09/16/2008
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
September 16, 2008
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair – departed 5:45 p.m.
Thomas Coates Vice-Chair
Dana K. Tallman Board Member
Jordan Behar Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Richard Adelson Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Acting Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Gina Clayton Assistant Planning Director
Brenda Moses Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
August 26, 2008
Member Behar moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of August 26, 2008, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE (to October 21, 2008) (Items 1 – 2):
1. Case:
FLD2008-05012 – 2855 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant:
BVG Acquisition Inc.
Representatives:
Marc Mariano and Bryan Zarlenga, Tampa Bay Engineering Group Inc. (380
Park Place Blvd, Suite 300, Clearwater, FL 33759; phone: 727-531-3505; fax: 727-531-1294; e-
mail: mmariano@tbegroup.com).
Location:
31.12 total acres located generally at 2855 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (south side of Gulf-
to-Bay Boulevard between Cross Boulevard [east] and Sky Harbor Drive [west]).
Atlas Page:
300 A and300B.
Zoning:
Commercial (C), Office (O) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts (see
companion Case REZ2008-07007 on this agenda to rezone that portion zoned MDR to Medium
High Density Residential [MHDR] District).
Request:
Flexible Development approval for the redevelopment of the overall 31.12-acre-property
zoned Commercial (C) District, Office (O) District and proposed Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR) District (companion rezoning Case REZ2008-07007) to permit a total of 229 attached
dwellings (Independent Living Units) (73 units existing to remain; 156 units proposed), a total of
40 nursing home beds (proposed) and a total of 170 beds of assisted living facility (94 beds
existing to remain; 76 beds proposed); (A) In the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 2.45
acres, a lot width of 200 feet along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (north) and a total of 210 feet along
Cross Blvd, a front (north) setback along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard of four feet (to existing sign) and
Community Development 2008-09-16 1
28 feet (to existing pavement), a front (east) setback along Cross Blvd of one-foot (to existing
pavement), a front (north) setback along Cross Blvd of 25 feet (to proposed guardhouse), a side
(east) setback of five feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback of two feet (to existing
pavement), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing pavement) and a building height of 81
feet (to roof deck of existing assisted living facility building), as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project in the Commercial (C) District, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C;
(B) A lot area of 28.33 acres, a lot width along Sky Harbor Drive of 282 feet, a reduction to the
front (west) setback along Sky Harbor Drive from 25 to 21 feet (to existing building), an increase
to building height from 30 to 82 feet (to top of roof of proposed building) and a reduction to the
required number of parking spaces from 583 to 426 parking spaces, as a Residential Infill Project
in the proposed Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District, under the provisions of
Section 2-304.G; and (C) Reductions to perimeter buffers along Cross Blvd (east) from 10 feet to
one foot (to existing pavement), along the east side from seven to five feet (to existing pavement),
along the west side from five to two feet (to existing pavement), along the north side from 10 feet
to zero feet (to existing pavement) and at the southeast corner of the adjacent nursing home
parcel from 10 feet to five feet (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program
under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use:
229 attached dwellings (Independent Living Units) (73 units existing to remain;
156 units proposed), a total of 40 nursing home beds (proposed) and a total of 170 beds of
assisted living facility (94 beds existing to remain; 76 beds proposed).
Neighborhood Association:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter:
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton reported that due to a flawed legal notice, staff
requests this case be continued to October 21, 2008.
Member Coates moved to continue Case FLD2008-05012 to October 21, 2008. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
2. Case:
REZ2008-07007 – 2855 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant:
BVG Acquisition, Inc.
Representative:
Katherine E. Cole, Esq.; Johnson Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (911
Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-461-1818).
Location:
28.32 total acres located generally at 2855 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (south side of Gulf-
to-Bay Boulevard between Cross Boulevard [east] and Sky Harbor Drive [west]).
Atlas Page:
300A. and 300B.
Request:
Application for Zoning Atlas amendment approval from the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District to the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District under the
provisions of Section 4-602 of the Community Development Code.
Existing Uses:
An assisted living facility providing independent living and congregate care
Proposed Uses:
A life care center providing assisted independent living and congregate care
and skilled nursing.
Neighborhood Associations:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter:
Michael Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Ms. Clayton reported that the applicant requests this case be continued to October 21,
2008, in order that it be heard at the same time as Case FLD2008-05012.
Member Coates moved to continue Case REZ2008-07007 to October 21, 2008. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2008-09-16 2
E. CONTINUED ITEM (Item 1):
1. Case:
FLD2008-02002 – 1590 Gulf Boulevard Level Two Application
(Continued from the meeting of August 26, 2008)
Owner/Applicant:
Belleview Biltmore Owner, LLC.
Representative:
Richard Heisenbottle, R. J. Heisenbottle Architects, P.A(2199 Ponce de Leon
Boulevard, Suite 400, Coral Gables, FL 33134; phone: 305-446-7799; fax: 305-446-9275; e-mail:
Richard@rjha.net).
Location:
1.38 total acres (0.96 acre zoned Commercial District; 0.42 acre zoned Open
Space/Recreation and Preservation Districts) located on the west side of Gulf Boulevard,
approximately 1,100 feet north of the City limits line between Clearwater and Belleair.
Atlas Page:
311A.
Zoning:
Commercial (C) District.
Request:
Flexible Development approval to permit a 38-unit overnight accommodation use in the
Commercial (C) District with a reduction to the required lot width from 200 to 88.41 feet, a
reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side
(north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from the
Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) from 20 to zero feet, to allow proposed temporary
cabanas up to 25 feet west of the CCCL and an increase to building height from 25 to 67 feet, as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C; and a
reduction to the front (east) perimeter buffer from 15 to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the
side (north) perimeter buffer from 10 to zero feet (to building and pavement) and a reduction to the
width of interior landscape islands from eight to 4.6 feet inside curbing, as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use:
38-unit overnight accommodation use.
Neighborhood Associations:
Sand Key Civic Association; Clearwater Beach Association and
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter:
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes said the applicant, Planning staff, and an attorney
representing several individuals have requested additional time to speak.
Planner Wayne Wells requested an additional 10 minutes, for a total of 20 minutes to
present the request.
Thomas Reynolds, representative for the applicant, requested a total of 45 minutes for
his presentation and had no objection to the opposition receiving the same amount of time to
present their case. He felt his case would be compromised without the additional time. He also
requested his team be permitted to present a PowerPoint presentation. He said the Code does
not prohibit PowerPoint presentations at meetings and it would be cumbersome to use the
overhead projector. In response to a question, Mr. Reynolds said he did not personally
approach City staff regarding the use of a PowerPoint presentation, however other people have
been permitted to provide them. He said he intended to provide a PowerPoint presentation
when this case was originally scheduled. Planning Director Michael Delk objected to Mr.
Reynolds’ request to present a PowerPoint presentation, stating that other groups that have
requested the use of PowerPoint presentations have been denied.
Alan Zimmet, stated he represents a number of Sand Key residents stated that his firm
approached the City regarding the use a PowerPoint presentation or a video tape at today’s
meeting and his request was denied by staff, and felt it would be unfair to allow the applicant to
provide a PowerPoint presentation.
Community Development 2008-09-16 3
After conferring with his associate, Mr. Reynolds stated that he would use the overhead
projector for his presentation. He reiterated that he would like to request an additional 45
minutes for his presentation.
Mr. Zimmet stated that Mr. Reynolds said he would not object to Mr. Zimmet’s request
for a total of 45 minutes for his presentation, and requested the same amount of time granted to
Mr. Reynolds.
Todd Pressman, stated he has no affiliation with Mr. Zimmet, represents 15 Isle of Sand
Key residents, requested 20 minutes for his presentation, and said he would like to speak after
Mr. Zimmet.
Ms. Grimes reported the CDB’s rules provide that three minutes is permitted for public
comment, up to 10 minutes, provided the Chair authorizes the additional time, however if an
application is complex, the Chair may extend the presentation time provided there are no
objections by any board members.
Member Dame moved to grant the requests for additional time by Wayne Wells, Thomas
Reynolds, Alan Zimmet, and Todd Pressman, not the request by Mr. Reynolds to provide a
PowerPoint presentation. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Member Coates moved to accept Wayne Wells as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded.
Member Dame reported that a member of his lunch club tried to discuss this case with
him and he informed the person he could not do so. He then received a letter and an
attachment from the person, which he faxed to the City’s Planning staff. Mr. Dame said the
person thanked him for his letter, however the letter the person referenced was actually a letter
written by Mr. Dame to the St. Petersburg Times regarding an unrelated matter. Mr. Dame
stated he never sent a letter directly to the individual, a Mr. Joe Vatalero. Ms. Grimes stated
that she requested that Mr. Dame divulge this information to the board so that in the event
someone read Mr. Vatalero’s letter that it was clear that Mr. Dame had no ex-parte
communications with him regarding this case.
Alan Zimmet representing property owners of Harbor North, Harbor South, and Isle of
Sand Key, read their names into the record as requested by Ms. Grimes, and requested party
status.
Member Dame moved to grant Alan Zimmet party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Michel Nardi requested party status and requested an additional two minutes to speak.
The Chair granted Ms. Nardi an additional two minutes to speak, for a total of seven
minutes.
Member Tallman moved to grant Michael Nardi party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development 2008-09-16 4
Todd Pressman, stated he represents 15 property owners at the Isle of Sand Key and
requested party status.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides stated that when Mr. Pressman speaks as
the Isle of Sand Key residents’ spokesman, that he disclose the residents’ names.
Member Behar moved to grant Todd Pressman party status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Upon the vote being taken to accept Mr. Wells as an expert witness, the motion carried
unanimously.
Planner Wayne Wells reviewed the request. He said an e-mail from Amy MacGuire on
May 9, 2008, and an e-mail from Cynthia Remley on May 19, 2008 were provided to the board
regarding their opposition to this request. He said no additional e-mails from the two parties
have been received. At the request of the applicant, the CDB (Community Development Board)
continued this application from the August 19, 2008, to the September 16, 2008, CDB meeting.
There are technical changes in this Staff Report from that submitted to the CDB at their August
19, 2008, meeting.
The 1.38 total acres (0.96 acre zoned Commercial District; 0.42 acre zoned Open
Space/Recreation and Preservation Districts) is located on the west side of Gulf Boulevard,
approximately 1,100 feet north of the City limits line between Clearwater and Belleair. The site is
irregularly shaped, having previously been part of the Cabana Club residential property to the
north as its clubhouse and “members only” restaurant for the condominiums, built in the early
1980’s. This parcel was conveyed separately in the early 1990’s, litigated and determined to be
a legal parcel, and has been operated as a public restaurant with no association to any hotel
and with only 49 existing parking spaces until 1998 when it closed. The site was the subject of
a land use plan map amendment and rezoning application in year 2000, proposed for
Residential High (RH) land use and High Density Residential (HDR) District (Case LUZ 00-05-
08). That case was denied by the City Council on September 21, 2000. A Flexible
Development application (Case FL 00-05-19) in conjunction with the land use plan map
amendment and rezoning application to permit a 10-story (99-foot tall), 20-unit attached dwelling
condominium project with the swimming pool located seaward of the Coastal Construction
Control Line was withdrawn due to the denial of the land use plan map amendment and
rezoning application. On November 19, 2002, the CDB approved a Flexible Development
application (Case FLD2002-09029) with seven conditions to permit the re-establishment of the
restaurant use on this property, utilizing the existing setbacks to building and pavement, not only
for guests of the Belleview Biltmore Hotel but open to the general public. This application
included use of the pool and beach, and its restrooms and lockers, for guests of the Belleview
Biltmore Hotel only.
The site is a total of 1.38 acres, where 0.96 acre is zoned Commercial District (landward
of the CCCL) and 0.42 acre is zoned Open Space/Recreation and Preservation Districts (seaward
of the CCCL). There is an existing seawall, presently buried beneath the sand, located
approximately 25 feet west of the northwest corner of the existing building/CCCL and
approximately 50 feet from the CCCL in the southwest corner of the site. There is an existing
perpetual easement for pedestrian passage located adjacent to the east side of the seawall. The
subject property extends onto the beach area west of the seawall between 50 – 60 feet. The
upland portion of the site east of the CCCL has historically been zoned commercial (until the
Shoppes at Sand Key was recently rezoned to Commercial District) and is the only parcel on
Community Development 2008-09-16 5
Sand Key with commercial land use. Residential land uses dominate parcels fronting on either
side of Gulf Boulevard. There are portions of property to the north zoned Business (B) District,
as a result of a settlement agreement with U.S. Steel on February 4, 1987, but with a
Residential High (RH) land use (currently those sites are being requested to be appropriately
rezoned by the City since the settlement agreement has expired). The only other commercial
uses are on the northern portion of Sand Key.
The site is presently developed with a 10,502 square-foot building, which is two stories
over an open ground floor. The restaurant on the second and third floor is 7,054 square-feet of
enclosed floor area. There is an outdoor café on the third floor of 1,916 square-feet overlooking
the beach. A pool is adjacent to the restaurant building. The restaurant building has separate
restrooms and lockers for the pool and beach that have been used for guests of the Belleview
Biltmore Hotel only. The current Business Tax Receipt (occupational license) for this restaurant
is for a maximum of 305 seats. Surrounding properties are zoned High Density Residential
(HDR) District and are developed with attached dwelling condominium buildings.
The proposal is to redevelop the site with a 38-room/unit, 67-foot tall, boutique overnight
accommodation use with accessory uses including a restaurant, pool, men’s and women’s locker
rooms, exercise room, and beachfront cabanas. The proposed hotel will be operated by the same
hotel operator as the Belleview Biltmore Hotel in the town of Belleair, providing guests of the Belleview
Biltmore Hotel with a beachfront experience. The hotel will be fully staffed 24 hours a day as is typical
for hotel operations. The proposed building design situates building entrances, storage and parking on
the ground floor and the hotel lobby, restaurant and the other accessory uses (pool, men’s and
women’s locker rooms and exercise room), as well as other back-of-house areas of the hotel on the
first floor. The swimming pool is proposed elevated above parking on the ground floor of the building.
The site design locates the proposed building on the northern portion of the site basically in the same
location as the existing building. The proposed restaurant, approximately 4,986 square-feet in floor
area, includes the kitchen (952 square-feet), seating area (2,938 square-feet) and the pool bar and grill
(1,096 square-feet). The restaurant will be open to the public, as is typical at most other hotels. The
hours of operation of the accessory restaurant portion have not yet been determined. The taller portion
of the building for the 38 hotel rooms is located approximately 30 feet from a property/building corner of
the Cabana Club condominiums and 10 feet from the south property line. The fifth floor includes two-
level suites that have the bedroom areas on the sixth (attic) floor. The existing parking lot for the Dan’s
Island condominiums is adjacent to the south property line of this site.
