, objectives and policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan that are furthered by the proposed amendments to the CDC: Goal 2 The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development. Objective 3.2 Future Land Use in the City of Clearwater shall be guided by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and implemented through the City’s CDC. Map categories are further defined in Policy # 3.2.1 below. Policies 3.2.1 Land Uses on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map shall generally be interpreted as indicated in the following table. The intensity standards listed in the table (FAR – floor area ratio; ISR – impervious surface ratio) are the maximum allowed for each plan category, except where otherwise permitted by special area plans or redevelopment plans approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual zoning districts, as established by the City’s CDC, may have more stringent intensity standards than those listed in the table but will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan category, unless otherwise permitted by approved special area plans or redevelopment plans. In addition to the above, the following objective and policies are proposed with the companion Ordinance 7924-08, which amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. These would also be furthered by the proposed amendments to the CDC. Objective 2.6 Tourism is a substantial element of the City’s economic base and as such the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important economic sector. Policy 2.6.1 The City supports and encourages the continued development and redevelopment of overnight accommodation uses. Community Development 2008-03-18 31 Policy 2.6.2 The City supports the adoption of higher density/intensity standards for overnight accommodation uses such that a sufficient supply shall be available within the City provided that concurrency standards are met. 3. The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the CDC and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. The proposed text amendment will further the purposes of the CDC in that it will be consistent with the following purposes set forth in CDC Section 1-103: Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment (CDC Section 1-103.B.1); Strengthening the City’s economy and increasing its tax base as a whole (CDC Section 1-103.B.3); Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the City through the establishment of reasonable standards, which encourage the orderly and beneficial development of land within the City (CDC Section 1-103.E.2); Establish permitted uses corresponding with the purpose and character of the respective zoning districts and limit uses within each district to those uses specifically authorized (CDC Section 1-103.E.9). The proposed amendments to the CDC are consistent with and further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the CDC. The amendments further those development goals established in the Code, and existing CDC provisions are amended to better reflect City development patterns and improve internal processes. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of Ordinance 7926-08 that amends the CDC. Mr. Tefft reviewed minor corrections made to the ordinance since the time the board received its packets: 1) On page 3 of the ordinance, the Commercial district table in the RFH column was corrected to reflect that the overnight accommodate base is 1.0 instead of 1.2 and the nonresidential uses FAR was corrected to reflect a 1.0 FAR instead of a 1.2 FAR, and 2) On page 6, Section 7 of the ordinance, in the paragraph beginning with “Tourist District”, the word “Commission” was stricken and the word “Council” was underlined. In response to a question, Mr. Tefft said C, Commercial Neighborhood, CL, and CG are all applicable to the C District as underlying land uses. He said the IRT district consists of approximately 313 acres. Concern was expressed that the City has converted parcels in the IRT district to commercial uses, which are not conducive to producing high-end jobs. Four people spoke in opposition to the request. One person spoke in support of the request. In response to a question, Mr. Tefft said in the C designation, maximum heights of 50 feet are allowed for flexible development. In the T zoning district, the maximum heights of 100 feet are allowed. Community Development 2008-03-18 32 approximately 313 acres. Concern was expressed that the City has converted parcels in the IRT district to commercial uses, which are not conducive to producing high-end jobs. Four people spoke in opposition to the request. One person spoke in support of the request. In response to a question, Mr. Tefft said in the C designation, maximum heights of 50 feet are allowed for flexible development. In the T zoning district, the maximum heights of 100 feet are allowed. Concern was expressed regarding creating enclaves. It was remarked that Island Estates has an overlay district that does not address multi-family dwellings. It was suggested that Sand Key consider an overlay district. Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case T A2008-01 001, based on the evidence and testimony presented in the application, and the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. I. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. tc~~, Chair, Community evelopment rd Community Development 2008-03-18 33 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS CITY If 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 inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * * * * * * * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. 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 other side) CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 1 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. . The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, 1'1 ,'~~ FI1't5~ , hereby disclose that on )I ud.-- It; ,20 It) g : (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) i- 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 1 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: R~~~OO':f-/()oOI - /~L// I /;)..~I ~ /~e/ a-"d-t ~'J aA^- . . - , ~ -to r tt _ ~ ~.p ().- .JJ tiA!A.R- ~ -tL. t:5 Wt-~ ~~ F)C.~~ ~ ~ r.e-?-\~ - The C,7:>8 {;5 ~u.lrcd. ~ ~--b ~ ~ CU- tl ~I r~ ~ bA$~ ~DM-~ ~ ~~ prce It-&- '+0- ~'...1. ttltx:; ~ M- ~ 1 ~~ Due -b-o ~ pn>)C',~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ M-~~" ic- ft.4A ~fO~ =t::>. ~n_u..rL....J-o ~ ~ ~ orl~ TI- ~ ~~'u.p~ w- ~ ~ ~~ e-dt {~_~~ -tk -proPiA~ 1J ~ t~- pyP~.3-(~-t?~ j~ Date Filed Signa ure , by , which NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURETO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: March 18, 2008 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. A. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS 1. ~case. FLD2007-12040 - 610 and 612 Druid Road, 609 and 611 Pine Street, and 715 South Fort Harrison A nue Yes no 2. ,;('LD2007-1103:: 1280 Cleveland Street Date: 3// d/ Q9 I I Signature: ~a^^~~ L-- / q IltMal" V'R1NT NAME S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: March 18, 2008 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. A. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS 1.~ase: D2007-12040 - 610 and 612 Druid Road, 609 and 611 Pine Street, and 715 South Fort Harrison A ue . Yes no 2. Case: FLD2007-11035 - 1280 Cleveland Street /Yes no ~)~ Signatur, ~ .-/~_ no,.* f ~J'" ;:: [<-A-rf k L, ..D..A-~ ~. PRINT NAME S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: March 18, 2008 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. A. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS 1. Case: FLD2007-12040 - 610 and 612 Druid Road, 609 and 611 Pine Street, and 715 South Fort Harrison A venue Yes ~ no 2. C~: FLD2007-11035 - 1280 Cleveland Street I' Yes no S;gnatu..: (~ C Date: J -I '1,,?) I JJ' c'1./~ i A~ ~.~ l TS<:..I1 PRINT NAME S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Meeting Date: March 18, 2008 I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. A. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS ~ ~V V 1. Case: FLD2007-12040 - 610 and 612 Druid Road, 609 and 611 Pine Street, and 715 South Fort Harrison ~ Avenue ~Yes no '\ 2. Case: FLD2007-11035 - 1'280 Cleveland Street LYes no Signature: 4~j QPw Date: #/~ IZICUA,...P A pJ::l,..:,oJ'J PRINT NAME S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD FROM: Meeting Date: February 19, 2008 RICHARD ADELSON I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties. Mr. Adelson these two cases were continued from the February 19, 2008 meeting. A. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1): 1. Case: REZ2007-10001 - 1241, 1261 and 1281 Gulf Boulevard Level Three Application (Continued/rom the meetings 0/ December 18,2007 and January 15, 2008) Voting on LYes no 2. Case: APP2007-00005 -755 Eldorado Avenue \/ ~Yes no Signature: ?UJ~ Date: '3/J7!()f 1<-tCA64~1? A OGL-~N PRINT NAME S:\Planning Department\C D B\CDB, property investigation check list.doc