It is important to note that this property is zoned Commercial District and an overnight
accommodation use is permitted by the underlying Commercial General (CG) land use category.
Overnight accommodation uses are listed as a Minimum Standard, Flexible Standard and Flexible
Development use in the Commercial District. The surrounding area is dominated by residential
development in a built-out condition. Since the entire surrounding area is built-out and redevelopment
of these surrounding residential properties is not anticipated in the foreseeable future, the
redevelopment of this property will not impede or restrict this surrounding developed circumstance, nor
impede the ability of these surrounding properties to enhance their developments in accordance with
Code provisions. From a use standpoint, the proposed overnight accommodation use with its site and
building design is more compatible with this surrounding residential character than other permissible
commercial uses in the Commercial District. The principal activity of the hotel guests will be to enjoy
the beach, much like the existing residents. This hotel, with only 38 rooms/units, may not make
economic sense as a freestanding hotel. The economic viability of this hotel, with its accessory
restaurant, only makes sense in association with the Belleview Biltmore Hotel, where the identification,
operation and marketing of this hotel is by a common operator. Other commercial uses, albeit their
approval would need to be through the Flexible Development public hearing process, would most likely
Community Development 2008-09-16 6
be designed as a commercial building dissimilar to the surrounding residential character. Use
characteristics of other permissible commercial uses may produce more negative impacts than this
proposed hotel, including vehicle trip generation. Other commercial uses could produce substantially
more noise and a peak activity period much later in the evening than the proposed hotel. The applicant
has blended this proposed hotel well into the fabric of this area through location and architecture of the
building. As designed, the proposed hotel building will appear to be an extension of the Cabana Club
condominiums rather than totally “different” use. Existing residential developments that front on the Gulf
of Mexico are situated with the longest dimension of the building on a north/south axis to maximize the
number of residential units facing the water. The proposed hotel design is consistent with the bulk,
coverage, density, and character of Sand Key, but with a building substantially lower in height than all
existing buildings that front on the Gulf of Mexico. It is noted that there are no adopted design
guidelines for this area of the City. It is also noted that Gulf Boulevard is not a designated Scenic/Non-
Commercial Corridor on the Future Land Use Plan Map of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This hotel
will not have any meeting rooms, or banquet facilities, maintaining a closer characteristic compatibility
with the surrounding residential uses. While the hotel will have an accessory restaurant that will be
open to the general public, the size of this restaurant is significantly less than the existing freestanding
restaurant with banquet facilities. The development of a hotel on this property is not anticipated to
increase crime in this area of Sand Key, in part due to the association with the Belleview Biltmore Hotel,
where the health and safety of the residents of this surrounding area is not anticipated to be diminished.
The ability of this hotel design to blend in with the residential uses, as well as the enhanced landscaping
of the site, is not viewed as a detriment to the adjoining properties, nor substantially affecting the value
of the adjacent properties. The existing assessed value of this property is over $4 million.
Redevelopment of this property with the proposed hotel is anticipated to substantially increase the value
of this property.
The site is irregularly shaped and the site boundaries on the north side reflect the location of
and proximity of the existing buildings (restaurant and condominium). This irregular shape of the
property, as well as the location of the condominium building, creates design challenges for the
applicant. The proposed building has been designed on the site with the northern portion of the building
in the same location as the existing building with a zero-foot setback. The proposed building will be
located adjacent to the CCCL at a zero-foot setback, much like the adjacent Cabana Club condominium
building. Based on aerial maps indicating the location of the CCCL, it also appears that the adjacent
Dan’s Island buildings are at or close to the CCCL. As mentioned previously, the northwest corner of
the existing building is also located at the CCCL. It is also noted that the adjacent Cabana Club
condominium building is located at a zero-foot setback on two sides with this site (a third boundary is
less than required setbacks) and the condominium building roof eaves overhang the subject site. This
site shares a common driveway with the Cabana Club condominiums, which will be maintained in its
present location. The proposed parking has been designed at a five-foot front setback, similar to that
which currently exists, which aligns the eastern drive aisle with that on the adjacent Cabana Club
condominium property. The proposed building and parking lot have been designed meeting the
required side (south) setback of 10 feet. There exists a concrete sidewalk providing pedestrian beach
access within an access easement adjacent to the south side of this site on the Dan’s Island
condominium property, which will not change with this proposal. The western portion of this public
access sidewalk actually is partially located on the subject property without the benefit of an access
easement. Unless relocated to be within the existing access easement on the Dan’s Island
condominium property, a public access easement for that portion of the encroaching sidewalk needs to
be recorded prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for this project. Based on this irregular
shape of the property, the size of the property, the location of the CCCL, the location of adjacent
buildings at or close to the CCCL, the location of the adjacent Cabana Club condominium building being
located at or close to a zero-foot setback to the common property line, a shared driveway and the
Community Development 2008-09-16 7
location of drive aisles in the parking areas of the Cabana Club condominium property, deviations from
the development standards are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding properties.
It is important to the applicant for the Cabana Club to reflect the architecture of the historic
Belleview Biltmore Hotel for identification and marketing purposes. While the Belleview Biltmore Hotel
is located within the Town of Belleair, the building’s design reflects architectural features of both the
historic hotel as well as the Cabana Club condominium buildings located to the immediate north of the
site. These similar features include the building and roof colors, the exterior siding material, the
fenestration and the steeply pitched rooflines with multiple dormers. The building will be primarily white
in color, green shutters, natural terracotta brick on the ground level and green roof shingles. The
proposed project has been oriented to take advantage of the Gulf of Mexico view, much like the
orientation of the adjacent condominium buildings, but the building’s length and width have been
designed to minimize the footprint of the building (being smaller than all adjacent buildings). The
location of the proposed building has been designed to be generally consistent with the adjacent
residential buildings to the north and south. The front of the building does not extend closer to Gulf
Boulevard than either residential building to maintain a consistent view from the street.
The location of the proposed hotel has been designed to minimize view impairment from
adjoining properties. The distance from the closest point of the Dan’s Island building is approximately
100 feet from this site’s southern property line. The hotel building location and orientation is such that it
will not impair the view through windows and balconies of the adjacent Dan’s Island units. The hotel
room portion of the building has been moved eastward to minimize view impairment by units in the
adjacent Cabana Club. The Harbour and The Isle of Sand Key condominium buildings are located
across Gulf Boulevard from this site. The Harbour condominium building is located more to the east of
the Cabana Club condominium buildings, while The Isle of Sand Key condominium building is located
more than 300 feet to the south of the subject property. The design of the project has minimized any
adverse visual effects to the greatest degree possible while allowing a reasonable use of the property.
The applicant is also proposing eight, 10 feet x 10 feet, temporary cabana structures
approximately 25 feet seaward (west) of the CCCL. In accordance with the provisions of Section 3-
905.B, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) must approve of these structures
being seaward of the CCCL. These temporary cabanas will be on the subject property between the
CCCL and the seawall (presently buried below the sand) and will be constructed with a foundation that
permits the metal poles of the cabana to be slipped in and bolted. The cabanas will be fabric covered
to provide shade. The proposal includes adding a 2.1-foot cap to the existing seawall. There exists a
five-foot wide pedestrian access easement just inside (landward) of the seawall, where the temporary
cabanas will not encroach into this easement, and continued pedestrian access will not be impaired.
The applicant proposes to plant this sandy area between the CCCL and the seawall with seashore
paspalum, which is a salt-tolerant beach plant. The applicant is not proposing any hardscape (concrete
or pavers) within the area for the temporary cabanas west of the CCCL. It is noted that the placement
of lounge chairs and eyebrow umbrellas to provide shade similar to that found on Clearwater Beach
does not require any permits from the City.
Pursuant to the Section 2-701.1, the maximum density for properties with a designation
of Commercial General (CG) land use for overnight accommodation uses is 40 rooms/units per
acre. Based on the land area of 41,963 square-feet (0.96 acre) zoned Commercial (C) District
(the land area above the CCCL), the proposed number of units is limited to 38 rooms/units,
which is consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan with regard to the maximum
allowable density.
Community Development 2008-09-16 8
Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum
allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.78 (based on the land area zoned
Commercial District), which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot area
and width for overnight accommodation uses ranges between 20,000 – 40,000 square-feet and
100 – 200 feet respectively. The subject property is 41,965 square-feet in area and has 88.41
feet of frontage along Gulf Boulevard. The lot area for this proposal is consistent with these
Code provisions.
The proposal includes a reduction to the minimum lot width to that which exists. This lot
was previously part of the Cabana Club condominiums property, was split off in the early
1990’s, litigated and determined to be a legal parcel. There are no Minimum Standard
Development uses in the Commercial District that permit a lot width less than 100 feet,
therefore, any use will require flexibility for a reduction to lot width. Since the adjacent
properties are developed with residential condominiums, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible,
that additional land can be added to the subject property to attain even the 100 feet of required
lot width. This lot width can be viewed as a nonconformity. There are no provisions regarding
nonconforming lots for commercial property under Article 6 of the Code. This proposal’s lot
width reduction appears consistent when considering all potential uses and where the Minimum
Standard Development lot width requirements for any of these uses cannot be met.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum front
setback for overnight accommodation uses ranges between 15 – 25 feet (setbacks for parking
lots can be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet), the side setback can range between 0 – 10 feet
and the rear setback can range between 10 – 20 feet (measured from the CCCL). The proposal
includes a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to
the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback
from the CCCL from 20 to zero feet and to allow proposed temporary cabanas up to 25 feet west
of the CCCL. This application must be processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project due to the proposed reductions to the proposed building or pavement to the front, side
(north) and rear setbacks, as well as the proposed height increase.
The Community Development Code defines the CCCL as “a boundary established by the
State of Florida pursuant to F.S. § 161.053 to regulate how close structures can be constructed
to certain coastal waters.” Section 3-905 of the Code sets out the regulations for the CCCL.
Required setbacks are measured from the CCCL, as set out in Section 3-905.A. Section 3-905.B
states that “no building or structure shall be located seaward of the coastal construction control
line unless approved by the State of Florida.”
The site is irregularly shaped, since this site was previously part of the Cabana Club
condominium property, and the site boundaries on the north side reflect the location of and
proximity of the existing buildings (restaurant and condominium). This irregular shape of the
property, as well as the location of the condominium building, creates design challenges for the
applicant. The proposed building has been designed on the site with the northern portion of the
building in the same location as the existing building with a zero-foot setback due to site
constraints and lot configuration. This northern edge of the building will abut the side of the
adjacent Cabana Club condominiums in an area where there are no balconies on this building.
The Cabana Club condominium building also has ground level parking, similar to the proposed
hotel. While the northern portion of the building with the hotel lobby and restaurant is designed
only two stories in height, due to the higher first floor elevation in order to meet FEMA regulations,
Community Development 2008-09-16 9
this northern portion will be only slightly shorter than the existing restaurant building. The
proposed building will be located adjacent to the CCCL at a zero-foot setback, much like the
adjacent Cabana Club condominium building. Based on aerial maps indicating the location of the
CCCL, it also appears that the adjacent Dan’s Island buildings are at or close to the CCCL. As
mentioned previously, the northwest corner of the existing restaurant building is also located at
the CCCL. It is also noted that the adjacent Cabana Club condominium building is located at a
zero-foot setback on two sides with this site (a third boundary is less than required setbacks) and
the condominium building roof eaves overhang the subject site. This site shares a common
driveway with the Cabana Club condominiums, which will be maintained in its present location.
The proposed parking has been designed at a five-foot front setback, similar to that which
currently exists, which aligns the eastern drive aisle with that on the adjacent Cabana Club
condominium property. The proposed building and parking lot have been designed meeting the
required side (south) setback of 10 feet. Based on this irregular shape of the property, the size of
the property, the location of the CCCL, the location of adjacent buildings at or close to the CCCL,
the location of the adjacent Cabana Club condominium building being located at or close to a
zero-foot setback to the common property line, a shared driveway, the location of drive aisles in
the parking areas of the Cabana Club condominium property, deviations from the development
standards are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding properties.
The applicant is also proposing eight, 10 feet x 10 feet, temporary cabana structures
approximately 25 feet seaward (west) of the CCCL. In accordance with the provisions of Section
3-905.B, the State Department of Environment Protection (FDEP) must approve of these
structures being seaward of the CCCL. These temporary cabanas will be on the subject property
between the CCCL and the seawall (presently buried below the sand) and will be constructed with
a foundation that permits the metal poles of the cabana to be slipped in and bolted. The cabanas
will be fabric covered to provide shade. The proposal includes adding a 2.1-foot cap to the
existing seawall. There exists a five-foot wide pedestrian access easement just inside (landward)
the seawall, where the temporary cabanas will not encroach into this easement, and continued
pedestrian access will not be impaired. The applicant is not proposing any hardscape (concrete
or pavers) within the area for the temporary cabanas west of the CCCL. The City retains
jurisdiction over the area west of the CCCL, subject to the approval by the FDEP of these
temporary cabanas. It is noted that the placement of lounge chairs and an eyebrow umbrella to
provide shade similar to that found on Clearwater Beach does not require any permits from the
City.
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the allowable height
range for overnight accommodation uses is 25 – 50 feet. The proposal includes an increase to
the building height to 67 feet, measured to the midpoint of the pitched roof. Under the Code
definition of “height, building or structure,” height “means for buildings…the vertical distance
from the existing grade to a point representing the midpoint of the peak and eave heights of the
main roof structure of the roof of a building having a pitched roof….Where minimum floor
elevations in flood prone areas have been established by law, the building height may be
measured as though the required minimum floor elevations constitute existing grade.” Since the
building design incorporates a pitched roof and since the site is located within a Velocity Flood
Zone (elevation 14 required), the building height is measured from the Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) of 14 feet to the midpoint of the pitched roof. Since the swimming pool is located over
ground-level parking and due to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Association) rules
requiring the bottom structural members to be above the BFE, the first floor of the building is
elevated five feet above the BFE of 14 feet to comply with these regulations. The proposed
building is six habitable floors over ground-level parking, with the sixth floor located within the
pitch of the roof, similar to the adjacent Cabana Club condominium buildings. The adjacent
Community Development 2008-09-16 10
Cabana Club condominium buildings to the north are also designed with a pitched roof and are
eight habitable floors over ground-level parking. The adjacent Dan’s Island condominium
building to the south is designed with a flat roof (building height for flat roof buildings is
measured from BFE to the top of the flat roof deck) and is 11 habitable floors over ground-level
parking. The Harbour condominium building to the east across Gulf Boulevard is designed with
a flat roof and has seven habitable floors over ground-level parking. The Isle of Sand Key
condominium building located over 300 feet to the southeast across Gulf Boulevard is 16
habitable floors. The proposed project has reduced the restaurant portion of the building to one
floor over the ground-level parking, even though the height of this portion is less than the
existing restaurant height, due to the higher first floor elevation above BFE and a taller ceiling
height. The proposed building height is lower than, but consistent with, the majority of the
building heights of the surrounding residential buildings. Building heights on Sand Key are
some of the highest on the barrier islands in Pinellas County, with many buildings taller than
presently permitted by Code (maximum of 80 feet in the HDR District, unless proposed through
a Residential Infill Project). The last remaining vacant parcels on Sand Key zoned HDR District
were developed in 2003/2004 with attached dwelling condominium buildings complying with the
maximum height of 80 feet (1350 and 1370 Gulf Boulevard).
Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required
parking for overnight accommodation uses is one parking space per room/unit. As such, the
minimum number of required parking spaces is 38 parking spaces. The proposal includes 56
spaces. While associated with the Belleview Biltmore Hotel, guests arriving at the Cabana Club
will come via personal car, taxi or hotel-provided shuttle and will check in at the Cabana Club for
their stay. It is expected that some of the guests at the Belleview Biltmore Hotel would desire to
visit the beach for part of the day. These guests will be transported by the hotel operator to the
Cabana Club via a van shuttle. It is also expected that guests of the Cabana Club would desire
to travel to the Belleview Biltmore Hotel to attend functions or eat at restaurants there. The
same van shuttle will provide such transportation to the guests at the Cabana Club. This site
shares a common driveway with the Cabana Club condominiums, which will be maintained in its
present location. A porte cochere is provided at the hotel entrance, designed to be of sufficient
width and height to accommodate fire, trash and delivery trucks. A required loading space is
provided along the southern portion of the site within the surface parking lot for the delivery of
goods and supplies for this hotel. A required handicap accessible path is provided from the
building entrance to the public access sidewalk along the south property line.
The proposal includes several accessory uses to the hotel, including a restaurant,
swimming pool, men’s and women’s locker rooms, and an exercise room. No additional parking
is required by the Code for such accessory uses. The Planning Department has determined the
restaurant of 4,981 square-feet to be accessory to the hotel. This determination is based on the
relationship of the Cabana Club with the Belleview Biltmore Hotel, where operation and
marketing will be by a common hotel operator. This restaurant will be open to the public, much
like other hotel restaurants, but its operation will give priority to Cabana Club and Belleview
Biltmore Hotel guests. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study, prepared by
Timothy Haahs & Associates, Inc., which analyzed the parking demand by the hotel and the
accessory restaurant. This analysis concludes that the on-site 56 parking spaces provided will
meet the demand needs on the highest peak days. This Study has been reviewed by the
Planning Department and Traffic Operations Section of the Engineering Department and been
found acceptable. In the event the demand for parking increases, the hotel intends to employ
valet parking in the garage portion of the parking area to provide additional stacking of parked
vehicles. To ensure the maintenance of the operational, management and marketing
characteristics with the Belleview Biltmore Hotel in the Town of Belleair, a deed restriction,
Community Development 2008-09-16 11
acceptable to and enforceable by the City, should be recorded in the public records requiring
common operation and management by the same hotel operator prior to the issuance of any
permits. Should this common operation and management be discontinued, this site should be
required to reduce the size of the accessory restaurant to a square footage more in line with a
38-room/unit hotel. The site fronts on and takes access to Gulf Boulevard. The trip generation
expected from this proposed hotel with its accessory uses will not degrade the traffic carrying
capacity of, nor create traffic congestion on, Gulf Boulevard.
Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all outside
mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or
abutting properties. The applicant is proposing mechanical equipment to be located on the flat
roof of the hotel lobby and restaurant portion of the building and will be screened by the parapet
roofing surrounding this lower portion of the building. Based upon the above, the development
proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor mechanical equipment.
Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code, to minimize hazards
at the driveway intersection with Gulf Boulevard, 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 Community Development Code, for development that
does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed
underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The civil site plan for this proposal
indicates that all on-site electric and communication lines for this new building will be placed
underground in conformance with this Code requirement.
Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, this site is
required a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along Gulf Boulevard. This proposal includes a
reduction to the front (east) perimeter buffer from 15 to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the
side (north) perimeter buffer from 10 to zero feet (to building and pavement) and a reduction to the
width of interior landscape islands from eight to 4.6 feet inside curbing.
The existing restaurant parking lot design is similar to that proposed for the hotel. The
existing landscape buffer along Gulf Boulevard is five feet in width. The applicant desires to
retain the parking lot at its present five-foot setback, which is consistent with the
setback/landscape buffer provided on the adjacent Cabana Club and Dan’s Island condominium
properties. The proposed site design provides the required 10-foot wide landscape buffer along
the south side of the property. It is noted that Gulf Boulevard is not a designated Scenic/Non-
Commercial Corridor on the Future Land Use Plan Map of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The interior of the new parking lot will be landscaped to meet Code requirements. The
proposal also provides the required five-foot wide foundation landscaping on the east side of the
building. Existing sabal palms will be relocated from areas of the site affected by construction to
the southern landscape buffer. Live oak, magnolia, thornless honeylocust, sabal palm, medjool
date palm and maypan coconut palm trees are being planted on-site as part of the landscape
design. The coconut palm trees will be planted in the area between the west side of the building
and the seawall. Besides the proposed trees, glossy abelia, cocoplum and wax myrtle shrubs
will be planted in the perimeter and interior landscape areas. Beach sunflower and confederate
jasmine groundcover will also be planted in the foundation, interior landscape areas and
perimeter buffers. Two interior landscape islands in the parking lot are not designed to meet the
Community Development 2008-09-16 12
eight-foot width inside curbing requirement. One island is 4.6 feet inside curbing located
adjacent to the entrance drive south of the north property line, planned to be planted with a
cluster of sabal palm trees. The reduction requested for this island appears acceptable, based
on the parking lot design and proposed shade tree locations within adjacent interior landscape
areas. The other island is designed seven feet wide inside curbing and is located adjacent to
the southern landscape buffer adjacent to the loading space. This island should be widened to
meet the required eight-foot width inside curbing by reducing the pavement area to the west of
this island by the necessary one foot. A live oak tree will be planted in this island. The site and
landscape plans should be amended to meet this requirement prior to the issuance of the site
development permit. The proposed on-site landscaping otherwise complies with Code
requirements.
The applicant is proposing a solid waste dumpster enclosure under the building. On
trash days hotel staff will roll the dumpster(s) to a trash staging area outside within the surface
parking area adjacent to a loading space. Hotel staff will then relocate the dumpster(s) back
under the building after the trash truck dumps the trash. The proposal has been found to be
acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
The proposal indicates a freestanding sign within the landscape island adjacent to the
site driveway, located outside of the visibility triangle as required by Code. This freestanding
sign should be limited to a monument-style sign at a maximum height of six feet, designed to
match the exterior materials and color of the building. While this is a nonresidential
establishment, a sign of this size would blend in better and be consistent with signage for
surrounding residential developments. Any approval of this request should be conditioned on
such signage limitation. Attached signage will need to meet Code provisions.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting
materials at its meetings of May 1, 2008, and July 3, 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 1.38 total acres (0.96 acre zoned Commercial District landward
of the CCCL; 0.42 acre zoned Open Space/Recreation and Preservation Districts seaward of the
CCCL) is located on the west side of Gulf Boulevard, approximately 1,100 feet north of the City
limits line between Clearwater and Belleair; 2) The site is irregularly shaped, having previously
been part of the Cabana Club residential property to the north as its clubhouse and “members
only” restaurant for the condominiums, built in the early 1980’s; 3) This parcel was conveyed
separately in the early 1990’s, litigated and determined to be a legal parcel, and has been
operated as a public restaurant with no association to any hotel and with only 49 existing
parking spaces until 1998 when it closed; 4) The City Council on September 21, 2000, denied a
land use plan map amendment to change the land use category from Commercial General (CG)
to Residential High (RH) and to rezone from Commercial (C) District to High Density Residential
(HDR) District. A companion Flexible Development application to permit a 10-story (99-foot
tall), 20-unit attached dwelling condominium project with the swimming pool located seaward of
the CCCL was subsequently withdrawn; 5) On November 19, 2002, the CDB approved a
Flexible Development application to permit the re-establishment of the restaurant use on this
property, utilizing the existing setbacks to building and pavement, not only for guests of the hotel
but open to the general public. This application included use of the pool and beach, and its
restrooms and lockers, for guests of the Belleview Biltmore Hotel only; 6) The site is presently
developed with a two-story over an open ground floor restaurant of 7,054 square-feet of
enclosed floor area and an outdoor café on the third floor of 1,916 square-feet, with a current
Community Development 2008-09-16 13
Business Tax Receipt (occupational license) permitting a maximum of 305 seats; 7) The upland
portion of the site east of the CCCL has historically been zoned commercial (until the Shoppes
at Sand Key was recently rezoned to Commercial District) and is the only parcel on Sand Key
with commercial land use; 8) There is an existing seawall, presently buried beneath the sand,
located approximately 25 feet west of the northwest corner of the existing building/CCCL and
approximately 50 feet from the CCCL in the southwest corner of the site. There is an existing
perpetual easement for pedestrian passage located adjacent to the east side of the seawall. The
subject property extends onto the beach area west of the seawall between 50 – 60 feet; 9) The
proposal is to redevelop the site with a 38-room/unit, 67-foot tall, boutique overnight
accommodation use with accessory uses including a restaurant, pool, men’s and women’s
locker rooms, exercise room and beachfront cabanas; 10) The proposed hotel will be operated
by the same hotel operator as the Belleview Biltmore Hotel in the Town of Belleair, providing
guests of the Belleview Biltmore Hotel with a beachfront experience; 11) The proposal includes a
reduction to the minimum lot width to that which exists today of 88.41 feet. Since the adjacent
properties are developed with residential condominiums, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible,
that additional land can be added to the subject property to attain even the 100 feet of lot width
required for permissible uses in the Commercial District; 12) The site design locates the
proposed building on the northern portion of the site basically in the same location as the existing
building. The taller portion of the building for the 38 hotel rooms is located approximately 30 feet
from a property/building corner of the Cabana Club condominiums and 10 feet from the south
property line; 13) The surrounding area is dominated by residential development in a built-out
condition; 14) The proposed building will be located adjacent to the CCCL at a zero-foot setback,
much like the adjacent Cabana Club condominium building; 15) The adjacent Cabana Club
condominium building is located at a zero-foot setback on two sides with this site (a third
boundary is less than required setbacks) and the condominium building roof eaves overhang the
subject site; 16) This site shares a common driveway with the Cabana Club condominiums, which
will be maintained in its present location; 17) The proposed structure setbacks are consistent
with existing setbacks on adjacent residential properties; 18) The proposed design of the
Cabana Club reflects the architecture of the historic Belleview Biltmore Hotel for identification and
marketing purposes, as well as the Cabana Club condominium buildings located to the immediate
north of the site; 19) Eight, 10 feet x 10 feet, temporary cabana structures are proposed
approximately 25 feet seaward (west) of the CCCL. The FDEP must approve of these structures
being seaward of the CCCL; 20) The proposal includes an increase to the building height to 67
feet, measured to the midpoint of the pitched roof. The proposed building height is lower than,
but consistent with, the majority of the building heights of the surrounding residential buildings;
21) The minimum number of required parking spaces is 38 parking spaces, while 56 parking
spaces are proposed for this hotel. Accessory uses do not required additional parking by Code;
and 22) There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards
as per Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2) That the
development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the
Community Development Code; 3) That the development proposal is consistent with the
General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community
Development Code; and 4) The proposal is compatible with the adjacent land uses.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application to permit a 38-unit overnight accommodation use in the Commercial (C)
District with a reduction to the required lot width from 200 to 88.41 feet, a reduction to the front
(east) setback from 25 to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to
zero feet (to building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from the Coastal Construction
Community Development 2008-09-16 14
Control Line (CCCL) from 20 to zero feet, to allow proposed temporary cabanas up to 25 feet west
of the CCCL and an increase to building height from 25 to 67 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to the front
(east) perimeter buffer from 15 to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) perimeter
buffer from 10 to zero feet (to building and pavement) and a reduction to the width of interior
landscape islands from eight to 4.6 feet inside curbing, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program,
under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design and color of the building be consistent
with the conceptual elevations approved by the CDB; 2) That, prior to the issuance of any
permits, in order to maintain the operational, management and marketing characteristics with
the Belleview Biltmore Hotel in the Town of Belleair, a deed restriction, acceptable to and
enforceable by the City, be recorded in the public records requiring common operation and
management by the same hotel operator. Should this common operation and management be
discontinued, this site shall be required to reduce the size of the accessory restaurant to a
square-footage more in line with a 38-room/unit hotel, acceptable to the Planning Department;
3) That, either the site plan reflect the relocation of the public access sidewalk to be within the
existing access easement on the Dan’s Island condominium property prior to the issuance of any
permits, or a public access easement for that portion of the encroaching sidewalk onto the
western portion of this property be recorded prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy
for this project; 4) That no structure, landscaping, or other site improvement block, obstruct or
impede pedestrian access within the Perpetual Public Easement Area for Pedestrian Passage
adjacent to the seawall; 5) That sea-turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site design,
with compliance demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Engineering Division,
prior to the issuance of building permits; 6) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the
condition rating of the existing trees be shown on the spreadsheet; 7) That, prior to the issuance
of any permits, the civil and landscape plans be amended to widen the landscape island east of
the loading space to be eight feet wide inside curbing; 8) That any future freestanding sign be a
monument-style sign, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building, at a
maximum height of six feet; 9) That, prior to the issuance of any permits, compliance with all
requirements of General Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Stormwater Engineering be met;
10) That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits; and 11) That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits.
Member Behar moved to accept Himanshu Patni as an expert witness in the fields of
traffic operations, speed studies, signs and markings, ATMS/ITS deployment, traffic studies and
fees, parking lot permits, ordinance review, developmental impact on transportation, and
network support, and to accept Scott Rice as an expert witness in the fields of civil engineering,
land development, and environmental and hydraulic engineering. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Ms. Grimes noted that staff’s presentation time had expired. Assistant Engineering
Director Scott Rice stated staff needs five more minutes to complete the presentation.
The Chair granted staff an additional five minutes to complete their presentation.
Mr. Rice stated that he and Engineering Specialists Stephen Doherty and Himanshu
Patni participated in the review of this application. He said he and Mr. Doherty were present to
answer questions the board might have regarding civil, stormwater, and environmental
engineering questions, and Mr. Patni is present to address traffic issues.
Community Development 2008-09-16 15
Mr. Patni stated he reviewed the application, including the staff report, the parking study,
and the sections related to parking and traffic.
Mr. Doherty stated he manages the review of large-scale commercial and residential
applications for the Engineering Department. He said with the exception of traffic engineering
issues, he is present to answer questions related to environmental issues, including civil,
stormwater, and environmental issues.
Member Tallman moved to accept Stephen Doherty as an expert witness in the fields of
utilities, land development and environmental engineering, site plan analysis, and engineering
code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Wells said staff recommends approval of the request.
Thomas Reynolds, applicant’s representative, stated the evidence book provided to the
board includes exhibits and resumes of expert witnesses providing testimony. He requested the
board accept the following witnesses as experts in their fields: Richard Heisenbottle,
Registered Architect, Gerald Marston, Registered Landscape Architect, Edward Mazur, Civil
Engineer, Roy Chapman, Traffic Engineer, Vicky M. Gagliano, Parking Consultant, and Cynthia
Tarapani, Land Planner.
Member Coates moved to accept Richard Heisenbottle, Gerald Marston, Edward Mazur,
Roy Chapman, Vicky M. Gagliano, and Cynthia Tarapani, as expert witnesses in their fields.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Reynolds requested that Nicholas Clarizio, real estate appraiser also be accepted as
an expert witness.
Member Coates moved to accept all the above witnesses as mentioned by Mr. Reynolds
as experts in their fields. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Zimmet requested, and was provided with, a copy of the applicant’s evidence book
and presentation materials.
Mr. Reynolds said testimony and evidence today will show the project is compatible with
the site and the surrounding area, and that the project minimally impacts the surrounding
properties with respect to vertical visibility. He said the parcel was once part of what is now the
Cabana Club condominium site and was separated prior to the 200-foot width separation rule.
He said any use for the property now requires a deviation due to the lot’s width. He said
although it has been referred to as a massive project, it is actually a modest one. He said no
permanent structures will be placed seaward of the CCCL. He said the applicant changed the
original site plan to place metal sleeves in the ground for the cabanas. Temporary cabanas will
be used instead and taken in nightly and during inclement weather. He said the project meets
all the general standards and flexible development standards in the Code.
Richard J. Heisenbottle, project architect, presented photos and drawings of the site and
reviewed the history of the Belleview Biltmore Resort. He said the Cabana Club was built at the
same time as the Belleview Biltmore Resort. He said the hotel has deteriorated and the
applicant has the challenge of turning it into a four or five star quality resort. As stated by staff,
this lot was previously part of the Cabana Club condominium property, was split off in the early
1990’s, litigated, and determined to be a legal parcel. He said two 100-year land leases allow
Community Development 2008-09-16 16
the applicant to occupy and use the Cabana Club site. The project includes restoring the main
hotel and its landscaping, and dealing with the other properties that are part of the resort,
including the Belleview Biltmore Golf Club and Cabana Club. He said the City denied prior
attempts by the previous owners of this site to change the commercial zoning. A cap on the
existing seawall is planned at the erosion control line. He said the current traffic layout will
remain the same except that there will be additional parking behind the hotel. All public access
easements will be maintained. He said the project meets land use and zoning requirements
and minimizes the impact to its surrounding neighbors. He said no permanent improvements
will extend into the CCCL. He said most of the properties in this area extend to the CCCL and
some properties have improvements, including pools, that extend westward of the CCCL. He
reviewed the site plan depicting the scale of the project, hotel units, etc. He said the
architectural elements will be maintained to blend into the area. He said this plan reduces the
restaurant area by 44%. Mr. Heisenbottle presented a comparison of the proposed project with
the Marriott, Sheraton, and Sandpearl with respect to the number of rooms, spa, restaurant,
banquet facilities, and parking ratios. He said the project has no banquet facilities, provides
1.47 parking spaces per room, and is considerably smaller than other hotels in the area that
have lower parking ratios with higher density. He said the proposed restaurant is in basically
the same position as it is today. He said the project’s building height is six stories over parking
and lower than surrounding buildings. He said Dan’s Island and the Cabana Club Condominium
properties are higher and larger than the proposed project. He said there is a 100-foot
separation from this project and the adjacent Dan’s Island condominium, and on the opposite
side of the project there are varying dimensions of between 35 and 47 feet between properties.
He said a building height survey was performed in the area that confirms that the proposed
project is shorter than all the buildings built west of the Gulf and immediately surrounding it. He
said the State does not guarantee view corridors, however whenever architects design projects
they try to minimize the impacts to neighbors. He said this project has no impact to its
neighbors to the north. He said the project would impact its neighbors at Harbour South across
the street. He said other projects such as Dan’s Island have had impacts on neighbors’ views.
Nick Clarizio, State Certified Real Estate Appraiser, stated he was asked to perform a
study of the project to determine: 1) If a change in use from restaurant with rooftop lounge to a
boutique hotel would affect property values in the general market area; 2) If a change in use
from restaurant with rooftop lounge to a boutique hotel would affect property values in
immediately surrounding properties; and 3) If a change in use would affect the views in the area.
He studied sales in close proximity to Shell’s Restaurant and in and around Clearwater Beach
and sales away from Shell’s Restaurant. He concluded that the restaurant did not cause a
functional obsolescence. He performed a study pairing sales of the Meridian on Sand Key to
the Grande on Sand Key. The effect was to isolate the Sheraton Sand Key, the Marriott, and
the Columbia Restaurant. His conclusion was that the hotel and restaurant use has no
diminution in value when compared to a restaurant use. Mr. Clarizio said he also performed a
market analysis regarding appreciation of property values. He looked at Harbour North in the
timeframe that Ultimar was built. He itemized re-sales, determined the monthly appreciation in
the market, and compared the results to Marina Del Rey. He found that during construction of
Ultimar, Harbour North did not appreciate at the same rate as did Marina Del Rey. He said he
studied views. He compared Harbour South and the southernmost view inside the project, and
performed pairings inside Isle of Sand Key units. He said there was a positive view adjustment
of the Gulf of Mexico. He concluded that the change in use of the restaurant would not have a
negative impact on the market area. However, the development of the hotel would affect 15
units in Harbour South and the northwest corner of Isle of Sand Key by an approximate property
devaluation of 5% to 10%.
Community Development 2008-09-16 17
Ed Mazur, registered professional engineer with Florida Design Consultants, reviewed
his background. He referred to a drawing of the site plan, including traffic circulation, drainage,
etc. He said current drainage requirements are significantly different than they were when the
Cabana Club was originally built. He said the current site has no stormwater treatment and
discharges directly into the bay. He said all engineering aspects of the project, including
drainage, fire protection lines, etc., meet City and State requirements.
Roy Chapman, project traffic consultant with Florida Design Consultants, stated he
reviewed the traffic conditions in the area on a before and after basis. He said the weekday trip
generation analysis indicates the Cabana Club as a quality restaurant would generate 688 trips
a day, with 69 trips during p.m. peak hours. He said if the proposed 38-room hotel were fully
occupied, it would generate 339 trips a day, with 30 trips generated during p.m. peak hours,
which is substantially less than a restaurant. He said a quality restaurant generates significantly
more trips a day, including during p.m. peak hours, than a hotel. He reviewed the results of the
City’s Beach Area Traffic Study done in February 2008, which studied the levels of service for
the year 2027. The study assumed that an additional 50 hotel rooms would be constructed at
the Cabana Club site, that there were acceptable levels of service on Sand Key, and concluded
that no roadway improvements are necessary for Sand Key. He said this project only proposes
38 hotel rooms and he foresees no traffic impact due to this project. Mr. Heisenbottle said the
project includes a “going green” policy.
Vicki Gagliano, Parking Consultant with Timothy Haahs & Associates, stated she has
performed parking studies for the past eight years. She stated her team reviewed parking
issues at the Belleview Biltmore, the Belleview Biltmore Golf Club, and the Cabana Club. She
said the project’s parking exceeds what is required and needed and the applicant is not asking
for a parking deviation. She said the site currently includes a two-story freestanding restaurant
with upper level banquet space, which will be converted into a 38-room hotel with 4,981 square-
feet of restaurant space, zero banquet space, and 56 parking spaces. Ms. Gagliano stated she
identified peak hour to be 9:00 p.m. on a Saturday evening. She said the hotel will be
beachfront and associated with the Belleview Biltmore Resort. She said beachfront hotels
typically have a lower guest drive-in ratio, as most guests use taxis or shuttles to the beach.
She said the traffic study model calibrates a peak hour occupancy of 90%, with a 70% drive
ratio, which results in a 24-space hotel demand at the peak hour at 9:00 p.m. on a Saturday.
She said the restaurant will serve as an accessory use to the hotel and as a convenience for its
guests. There will be no banquet or event space on the upper level. The majority of the users
are anticipated to be hotel guests. She said the model also indicates a peak hour adjustment of
90% with a 30% noncaptive ratio, which means that 70% of the customers for the restaurant will
be hotel guests, which is typical in the industry. She said the result is a 14-space demand for
restaurant use at the peak hour of 9:00 p.m. on a Saturday. She said the project results in a
surplus of 18 parking spaces. She said the total parking demand considers the peak hour and
special events, when parking usage could surge. She said this site has two contingency plans
in place to address increased parking demand. She said valet operations would increase the
parking supply from 56 to 67 spaces, a 20% increase. She said the second parking alternative
is the use of 1,200 parking spaces at the Belleview Biltmore Resort in conjunction with its
shuttle service. Ms. Gagliano concluded that more than adequate parking will be provided for
the project, that no parking deviation from Code is needed, that two alternative parking solutions
are in place if needed, and that the project far exceeds the requirements for comparable resorts
in the State.
Cyndi Tarapani, Vice-President of Florida Design Consultants, said this is the last
developable parcel on Sand Key. She said the board must base its decision regarding the
Community Development 2008-09-16 18
applicant’s request on the general standards and comprehensive infill criteria in the Code. She
said the City denied a previous rezoning request for the site. She said the proposed hotel is an
allowable use in the land use plan and in the commercial zoning district. She said a hotel is
more compatible with a residential use than any other use allowed in a commercial district. She
said using data from the County Property Appraiser’s office, her firm performed an analysis of
the percent of homesteaded properties on Sand Key. She said statistics indicate that only
38.5% of residents on Sand Key occupy their homes on a permanent basis. She said this
particular use is more compatible with the residential transient nature on Sand Key than any
other use. She said the project’s lot width complies with criteria 1,3, and 5 of the general
standards and 1,3,5, and 6 of the comprehensive infill criteria. She said the front setback is
consistent with properties to the immediate north and south, however the building maintains a
large setback along Gulf Boulevard that is prevalent along Sand Key. She said a letter from the
President of the Cabana Club Condominiums states that a vote taken of condominium owners
indicates that 74% of the owners accepted the plans as presented; 26% did not. She said the
applicant has listened to its closest neighbor and made adjustments to the project as needed.
She said Lighthouse Towers, The Meridian, and The Grande have tennis courts, pools, and
clubhouses west or seaward of the CCCL. She said the proposed project is the shortest
building on the west side of Gulf Boulevard. She said of the 415 units in the four buildings that
the proposed project is immediately adjacent to, only 15 units’ views would be affected by the
proposal. She said Sand Key has been built over many years and under different codes. She
said the applicant is aware that this project’s zoning differs from the rest of the residential zoning
on Sand Key. She said the five cases related to B zoning districts approved by the board today
are higher with more density than the Code would allow if they were built today. She said the
applicant feels the project minimizes the impacts to its neighbors as much as possible.
Ms. Grimes reported that the applicant’s materials were given to the board, staff, and
opposition group right before the meeting started. The Chair confirmed her statement and
remarked that the same materials were given to the opposition group.
Alan Zimmet, party status holder, said his clients do not object to redevelopment of this
parcel but to its over-development. He disagreed with Mr. Heisenbottle’s remark that the project
is a modest development. He said the applicant proposes to develop the maximum number of
rooms allowed under the density regulations and provide a restaurant that is oversized for a 38-
room hotel. He said this is a king-sized project, which is why the applicant requests so many
deviations.
Mr. Zimmet said a Cabana Club resident who had to leave today’s meeting prepared a
written statement regarding the vote that was taken of Cabana Club Condominium residents in
February 2008. He said the resident disputes the manner in which the vote was taken, states
that there was inadequate information available to residents at the time of the vote, and feels
the president of the association at that time provided information to residents that coerced
residents into voting in favor of the project. He said the resident indicates in her written
statement that she voted in favor of the project, however she feels that as she knows the facts
now, she is not in favor of the project. A remark was made that in most condominium
documents, non-votes are added to the “no-votes” category, and that normally, 75% of property
owners must vote to approve an item in order for it to pass. Ms. Grimes said questions
regarding the Cabana Club Condominium owners’ votes could be asked of the applicant during
rebuttal.
Mr. Reynolds objected to Mr. Zimmet’s request to enter into evidence the Cabana Club
Condominium resident’s statement, as she is not present at the meeting, her written statement
Community Development 2008-09-16 19
is not an affidavit, and there was no testimony from her. Mr. Zimmet said he felt as the
applicant also submitted letters from other individuals who could not attend today’s meeting, it
would be inappropriate for the board to deny his request to submit the letter into the record. Ms.
Grimes stated that the letter Mr. Zimmet wants to submit can be entered into the record, as are
other letters, e-mails, etc., and it is the purview of the board to weigh the credibility of the
correspondence.
Mr. Zimmet submitted a letter from Patricia Rogowich, and a statement from Fred
Ludwin, an individual who resides in Dan’s Island, into the record. He said he also provided Mr.
Reynolds with copies of the letters. He distributed informational materials including the resumes
of Sue Murphy of P & M Consulting Group, Inc., and Ronald Oxtal of Oxtal Real Estate
Advisors, Inc. He requested that Sue Murphy be accepted as an expert witness in land use
planning, zoning, and site plan analysis, and that Ronald Oxtal be accepted as an expert
witness in real estate appraisal and evaluations.
Member Tallman moved to accept Sue Murphy and Ronald Oxtal as expert witnesses in
their fields. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Sue Murphy, President of P&M Consulting, Inc., stated she analyzed all of Legg Mason’s
submittals, City Code, and existing conditions on the site regarding the applicant’s request. She
said the project represents a 13% reduction in restaurant use versus the applicant’s claim that
the proposal represents a 44% reduction. Ms. Murphy said accessory uses are defined in the
Code to be subordinate to the principal use and on the same property. She said the project’s
ratio of restaurant seats to hotel rooms demonstrates that the restaurant is not subordinate to
the hotel and it is not intended to serve only the guests of the 38-room hotel. She said a survey
of hotels in the area that was included in the materials provided to the board, indicates that the
average ratio of seats to hotel rooms is 0.97. She said the applicant proposes 4.34 seats per
hotel room, or 450% higher than the hotels that were surveyed for this project. She said the
applicant also claims that the restaurant is accessory to the Belleview Biltmore, which is
approximately six miles away from this site in the town of Belleair. She said Condition 2 in the
Staff Report is an admission by staff that the restaurant is not an accessory use for the hotel.
Ms. Murphy said under the shared parking provisions of the Code is a table that
indicates that both overnight accommodations and restaurants need 100% of their required
parking at the same time between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and midnight. She said the greatest
demand for the two proposed uses of this site are during the same hours. She said if one space
is utilized for each hotel room, 18 spaces remain for handicapped parking, for the restaurant,
bar and grill, vehicles such as airport and delivery vans, hotel guests and their visitors, and the
Belleview Biltmore’s estimated 900 guests who are encouraged to use the proposed hotel and
restaurant. Ms. Murphy referred to photographs of the existing restaurant indicating there is
insufficient parking, including illegal parking, and vehicles blocking fire lanes. She said the
flexible standards in the Code require that 35 – 75 parking spaces are required for the new
restaurant use. She said while the comprehensive infill criteria is more flexible, there is still the
need to provide parking based on the need being created by the use. She said the curb cuts
and road depths should not be grandfathered in. She said the project would create traffic safety
issues, as vehicles would back up on to Gulf Boulevard while trying to enter the Cabana Club.
She said there are several commercial uses that could fit on this site without numerous
deviations from Code. Ms. Murphy said the proposed project must meet the comprehensive
infill criteria in Section 2-704. She opined that the intensity of the project is not compatible with
and does not support the established character of the residential area, that it is too intense for
the size of the parcel, that insufficient parking will have a negative impact on the surrounding
Community Development 2008-09-16 20
properties, that the existing restaurant already has been cited for illegal parking in fire lanes and
driveways, and that the proposed parking layout violates stacking requirements.
Ronald Oxtal, Oxtal Real Estate Advisors, Inc., stated he was retained by Save Our
Neighborhoods on Sand Key to determine the project’s potential impact on property values in
the area. He stated his analysis included inspections of buildings in the neighborhood and
immediately surrounding the project site, and substantial market research dating back to 2003.
He referred to photographs depicting views from units at the Harbour at 1591 Gulf Boulevard,
the Isle of Sand Key, the Cabana Club, and Dan’s Island. He said the views would be
significantly impacted due to this project. He said the applicant’s expert’s opinion was that there
is a diminution of property values due to reduction in views. Mr. Oxtal said he performed a view
comparison analysis from 2003 to 2008 regarding properties with gulf views versus properties
with intracoastal views, and a unit to unit comparison on Dan’s Island over a nine year period,
and rates from the Marriott and Sheraton on Sand Key showing gulf view premiums versus
intracoastal view premiums for nightly rates. He said there is an average view differential of
20.49%, ranging from 14.68% to 26% in 2008. He said on Dan’s Island, he found an average
differential of 26.4%. Differentials for hotels with views were higher. Mr. Oxtal stated he also
performed a property value loss analysis. He said he established a percentage of reduction in
value for each building instead of appraising individual condominium units. He explained how
he calculated the losses. The analysis indicates a 20% loss in property values for the Isle of
Sand Key and the Harbour, a 10% loss for the Cabana Club Condominium, and that 5% of the
northeast and northwest units of Dan’s Island were impacted. He said a total 110 homes would
be impacted by this project at an average loss of $75,000 each, or a total loss of $8,350,000 in
assessed property values.
Mr. Zimmet said Legg Mason has indicated this is a modest proposal, however it is
mischaracterized as it proposes to use the maximum density allowed by Code. He said he and
a number of Sand Key residents have been before the CDB and City Council and were told that
properties on Sand Key would not necessarily develop at the maximum density allowed by
Code. He expressed concern that is what the applicant is proposing with this project. He said
no one can make a logical argument that the restaurant serves a 38-room hotel. He said the
property could be developed with a lower density that would not require overbuilding to serve a
hotel that is six miles away. He said the issue of whether or not the restaurant is an accessory
use is extremely important regarding the impact the project will have to Sand Key. He said the
size of the proposed restaurant is not justified, as the number of seats is over four times the
number of hotel rooms. He said the Code provides that accessory uses are allowed for shared
use of infrastructure, however patrons of the Belleview Biltmore will be told to drive over six
miles away to go to the Cabana Club to eat, go to the beach, etc. He said accessory uses are
required to be subordinate to principal uses, however in this case the principal use is six miles
away. He said the evidence is clear that the proposed restaurant is not an accessory use to a
38-room hotel or with any structure located on the same property, and that it would require 75
parking spaces without a deviation from the Code. He said testimony today indicates that the
neighborhood will suffer impairment of property values of over $8.3 million. He said Legg
Mason’s own experts said the project would negatively affect adjacent property owners’ property
values. He said the applicant’s representative stated that if not this project, more undesirable
uses could be placed on the site. He said he has submitted evidence that three-star hotels
could be built on the site in a more appropriate manner. He urged the board to protect his
clients and the residents of Sand Key against overdevelopment of the site and the detrimental
effects it would have on residents.
Community Development 2008-09-16 21
Michael Nardi, party status holder, submitted two contracts between the City and FDEP
(Florida Department of Environmental Protection) regarding Sand Key beach renourishment.
She said if the City knowingly allows Legg Mason to continue to use the parking spaces at Sand
Key Bay Park, it could be in breach of an FDEP agreement. She expressed concern the project
includes construction west of the CCCL and inadequate parking. She said the project consists
of a hotel and restaurant and should be considered as a whole.
Todd Pressman, party status holder, representing residents of the Harbour and the Isle
of Sand Key, said this request has a history of being denied by several boards. He said it is a
fine project in the wrong location. He said three beach civic associations are opposed to this
project and the City has received hundreds of letters and e-mails in opposition to the project.
He said there are no hotels within a mile of the proposed project, rental periods on Sand Key
differ from north to south, and that south Sand Key is quiet and significantly different than the
rest of Sand Key with an urban residential environment. He said most of the project’s 10-foot
separation to its closest neighbor is provided by Dan’s Island on the south side of the project,
and is much smaller than the building separations in the area. He said the proposed project is a
high impact commercial use with 24-hour, seven days a week uses, including commercial
delivery trucks, shuttles from the Belleview Biltmore, etc. He said the heights requested cannot
be compared to the heights of residential uses in the area, the use is not compatible with the
surrounding area, and approval of the request would set a precedent as a portion of the project
extends beyond the CCCL. He expressed concern that the applicant did not define specific
hours for removal of the cabanas. Mr. Pressman stated that a letter from Steve Allison, a
master of urban planning and a member of the AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners)
agrees that an accessory use must serve a principal use. Mr. Pressman said the restaurant is
the principal use, not the hotel, as the public also could use the restaurant, and the applicant
proposes to bring hotel guests to the restaurant from another jurisdiction. He expressed
concern that staff agrees with the applicant’s definition of an accessory use. Mr. Pressman
stated a letter from Mike Razor, a transportation consultant and Florida professional engineer
indicates that a 38-room hotel cannot exclusively support a 4,500 square-foot restaurant. Mr.
Razor also indicates that inadequate parking causes pedestrian and vehicular safety issues,
traffic circulation problems, and illegal off-site parking. Mr. Pressman said the problems
mentioned by Mr. Allison and Mr. Razor would be compounded with normal congestion that
might occur in the area. He said the Comprehensive Plan Conservation Needs Summary states
that the protection, maintenance, and continued management of Clearwater’s shorelines is
critical, and specifically mentions Sand Key and its geographic proximity to Caladesi Island Park
as some of the most important and unique resources the City possesses. He felt it unfortunate
that staff is not protecting the beaches as directed. Mr. Pressman referred to portions of the
Comprehensive Plan that relate to shoreline protection and conservation. He said the Future
Land Use Element states that commercial uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or
collector streets and should minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts in residential
neighborhoods. He said Ms. Tarapani’s statement that other commercial uses such as vehicle
sales and nightclubs are permitted on the site is incorrect, as those uses are not permitted by
right. He said several months ago, City Council voted not to allow increased hotel density on
commercial properties and excluded commercial zones from having higher density
developments. He said many people have made Sand Key their homes. He urged the CDB to
keep south Sand Key as it currently exists, as the project would damage the area.
The CDB recessed from 3:47 to 3:55 p.m.
In response to questions, Ms. Murphy stated she obtained information regarding the
square-footage for the restaurant and hotel from the applicant’s materials, has worked on the
Community Development 2008-09-16 22
proposed project for approximately four months, is not a certified traffic engineer, is a certified
planner, performs parking studies for her clients in several jurisdictions, and relied on her
training as a land planner and on the criteria in the Code regarding parking requirements. She
said there are other commercial uses such as a smaller restaurant or hotel that would meet the
site requirements, or other uses that would not require as many deviations from Code. She felt
the 38-room hotel with restaurant as designed is not more compatible than other uses that could
be allowed on the site. She stated she did not know what the Code requires regarding bar or
lounge uses. She stated she did not know the type of activity that occurred at the time the
residents took photographs of illegal parking at the Belleview Biltmore restaurant. She said by
definition, the proposed restaurant is not an accessory use under Code.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the Code states that an accessory use cannot
exceed 10% of the gross floor area of the principal use or up to 25% of the gross floor area with
staff approval, including an attached garage or carport. He said the project’s accessory use is
integral to the principal use.
In response to questions, Mr. Oxtal said he visited the Isle of Sand Key, Cabana Club
Condominium, Dan’s Island, Harbour South, Harbour North, and the Harborage. He
photographed views from inside some of the units in each development. He said there would
be a significant diminution of property values of the surrounding condominium developments,
however as the project has not been built, it would be difficult to determine the extent. He said
views from Harbour South and Isle of Sand Key would be substantially blocked due to the
proposed project. He estimated that 90 units’ views on the intracoastal side of the buildings
would be affected. Mr. Oxtal said he does not know how Mr. Clarizio performed his analysis
and made his determinations. He said he has 28 years of real estate experience in Florida. He
said he was not asked to provide a written report, however his oral report today is part of the
record.
In response to a question, Ms. Nardi read a letter from Nicole Elko, Coastal Coordinator
of Pinellas County Environmental Management, dated September 9, 2008, stating the proposed
redevelopment will not have any effect on the ability of Pinellas County to request and receive
federal funding for beach renourishment. Ms. Nardi said during her testimony, she stated that
the misuse of parking spaces at the Sand Key Bay Park could jeopardize beach renourishment
funds. She said it appears that regardless of whether or not Legg Mason allows them to, it
appears that Legg Mason employees park in Sand Key Bay Park and walk to the Cabana Club.
In response to a question, Mr. Heisenbottle estimated the number of seats in the existing
restaurant without the banquet facility, at 175. He said it is licensed for 320 seats. He said the
proposed size of the new restaurant may be more than what is needed for a 38-room hotel,
however the hotel is part of the agreement that it be managed and operated by the Belleview
Biltmore. He said the Belleview Biltmore shuttle will bring additional people to the hotel. He
said there is no typical 38-room hotel to compare this project to, and the proposed restaurant is
well within the confines of the Code. He said including the cottages, the Belleview Biltmore has
425 rooms. He said the applicant has received a variance for parking spaces in the town of
Belleair. He said there is parking for over 1,200 cars at the Belleview Biltmore.
In response to questions, Ms. Gagliano said she did not study the current parking
conditions at the Cabana Club site, does not know the number of employees that work at the
Cabana Club, and does not know how many employees will work at the new Cabana Club. She
said she relied on shared parking models from the Urban Land Institute and her professional
experience to complete her parking analysis for typical resorts of this size. She said there
Community Development 2008-09-16 23
would be 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square-feet of restaurant. She said the City does not
require 15 spaces per 1,000 square-feet for accessory uses. She said as the Belleview
Biltmore hosts special events, it is a different use than the proposed restaurant. She said the
analysis performed by her firm regarding the Belleview Biltmore did not include a capture
adjustment for the hotel space that is used for special events, as special events bring off-site
visitors to the site.
Mr. Zimmet requested that he be able to enter into the record the parking study done by
Timothy Haahs & Associates regarding the Belleview Biltmore. Objections were raised by Ms.
Grimes, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides, and Mr. Reynolds regarding Mr. Zimmet’s
request, as the study was not testified to by Ms. Gagliano during her presentation, and that Mr.
Zimmet is limited during cross-examination of Ms. Gagliano to the scope of the direct
examination. Mr. Zimmet said he would not enter the study into evidence, however he wished
to refresh Ms. Gagliano’s memory regarding the study’s statistics. He said under the rules of
evidence, he could refer to any document to do so. He said during Ms. Gagliano’s testimony,
she discussed the patrons of the Belleview Biltmore using the proposed restaurant via a shuttle
service and wanted to show that her study indicates that 268 vehicles parked at the Belleview
Biltmore could be driven to the Cabana Club. Ms. Grimes said the question regarding the
shuttle service is appropriate since it was part of the original testimony, however to go into the
parking study is not, as it was not part of the original testimony.
In response to a question regarding whether the proposed restaurant is larger than
normally needed for a 38-room hotel, Mr. Wells said the definition of overnight accommodations
includes accessory restaurants and does not set any limits. He said DRC comments in the Staff
Report indicate that the restaurant appears to be larger than normal for a 38-room hotel. Mr.
Wells said the proposed hotel would not be economically viable on its own. He said the project
has more than a casual relationship with the Belleview Biltmore, which is why a condition of
approval in the Staff Report states that approval of the request requires common operation and
management by the same hotel operator. He said Code does not limit the square-footage of the
accessory use. Staff feels, and Code requires, the accessory use serve the principal use. Mr.
Wells said staff feels the proposed restaurant is an accessory use for the 38-room hotel. He
said the applicant has testified that it is expected there would be off-site patronage for the
proposed restaurant. Mr. Wells said he did not claim that a restaurant of any size whatsoever
would be an accessory to a 38-room hotel. He said the applicant’s request did not require a
study to be done regarding existing parking problems at the Cabana Club. He said he is
unaware of public parking available within walking distance of the site.
Fifteen people spoke in opposition and four people spoke in support of the request.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said the City can enforce the condition related to
the common operation and management of the site as a change in use. He said staff has no
information regarding parking violations at the Belleview Biltmore site.
Mr. Zimmet said if the Belleview Biltmore configuration remains the same and parking
problems continue, and this project is approved, the City cannot do anything to resolve parking
issues related to this project. He said staff’s condition of approval that requires the two hotels
be operated by the same hotelier will not address parking now or in the future. He expressed
concern that the City might not find out if the two hotels cease to be operated by the same
owner. He said the project cannot be compared to the Sheraton and Marriott hotels, as those
hotels are larger with more acreage and restaurant space. He said Mr. Oxtal was the only real
estate appraiser who went inside the adjacent condominiums and testified regarding the
Community Development 2008-09-16 24
diminution of property values. He said when parking issues arise, Legg Mason’s solution is to
park illegally on the site, at a City park, or on private property. He said the applicant’s witness
stated she was not aware of the number of employees expected to work at the Cabana Club.
He said the project did not include parking for employees.
Ms. Dougall-Sides said the deed restriction listed in the Staff Report would run with the
land. A violation would subject the owner to a Code violation. A lawsuit could be filed to
enforce the restriction and would affect the owner’s right to use the property.
Mr. Heisenbottle said Ms. Murphy testified she is a land planner, not a traffic engineer or
parking consultant. He said Ms. Gagliano, Mr. Chapman, and City staff stated no traffic or
parking problems are associated with this project. He said it is not in Legg Mason’s best
interests to provide insufficient parking for the project site. He said there would be no banquet
facility or spa at the proposed hotel and accessory restaurant. He said since Legg Mason has
owned the Belleview Biltmore, there have been no parking violations, and beach renourishment
funds are not in jeopardy. He said annually, Legg Mason will verify to the City that the Belleview
Biltmore and the Cabana Club are under common management. He said no permanent
improvements are planned west of the CCCL. He said there would be some view impairment
for 15 of 450 condominium units in the area surrounding the project site.
It was remarked that the records of the proceedings indicate that there would be no
construction westward of the CCCL. It was suggested that as a two-foot cap on the existing
seawall on the project site is planned, a condition of approval should be added that a copy of a
FDEP permit be submitted to staff. It was remarked as that the zoning map indicates the
parking lot and roofline of the restaurant extend into the CCCL, that information should be
verified. It was remarked that a condition should be added regarding prohibiting special events
or holiday parties at the project site, as Belleview Biltmore management stated there would be
no banquet facility. Concern was expressed that protection of the beach, the size of the
restaurant, the impact on parking including additional patrons from the Belleview Biltmore and
300 golf club members have the potential to get in cars and drive to the Cabana Club.
Ms. Grimes reminded board members that they must consider the Code criteria in
Section 2-704c, and the evidence and testimony heard today before making their decision.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said no parking variance is being requested, the
development is in character with the surrounding area, and the height of the project complies
with Code and is not out of character with the surrounding area.
Discussion ensued with remarks that the project is well-designed, that the variances
requested do not set a precedent, that the new parking design, including parking under the
building, would correct the flow of traffic, that stormwater utilities will be greatly improved, that
the proposed commercial project is better than another commercial use such as a car lot or bar,
that this flexible development request under Code permits 40 units and the project will have 38
units, that the project is consistent with adjacent properties, that when the property owner had
attempted to rezone the site as Residential High their request was denied, that adjacent
buildings are higher than this project, that the project is consistent with the Code, that there are
no guarantees regarding view corridors, that nothing should be built westward of the CCCL, and
that the project will be a copy on a smaller scale of what the Belleview Biltmore has been for
many years. It was remarked that there are two access points for residents of the Cabana Club
Condominium. It was suggested that 2.63 seats per room would take into consideration the
Belleview Biltmore hotel shuttle service and would limit the restaurant seating to 100 seats. It
Community Development 2008-09-16 25
was remarked that the CDB should not make suggestions regarding the number of seats the
restaurant should have. It was remarked that removal of the banquet room at the Belleview
Biltmore would address parking concerns.
In response to a question, Assistant Planning Director Gina Clayton said seawalls are
exempt from CCCL regulations. It was remarked that the CCCL is not public or private property.
The State and the Army Corps of Engineers regulate structures that can extend beyond the
CCCL.
Acting Member Carlough moved to approve Case FLD2008-02002 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
Conditions of Approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded.
It was suggested the motion be amended to include that the approval is subject to
applicant being prohibited from seeking approval, including from the State, to construct anything
westward of the CCCL.
In response to a question, Mr. Wells said Condition 3 in the Staff Report should be
deleted, as the applicant withdrew the request for permanent structures with foundations for the
cabanas. It was remarked that should the applicant seek any construction westward of the
CCCL, they would automatically have to go to the FDEP for approval.
In response to a question asked by Ms. Grimes if there was there was any other
additional language regarding construction west of the CCCL, Acting Chair Coates stated “no.
”
Acting Member Carlough and the seconder agreed to amend the motion to delete
Condition 3 as listed in the Staff Report (deleted and renumbered).
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
F. 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 – 8):
1. Level Three Application
Case:
REZ2008-05003 – 1170, 1180, 1200 and 1226 Gulf Boulevard
(Continued from the meeting of June 17, 2008)
Owner/Applicant:
City of Clearwater.
Representative:
Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567).
Location:
9.03 acres located on the northwest side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 180 feet
north of Marina Del Rey Court.
Atlas Page:
294A.
Request
: Application for Zoning Atlas amendment approval from the Business (B) District to the
High Density Residential (HDR) District and the Preservation (P) District under the provisions of
Section 4-602 of the Community Development Code.
Existing Uses:
Attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Sand Key Civic
Association.
Presenter:
Michael Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
Community Development 2008-09-16 26
This rezoning application involves two parcels of land totaling 13.52 acres in the area
known as The Grande on Sand Key Condominium and The Meridian on Sand Key
Condominium. The subject property is located on the northwest side of Gulf Boulevard
approximately 2,280 feet south of Clearwater Pass Bridge. The properties are designated
Resort Facilities High (RFH) and Preservation (P) on the future land use plan map and have
been governed by a Settlement Stipulation. According to data obtained from the Pinellas
County Property Appraiser’s website, The Grande on Sand Key Condominiums (1170 and 1180
Gulf Boulevard) consists of two towers with a total of 231 attached dwelling units. The Meridian
on Sand Key Condominium (1200 and 1226 Gulf Boulevard) is developed with one tower
containing 106 attached dwelling units. The City of Clearwater is requesting to rezone the
properties from the Business (B) District to the High Density Residential (HDR) and
Preservation (P) Districts.
The City dissolved the Business (B) District in 1972. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed
against the City of Clearwater by United States Steel Corporation, Cheezem Investment
Program I and Cheezem Land Corporation (originally styled United States Steel Corporation,
Plaintiff vs. City of Clearwater, a municipal corporation, Defendant (Case 78-4765-7) in the
Circuit Court for Pinellas County. The resulting Settlement Stipulation has governed allowable
uses and development potential on the properties; however, the property has been designated
as Business (B) on the zoning atlas.
As noted above, the Settlement Stipulation governed the intensities and densities on the
subject properties. The subject properties are known as “Parcel IV” in the Settlement
Stipulation. Section 13 of the Settlement Stipulation states:
“As additional consideration for the mutual agreements contained herein, the City
agrees that Plaintiff shall be entitled to develop Parcel IV with an additional one
hundred fifty (150) residential dwelling units or a total of five hundred twenty
(520) residential dwelling units, which number includes the density authorized by
the Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation, provided that the development of Parcel IV
with such additional residential dwelling units or hotel units shall be in substantial
accordance with either (i) the Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation of (ii) any of the
alternative schematic site plans prepared by Community Design Corp. dated
August 28, 1986, attached hereto as Exhibits “D-1” through “D-3” and hereby
incorporated by reference. The total number of residential dwelling units or hotel
units shall be subject to reduction in the event of a transfer of not more than forty
(40) residential dwelling units from Parcel IV to Parcel II. Plaintiffs shall have the
right to determine whether residential dwelling units or hotel units, or any
combination thereof, shall be constructed on Parcel IV. It is agreed that 1.5 hotel
units may be constructed in lieu of one (1) residential dwelling unit of density
allocated to parcel IV.”
Section 25 of the Settlement Stipulation states:
“The development rights agreed to herein shall remain in full force and effect for
a period of twenty (20) years, and thereafter the City of Clearwater shall be free
to regulate the use of the four parcels without limitation as a result of the final
judgment entered in this cause in this Settlement Stipulation.”
Community Development 2008-09-16 27
The Final Judgment Settlement Stipulation was dated October 17, 1986; therefore it
expired on October 17, 2006. Pursuant to Florida State Statutes Chapter 163, the City’s zoning
atlas and land development code shall be consistent with the City’s future land use map and
Comprehensive Plan. The Business (B) District is not listed in the City’s Future Land Use Plan
Element of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore the Business (B) District is not consistent with
any future land use plan category. The City needs to rezone the property to be consistent with
the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code, as well as Countywide
Rules; therefore, the City is proposing to zone the subject properties to the High Density
Residential (HDR) and Preservation (P) Districts.
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in
support of the proposed rezoning are as indicated below:
3.2.1 Policy – 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 Community Development Code, 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.
The High Density Residential (HDR) and Preservation (P) Districts are consistent with
the City’s future land use plan categories for Resort Facilities High (RFH) and Preservation (P)
and are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The current designation of “Business
District” no longer exists, and therefore, cannot be consistent.
It should be noted that there are a total of 337 units on these properties. The underlying
future land use plan designation of Resort Facilities High (RFH) allows 30 units per acre or 270
units on these properties and the Preservation (P) category allows one unit per acre or a total of
4 units.
As stated earlier, the property has future land use plan designations of Resort Facilities
High (RFH) and Preservation (P). The Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and Community
Development Code specifies that the proposed High Density Residential (HDR) and
Preservation (P) zoning districts are consistent with the existing plan categories; therefore the
proposed rezoning is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. As currently
developed (337 units), the site exceeds allowable density (274 units) by 63 units.
Gulf Boulevard is a three-lane roadway. The center lane is a turn lane with periodic
landscape islands surrounding pedestrian crossings. The surrounding area, located south of
Clearwater Pass Bridge, is characterized by high-rise attached dwelling buildings, overnight
accommodations and land devoted to recreation. The area has a mixture of residential and
mixed used plan categories that allow for 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre.
Immediately to the north of the subject properties is the Sheraton Sand Key Resort, an
overnight accommodation use. This property is zoned Tourist (T), with an underlying future land
use plan category of Resort Facilities High (RFH), which permits 30 dwelling units per acre or
50 overnight accommodation units per acre. North of the Sheraton Sand Key Resort is the
Pinellas County-owned Sand Key Park and the City of Clearwater Fire Station #44. These
Community Development 2008-09-16 28
publicly-owned properties have zoning designations of Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) with
underlying future land use plan categories of Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Preservation
(P).
To the east of the subject properties is the Clearwater Beach Marriott Suites on Sand
Key, an overnight accommodations use. The Marriott property has a zoning designation of
Tourist (T) with an underlying future land use plan category of Resort Facilities High (RFH).
North of the Marriott property is City-owned property developed as the Sailing Center and Sand
Key Bayside Park. This publicly-owned property has a zoning designation of Open
Space/Recreation (OS/R) with underlying future land use plan categories of Recreation/Open
Space (R/OS) and Preservation (P). To the south of the Marriott property, the Shoppes on
Sand Key is zoned Commercial (C) and has a plan category of Resort Facilities High (RFH).
To the south of the subject properties, the Landmark Towers are attached dwellings with
a zoning designation of High Density Residential (HDR) and a future land use designation of
Residential High (RH) which allows 30 dwelling units per acre. To the west is the Gulf of
Mexico.
Section 2-501 of the Community Development Code, titled “Intent and purpose” states:
“The intent and purpose of the High Density Residential District ("HDR") is to
protect and preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable residential
neighborhoods of higher density while at the same time, allowing a careful and
deliberate redevelopment and revitalization of existing neighborhoods in need of
revitalization or neighborhoods with unique amenities which create unique
opportunities to increase property values and the overall attractiveness of the
city.”
Section 2-1401 of the Community Development Code, titled “Intent and purpose” states:
“It is the intent and purpose of the Preservation District to protect the waters,
waterways and coastal wetlands of the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay and
noncoastal wetlands, environmentally sensitive palustrine, lacustrine, and
riverine areas, natural and artificially made interior bodies of water and other
submerged lands through the control of development of these areas so that their
ecological and aesthetic values may be preserved for the health and enjoyment
of present and future generations.”
The proposed rezoning to the High Density Residential (HDR) and Preservation (P)
Districts is compatible with the surrounding residential, recreation and tourist uses, as well as
reflects the historic use of the property. The proposed rezoning will be in character with existing
and abutting uses and zoning designations. The High Density Residential (HDR) and
Preservation (P) Districts will allow attached dwellings, which is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
As stated earlier, the subject properties total 13.52 acres in area and presently are
occupied by attached dwellings. Based on a maximum allowable density of 30 dwelling units
per acre in the existing Resort Facilities High (RFH) category and one unit per acre in the
Preservation (P) category, 274 dwelling units could be constructed on the properties. At
present, 337 dwelling units occupy the properties.
Community Development 2008-09-16 29
Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have been analyzed for the
number of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation
th
Engineer’s Trip Generation 7 Edition.
The 2007 Transportation Level of Service (LOS) manual from the Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization assigned the Gulf Boulevard segment from the Belleair
Causeway to South Gulfview Boulevard a LOS of A. The traffic analysis above compares the
uses permitted by the Settlement Stipulation, the existing development of the subject properties,
and the maximum development potential allowed by the underlying future land use plan
designation and proposed zoning. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, an attached
dwelling use developed at maximum intensity in the High Density Residential (HDR) and
Preservation (P) Districts (274 attached dwelling units) would result in a decrease in the PM
Peak trips to Gulf Boulevard since the current development exceeds the allowable density by 63
units.
The subject site is located along the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority’s Beach Trolley
route and headways are less than or equal to one hour.
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation and the current
development exceeds permitted density, the proposed rezoning will not negatively impact the
City’s current LOS for water.
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation and the current
development exceeds permitted density, the proposed rezoning will not negatively impact the
City’s current LOS for wastewater.
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation and the current
development exceeds permitted density, the proposed rezoning will not negatively impact the
City’s current LOS for solid waste disposal.
The Settlement Stipulation governed the payment of all Recreation and Open Space
impact fees.
Based upon the findings of fact, the proposed zoning atlas amendment will not
negatively impact the transportation LOS of Gulf Boulevard nor will it impact the City’s LOS for
water, wastewater or solid waste service as the current developed properties exceed allowable
densities. Lastly, the proposed rezoning will not affect the needs for open space and recreation
or mass transit.
The location of the proposed High Density Residential (HDR) and Preservation (P)
District boundaries are logical and consolidate these properties into the appropriate zoning
district. The High Density Residential (HDR) and Preservation (P) Districts are compatible
districts with the adjacent Tourist (T), High Density Residential (HDR) and Open
Space/Recreation (OS/R) zoning districts located to the immediate north, south and east. The
district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications of streets,
ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
Approval of this zoning atlas amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the
subject property.Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to
comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested.
Community Development 2008-09-16 30
An amendment of the zoning atlas from the Business (B) District to the High Density
Residential (HDR) and Preservation (P) Districts for the subject properties is requested. The
property exceeds the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for attached dwellings.
Surrounding uses include overnight accommodations to the north and east, commercial to the
east, the Gulf of Mexico to the west and attached dwellings to the south. The proposed
rezoning is compatible with the existing neighborhood as well as with the current uses and
future land use plan categories of the properties.
The proposed High Density Residential (HDR) and Preservation (P) Districts are
consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, are compatible with the surrounding area, do not
conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and City, do not require nor affect the
provision of public services and the boundaries are appropriately drawn.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval to amend
the zoning atlas designation of 1170, 1180, 1200 and 1226 Gulf Boulevard from the Business
(B) District to the High Density Residential (HDR) and Preservation (P) Districts.
See page 54 for motion to recommend approval.
2. Level Three Application
Case:
REZ2008-05004 – 1520, 1540 and 1560 Gulf Boulevard (Continued from the meeting
of June 17, 2008)
Owner/Applicant:
City of Clearwater.
Representative:
Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567).
Location:
8.59 acres located on the west side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of
Marina Del Rey Court.
Atlas Page:
311B.
Request
: Application for Zoning Atlas amendment approval from the Business (B) District to the
High Density Residential (HDR) District under the provisions of Section 4-602 of the Community
Development Code.
Existing Uses:
Attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Sand Key Civic
Association.
Presenter:
Michael Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
This rezoning application involves a portion of three properties totaling 8.59 acres in
area known as the Ultimar I, II and III Condominiums. The site is located on the west side of
Gulf Boulevard approximately 180 feet north of Marina Del Rey Court. The properties have a
future land use plan category of Residential High (RH) and have been governed by a Settlement
Stipulation. According to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser’s website, a total of 348
attached dwelling units occupy these properties. The City of Clearwater is requesting to rezone
the property from the Business (B) District to the High Density Residential (HDR) District.
The City dissolved the B District in 1972. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed against the
City of Clearwater by United States Steel Corporation, Cheezem Investment Program I and
Cheezem Land Corporation (originally styled United States Steel Corporation, Plaintiff vs. City
of Clearwater, a municipal corporation, Defendant (case no. 78-4765-7)) in the Circuit Court for
Pinellas County. The resulting Settlement Stipulation has governed allowable uses and
Community Development 2008-09-16 31
development potential on the properties; however the property has been designated as
Business (B) on the City’s zoning atlas.
As noted above, the Settlement Stipulation governed the intensities and densities on the
subject properties. The subject properties are “Parcel II,” as listed in the Settlement Stipulation.
Section 11 of the Settlement Stipulation states:
“Except as provided below, Plaintiff shall be entitled to develop up to three hundred sixty
(360) residential dwelling units on Parcel II, provided that such development is in substantial
accordance with any of the alternative schematic site plans prepared by Community Design
Corp. and dated August 28, 1986, and which are attached hereto as Exhibits “B-1” through “B-4”
and hereby incorporated by reference. In addition to the three hundred sixty (360) units set
forth above, Plaintiff shall be entitled to transfer no more than forty (40) residential dwelling units
from Parcel IV to Parcel II, in which event the number of units permitted on Parcel IV shall be
reduced by the number of units transferred to Parcel II. If such transferred units, or any portion
thereof, are not actually constructed on Parcel II, they may be transferred back to Parcel IV
pursuant to the procedure set forth herein. In the event that Parcel II and Parcel IV are
conveyed to different owners, or that either Parcel is conveyed to any person not a party to this
Settlement Stipulation, subsequent to the entry of a judgment based upon this Settlement
Stipulation, the transfer of any residential dwelling units from Parcel IV to Parcel II shall require
the consent of the owners of both Parcels. Plaintiff shall memorialize any such transfer by
recording an appropriate notice of transfer in the Public Records of Pinellas County and by filing
a copy of thereof with the City Clerk of the City.”
Section 25 of the Settlement Stipulation states:
“The development rights agreed to herein shall remain in full force and effect for a period
of twenty (20) years, and thereafter the City of Clearwater shall be free to regulate the use of the
four parcels without limitation as a result of the final judgment entered in this cause in this
Settlement Stipulation.”
The Final Judgment Settlement Stipulation was dated October 17, 1986; therefore it
expired on October 17, 2006. Pursuant to Florida State Statutes Chapter 163, the City’s zoning
atlas and land development code shall be consistent with the City’s Future Land Use Map and
Comprehensive Plan. The B District is not listed as a zoning district in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan; therefore the B District is not consistent with any future land use plan
category. The City needs to rezone the property to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and Community Development Code, as well as Countywide Rules; therefore the City is
proposed to zone the subject properties to the High Density Residential District. The use of the
subject properties exceeds the minimum required lot area and lot width requirements for the
District. It should be noted that the underlying future land use plan designation of Residential
High (RH) and proposed zoning district of High Density Residential (HDR) permits a total of 257
dwelling units on this site while the property is developed with 348 units.
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in
support of the proposed rezoning are as indicated below:
Policy – 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
Community Development 2008-09-16 32
approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual zoning districts, as established by
the City’s Community Development Code, 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.
The HDR District is consistent with the City’s future land use plan category for RH and is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The current designation of Business District no
longer exists, and therefore, cannot be consistent.
The proposed zoning atlas amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies.
As stated earlier, the properties have a future land use plan designation of Residential
High (RH). The Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code specifies
that the proposed High Density Residential (HDR) District is consistent with the Residential High
(RH) category; therefore the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan.
Gulf Boulevard is a three-lane roadway. The center lane is a turn lane with periodic
landscape islands surrounding pedestrian crossings. The surrounding area, located south of
Clearwater Pass Bridge, is characterized by high-rise attached dwellings, overnight
accommodations and land devoted to recreational uses. The area has a mixture of residential
plan categories that allow for 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre.
Immediately to the north of the subject properties is 1480 Gulf Boulevard, an attached
dwelling use. This property has a zoning designation of High Density Residential (HDR), with
an underlying future land use plan category of Residential High (RH), which permits 30 dwelling
units per acre. To the west is the Gulf of Mexico.
To the south of the subject properties is 1582 Gulf Boulevard, an attached dwelling use.
The subject property has a zoning designation of High Density Residential (HDR) with an
underlying future land use plan category of Residential High (RH).
To the east are attached dwellings (South Bay Condominiums) with a zoning designation
of Business (B) and a future land use plan category of Residential Medium (RM). The City is in
the process of rezoning this property to Medium Density Residential (MDR) (see REZ2008-
05005). Also to the east is Bay Park on Sand Key, a City-owned park. The property has a
zoning designation of B and future land use plan designations of Residential Medium (RM) and
Preservation (P). The City is also in the process of amending the future land use plan
designation of this property to the Recreation/Open Space category and rezoning it to the Open
Space/Recreation (OS/R) District (see LUZ2008-05002).
Section 2-501 of the Community Development Code, titled “Intent and purpose” states:
“The intent and purpose of the High Density Residential District ("HDR") is to protect and
preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable residential neighborhoods of higher density
while at the same time, allowing a careful and deliberate redevelopment and revitalization of
existing neighborhoods in need of revitalization or neighborhoods with unique amenities which
create unique opportunities to increase property values and the overall attractiveness of the
city.”
Community Development 2008-09-16 33
The proposed High Density Residential (HDR) District primarily permits attached
dwellings which is compatible with the surrounding residential and recreation uses on Sand Key.
The proposed High Density Residential (HDR) District will be in character with existing and
abutting uses and zoning designations and reflects the historic use of the property.
As stated earlier, the subject properties comprise 8.59 acres of land and are occupied by
attached dwellings. Based on a maximum allowable density of 30 dwelling units per acre in the
existing Residential High (RH) category and proposed High Density Residential (HDR) zoning
district, 257 dwelling units could be constructed on the properties. At present, 348 dwelling
units occupy the properties, less than the number permitted by the Settlement Stipulation.
Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning district have been analyzed for the
number of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation
th
Engineer’s Trip Generation 7 Edition.
The 2007 Transportation Level of Service (LOS) manual from the Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization assigned the Gulf Boulevard segment from the Belleair
Causeway to South Gulfview Boulevard a LOS of A. The traffic analysis above compares the
uses permitted by the Settlement Stipulation, the existing use of the subject property, and the
maximum development potential allowed by the proposed High Density Residential (HDR)
District and Residential High (RH) future land use plan designation. Based on the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, an attached dwelling use developed at the maximum density in the HDR
District (257 attached dwelling units) would result in a decrease in the PM Peak trips to Gulf
Boulevard as the site currently exceeds maximum permitted density by 91 units.
The subject site is located along the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority’s Beach Trolley
route and headways are less than or equal to one hour.
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed
rezoning will not degrade the City’s current LOS for water. Since redevelopment would result in
the same number or fewer units, the City has adequate capacity to serve the property.
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed rezoning
will not degrade the City’s current LOS for wastewater. Since redevelopment would result in the
same or fewer units, the City has adequate capacity to serve the property.
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed
rezoning will not degrade the City’s current LOS for solid waste disposal. Since redevelopment
would result in the same number or fewer units, the City has adequate capacity to serve the
property.
The Settlement Stipulation governed the payment of all Recreation and Open Space
impact fees.
Based upon the findings of fact, the proposed zoning atlas amendment will not
negatively impact the transportation LOS of Gulf Boulevard nor will it negatively impact the
City’s LOS for water, wastewater or solid waste service as the current developed properties
exceed allowable densities. Lastly, the proposed rezoning will not affect the need for open
space and recreation or mass transit.
Community Development 2008-09-16 34
The location of the proposed High Density Residential (HDR) zoning district boundaries
is logical and consolidates these properties into the appropriate zoning district. The High
Density Residential (HDR) District is compatible with the adjacent Open Space/Recreation
(OS/R) and High Density Residential (HDR) zoning districts, as well as the proposed Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District to the east. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn
with regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and
the natural environment.
Approval of this zoning atlas amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the
subject property.Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to
comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested.
An amendment of the zoning atlas from the Business (B) District to the High Density
Residential (HDR) District for the subject site is requested. The property exceeds the minimum
lot area and lot width requirements for attached dwellings. Surrounding uses include attached
dwellings to the north and south, a City park and attached dwellings to the east and the Gulf of
Mexico to the west. The proposed rezoning will be compatible with the existing neighborhood
and is compatible with the existing future land use category and reflects the current uses on the
properties.
The proposed High Density Residential (HDR) District is consistent with the City
Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not conflict with the needs
and character of the neighborhood and City, does not require nor affect the provision of public
services and the boundaries are appropriately drawn.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval to amend
the zoning atlas designation of 1520, 1540 and 1560 Gulf Boulevard from the Business (B)
District to the High Density Residential (HDR) District.
See page 54 for motion to recommend approval.
3. Case:
REZ2008-05005 – 1501 Gulf Boulevard Level Three Application
(Continued from the meeting of June 17, 2008)
Owner/Applicant:
City of Clearwater.
Representative:
Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567).
Location:
3.12 acres located on the west side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 800 feet north of
Marina Del Rey Court.
Atlas Page:
311B.
Request:
Application for Zoning Atlas amendment approval from the Business (B) District to the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and the Preservation (P) District under the
provisions of Section 4-602 of the Community Development Code.
Existing Uses:
Attached dwellings.
Neighborhood Associations:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Sand Key Civic
Association.
Presenter:
Michael Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
This rezoning application involves one 5.85-acre property known as the South Bay
Condominium. The subject property is located on the east side of Gulf Boulevard approximately
800 feet north of Marina Del Rey Court. The property has a future land use plan category of
Residential Medium (RM) and Preservation (P) and has been governed by a Settlement
Community Development 2008-09-16 35
Stipulation. According to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser’s website, a total of 64
attached dwellings occupy the site. The City of Clearwater is requesting to rezone the property
to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) Districts from the Business (B)
District.
The City dissolved the B District in 1972. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed against the
City of Clearwater by the United States Steel Corporation, Cheezem Investment Program I and
Cheezem Land Corporation (originally styled United States Steel Corporation, Plaintiff vs. City
of Clearwater, a municipal corporation, Defendant (Case 78-4765-7) in the Circuit Court for
Pinellas County. The resulting Settlement Stipulation has governed allowable uses and
development potential on this property and three other sites on Sand Key since 1986; however,
the property has been designated as Business (B) on the zoning atlas.
The Settlement Stipulation governed the intensities and densities on the subject
property. The subject property is a portion of “Parcel I,” as listed in the Settlement Stipulation.
Section 10 of the Settlement Stipulation states:
“Plaintiffs shall be entitled to develop an additional 80 residential dwelling units
on Parcel I, or a total of one hundred forty-four (144) residential dwelling units.
The development of Parcel I shall be in substantial accordance with any of the
alternative schematic site plans prepared by Community Design Corp. and dated
August 28, 1986, which are attached hereto as Exhibits “A-1” through “A-3” and
hereby incorporated by reference. Plaintiffs shall not be restricted to utilizing the
existing foundation for the construction of the additional eighty (80) units
permitted pursuant to this Settlement Stipulation.”
Section 25 of the Settlement Stipulation states:
“The development rights agreed to herein shall remain in full force and effect for
a period of twenty (20) years, and thereafter the City of Clearwater shall be free
to regulate the use of the four parcels without limitation as a result of the final
judgment entered in this cause in this Settlement Stipulation.”
The Final Judgment Settlement Stipulation was dated October 17, 1986; therefore it
expired on October 17, 2006. Pursuant to Florida State Statutes Chapter 163, the City’s zoning
atlas and land development code shall be consistent with the City’s future land use map and
Comprehensive Plan. The Business (B) District is not listed as a zoning district in the City’s
Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; therefore it is not consistent with any
future land use plan classification. The City needs to zone the property to be consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code, as well as the Countywide
Rules; therefore the City is proposing to zone the subject property to the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) Districts.
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in
support of the proposed rezoning are as indicated below:
3.2.2 Policy – 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
Community Development 2008-09-16 36
redevelopment plans approved by the City Commission. Consequently, individual
zoning districts, as established by the City’s Community Development Code, 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.
The proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) District is listed in the City’s Future
Land Use Element as consistent with the Residential Medium (RM) future land use plan
category. The proposed Preservation (P) zoning district is listed in the City’s Future Land Use
Element as consistent with the Preservation (P) future land use plan designation. It should be
noted that the underlying future land use plan designations of Residential Medium and
Preservation permits a total of 48 units on this site while the property is developed with 64 units.
The Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code specifies that
the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) zoning districts are
consistent with the Residential Medium (RM) and Preservation (P) Plan categories; therefore
the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the proposed
zoning atlas amendment is not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals,
Objectives or Policies. As currently development (64 units), the site exceeds allowable density
(48 units) by 16 units.
Gulf Boulevard is a three-lane roadway. The center lane is a turn lane with periodic
landscape islands surrounding pedestrian crossings. The surrounding area, located south of
Clearwater Pass Bridge, is characterized by high-rise attached dwellings, overnight
accommodations and land devoted to recreational uses. The area has a mixture of residential
plan categories that allow for 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre.
Immediately to the north of the subject property is 1451 Gulf Boulevard, an attached
dwelling use. This property is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Open
Space/Recreation (OS/R) and has underlying future land use plan designations of Residential
Medium (RM) and Preservation (P). The Residential Medium (RM) category permits 15
dwelling units per acre and the Preservation (P) category protects natural features and allows
one unit per acre to be transferred to the abutting uplands. To the east is the Intracoastal
Waterway.
To the south of the subject property is Bay Park on Sand Key, a City owned park, which
has a zoning designation of Business (B) and future land use plan designation of Residential
Medium (RM) and Preservation (P). The City is processing a land use plan amendment and
rezoning for this property to change the portion of the property designated Residential Medium
(RM) to Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and to rezone the entire property to Open
Space/Recreation (OS/R) and Preservation (P) (see Case LUZ2008-05002).
To the west are attached dwellings known as Ultimar I, II and III. This is another
property party to the Settlement Stipulation and the City is also in the process of rezoning the
Business (B) portion of these properties to High Density Residential (HDR) District (see Case
REZ2008-05004).
Section 2-301 of the Community Development Code, titled “Intent and purpose” states:
The intent and purpose of the Medium Density Residential District ("MDR") is to
protect and preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable residential
Community Development 2008-09-16 37
neighborhoods of medium density while at the same time, allowing a careful and
deliberate redevelopment and revitalization of existing neighborhoods in need of
revitalization or neighborhoods with unique amenities which create unique
opportunities to increase property values and the overall attractiveness of the
City.
Section 2-1501 of the Community Development Code, titled “Intent and purpose” states:
It is the intent and purpose of the Preservation District to protect the waters,
waterways and coastal wetlands of the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay and
noncoastal wetlands, environmentally sensitive palustrine, lacustrine, and
riverine areas, natural and artificially made interior bodies of water and other
submerged lands through the control of development of these areas so that their
ecological and aesthetic values may be preserved for the health and enjoyment
of present and future generations.
The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding residential and recreation
uses. The proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) zoning districts
will be in character with the surrounding properties and are consistent with the surrounding
zoning. Furthermore, the existing use of the site is consistent with the proposed Medium
Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) zoning districts.
As stated earlier, the subject property includes 5.85 acres but only 3.12 acres is
designated as Residential Medium (RM) and is occupied by attached dwellings. Based on a
maximum allowable density of 15 dwelling units per acre in this category and one unit per acre
in the existing Preservation (P) category, a total of 48 units are permitted on this site. At
present, 64 dwelling units occupy this property which exceeds the maximum allowable density
by 16 units.
Specific uses in the current and proposed zoning districts have been analyzed for the
number of vehicle trips that could be generated based on the Institute of Transportation
th
Engineer’s Trip Generation 7 Edition.
The 2007 Transportation Level of Service (LOS) manual from the Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization assigned the Gulf Boulevard segment from the Belleair
Causeway to South Gulfview Boulevard an LOS of A. The traffic analysis above compares the
traffic generation based on the use permitted by the Settlement Stipulation, the existing use of
the subject property, and the maximum development potential allowed by the proposed Medium
Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) Districts and underlying future land use plan
designations of Residential Medium (RM) and Preservation (P). Based on the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, an attached dwelling use developed at the maximum density (48 attached
dwellings) could result in a decrease in the PM Peak to Gulf Boulevard as the developed site
currently exceeds maximum permitted density by 16 units.
The subject site is located along the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority’s Beach Trolley
route and headways are less than or equal to one hour.
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed
rezoning will not negatively impact the City’s current LOS for water. Furthermore the developed
site exceeds the density permitted by the underlying future land use plan category. The City
Community Development 2008-09-16 38
has adequate capacity to continue to serve the existing development and any future
redevelopment.
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed
rezoning will not negatively impact the City’s current LOS for wastewater. Furthermore the
developed site exceeds the density permitted by the underlying future land use plan category.
The City has adequate capacity to continue to serve the existing development and any future
redevelopment.
As no change is proposed to the underlying future land use designation, the proposed
rezoning will not negatively impact the City’s current LOS for solid waste. Furthermore the
developed site exceeds the density permitted by the underlying future land use plan category.
The City has adequate capacity to continue to serve the existing development and any future
redevelopment.
As currently developed, the Settlement Stipulation governed all Recreation and Open
Space impact fees.
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by this
rezoning will not impact the transportation LOS for Gulf Boulevard nor will it negatively impact
the City’s LOS for water, wastewater or solid waste service as the current developed property
exceeds allowable density. Lastly, the proposed rezoning will not affect the need for open
space and recreation or mass transit.
The location of the proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P)
District boundaries is logical and consolidates this property into the appropriate zoning districts.
The proposed districts are compatible districts with the adjacent High Density Residential
(HDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Open Space/Residential (OS/R) zoning districts
located to the immediate north, south and west. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn
in regard to location and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and
the natural environment.
Approval of this zoning atlas amendment does not guarantee the right to develop on the
subject property.Transportation concurrency must be met, and the property owner will have to
comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time development permits are requested.
An amendment of the zoning atlas from the Business (B) District to the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) Districts for the subject property is requested. The
property exceeds the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for attached dwellings.
Surrounding uses include attached dwellings to the north and west and a City park to the south
and the Intracoastal Waterway to the east. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the
existing neighborhood and is compatible with the existing future land use categories and reflects
the current use of the property.
The proposed Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) Districts are
consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the surrounding area, does not
conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and City, does not require nor affect
the provision of public services and the boundaries are appropriately drawn.
Community Development 2008-09-16 39
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval to amend
the zoning atlas designation of 1501 Gulf Boulevard from the Business (B) District to the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Preservation (P) Districts.
See page 54 for motion to recommend approval.
4. Case:
LUZ2008-05002 – 1551 Gulf Boulevard Level Three Application
(Continued from the meeting of June 17, 2008)
Owner/Applicant:
City of Clearwater.
Representative:
Michael Delk, Community Development Coordinator (100 South Myrtle
Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone: 727-562-4567).
Location:
2.47 acres located on the east side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 200 feet north of
Marina Del Rey Court.
Atlas Page:
311B.
Request
: Applications for: (1) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval to change from
Residential Medium (RM) to Recreation/Open Space (R/OS); and (2) Zoning Atlas amendment
approval to change from Business to Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) and Preservation (P)
under the provisions of Section 4-602 and Section 4-603 of the Community Development Code.
Existing Uses:
Parks and recreation facility.
Neighborhood Associations:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Sand Key Civic
Association.
Presenter:
Michael Reynolds, AICP, Planner III.
This future land use plan amendment and rezoning application involves property
comprising approximately 3.87 acres in area and is known as Bay Park on Sand Key. It is
located on the east side of Gulf Boulevard, approximately 200 feet north of Marina Del Rey
Court. This property has future land use plan classifications of Residential Medium (RM) and
Preservation (P) and a zoning designation of Business (B). The City is requesting to amend the
future land use plan designation of the portion of the site designated Residential Medium (RM)
(2.47 acres) to the Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) classification. It is also requesting to rezone
the 2.47 acres to the Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District and to rezone the remaining 1.4
acres of the site to the Preservation (P) District to correspond with the existing underlying
Preservation (P) future land use plan category boundaries.
This property, along with several others on Sand Key, was the subject of a lawsuit filed
against the City of Clearwater by the United States Steel Corporation, Cheezem Investment
Program I and Cheezem Land Corporation (originally styled United States Steel Corporation,
Plaintiff vs. City of Clearwater, a municipal corporation, Defendant (Case 78-4765-7) in the
Circuit Court for Pinellas County) after the City dissolved the Business (B) District in 1972. The
resulting Settlement Stipulation has governed allowable uses and development potential on the
properties; however, the property has been designated as Business (B) on the zoning atlas.
The Settlement Stipulation identified the subject site as a portion of Parcel I. The
property adjacent to the north, the South Bay Condominiums (1501 Gulf Boulevard) comprised
the remainder of Parcel I (see Case REZ2008-05005). Section 10 of the Stipulation specified
that an additional 80 residential dwelling units could be developed on the Parcel I, or a total of
144 residential dwelling units.
The Settlement Stipulation expired on October 17, 2006 and at that time the City
became free to regulate the use of all properties involved in the lawsuit. The City is currently
proposing to assign valid zoning designations to all four parcels governed by the Stipulation as
Community Development 2008-09-16 40
the Business (B) District is not a specific zoning district identified in the Future Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan or in the Community Development Code. Pursuant to
Florida Statutes Chapter 163, the City must bring consistency between the future land use plan
and zoning atlas.
In accordance with the Countywide Plan Rules, the future land use plan amendment is
subject to approval by the Pinellas Planning Council and Board of County Commissioners acting
as the Countywide Planning Authority. Based on the size of the parcel and the proposed future
land use plan classification, review and approval by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs is not required.
Applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies from the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan in
support of the proposed land use plan amendment are as indicated below:
3.2.1 Policy – 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 Community Development
Code, 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.
27 Goal – To develop a system of open spaces, parks and recreation facilities which
are designed for the maximum satisfaction of the recreational needs of Clearwater’s
residents and tourists.
27.4 Objective – Preserve natural open space areas which constitute aesthetic and/or
ecological community assets.
27.4.3 Policy – Continue to designate appropriate land “Preservation” and
“Recreation/Open Space” in the Future Land Use Plan whenever feasible.
The proposed future land use plan designation of Recreation/Open Space (R/OS)
reflects the current use of the property and provides more protection for the park than the
existing designation of Residential Medium (RM), which allows for residential development at 15
units per acre. The Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) designation furthers the City’s policy of
continuing to designate land for recreation/open space uses. The proposed plan amendment is
therefore not in conflict with any Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives or Policies,
and is consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the proposed Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) category, as specified in
Section 2.3.3.7.2 of the Countywide Rules, is to depict those areas of the County that are now
used, or appropriate to be used, for open space and/or recreational purposes; and to recognize
the significance of providing open space and recreational areas as part of the overall land use
plan.
The Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) category is generally appropriate to those public
and private open spaces and recreational facilities dispersed throughout the County; and in
Community Development 2008-09-16 41
recognition of the natural and man-made conditions which contribute to the active and passive
open space character and recreation use of such locations.
The property’s prime waterfront location provides the public with access to man-made
and natural amenities that provide active and passive recreational opportunities to the public.
The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the purpose and locational
characteristics of the Countywide Plan; therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with
the Countywide Plan.
Sand Key is a barrier island developed with a variety of residential and overnight
accommodation uses. Large lush landscaped properties, high-rise condominiums towers,
townhouses and resort hotels characterize this area of the City. A large County park is located
on the northerly tip of the island, which provides a significant open space and public beach.
Sand Key is generally characterized by four future land use plan categories. They
include Resort Facilities High (RFH), Residential High (RH), Residential Medium (RM) and
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS). The corresponding zoning districts are Tourist (T), High
Density Residential (HDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Open Space/Recreation
(OS/R). The subject site is surrounded to the north, south and west by attached dwellings and
planned for medium and high density residential uses.
The proposed future land use plan and zoning designations are in character with the
overall future land use plan and zoning designations found in the area. They are compatible
with surrounding uses and complimentary with the character of the immediate surrounding area
and neighborhood.
As stated earlier, the overall subject site is approximately 3.87 acres in area and is
occupied by a City park. The purpose of the proposed application is to protect and maintain the
park and reflect its intended long-term use.
The accepted methodology for reviewing the transportation impacts of proposed plan
amendments is based on the Pinellas Planning Council’s (PPC) traffic generation guidelines.
The PPC’s traffic generation rates have been calculated for the subject site based on the
existing and proposed future land use plan categories and are included in the following table.
Based on the 2007 Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Level of
Service Report, the segment of Gulf Boulevard from the Belleair Causeway to South Gulfview
Boulevard has a LOS of A. The PM Peak trips generated by the proposed amendment would
be substantially less than the trips generated by the current plan category. However, since the
property is currently occupied by a park and will continue to operate as a park, there should be
no change with regard to the traffic generated by the site and the current LOS will be
maintained.
The subject site is located along the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority’s Beach Trolley
route and headways are less than or equal to one hour.
This future land use map amendment eliminates the possibility of density on the site, as well
as reduces the intensity of development permitted on the property. The only water demand
associated with the park use is generated by the drinking fountain and this is not proposed to change.
Community Development 2008-09-16 42
In the event additional water is needed in the future, there is adequate water capacity to serve the
property.
This future land use map amendment eliminates the possibility of density on the site, as well
as reduces the intensity of development permitted on the property. At present the site does not
receive any wastewater service and that is not anticipated to change. In the event there is a need to
provide service to the site in the future, there is sufficient wastewater capacity.
This future land use map amendment eliminates the possibility of density on the site, as well
as reduces the intensity of development permitted on the subject property. The City has adequate
solid waste capacity to serve the subject property.
The subject property is a parks and recreation use.
Based upon the findings of fact, it has been determined that the traffic generated by this
plan amendment reduces the amount of potential traffic; however, since the property’s use is
not changing, the plan amendment will have no real impact on current traffic conditions on Gulf
Boulevard. Further, there is no impact to water, wastewater, solid waste or mass transit service
and open space will continue to be provided as a result of the amendment.
The subject property is situated on Clearwater Harbor. The proposed land use plan
amendment will recognize the recreational use of the property. The proposed zoning atlas
amendment will further protect the environmentally sensitive land (Mangrove Forest and Exotic Forest
Wetland) located on the east side of the property adjacent to the waterfront.
Based upon the findings of fact, the proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning
will greatly limit the uses allowed on this property and further protect the natural habitats located
on the site. The proposed amendment and rezoning will not negatively impact coastal habitats,
water quality, water quantity, or threaten any endangered species.
The location of the proposed Open Space/Recreation District (OSR) and Preservation
(P) District boundaries are consistent with the proposed underlying future land use plan
boundaries of the subject site. The proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding land
uses and is consistent with the current use of the property.
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications
of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
As indicated earlier, the subject site is 3.87 acres and is occupied by a public park. The
Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) zoning district does not require a minimum lot area or lot width
for parks and recreation facilities. The Preservation (P) District requires a minimum lot area of
10,000 and a lot width of 100 feet. The portion of the property proposed as Preservation (P)
exceeds these minimum requirements.
The proposed use of the subject site is consistent with the uses allowed in the Open
Space/Recreation (OS/R) and Preservation (P) zoning districts and the site meets all applicable
minimum requirements of the Code.
Approval of this land use plan amendment and zoning district designation does not
guarantee the right to develop on the subject property.Transportation concurrency must be
Community Development 2008-09-16 43
met, and the property owner will have to comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the
time development permits are requested.
An amendment of the Future Land Use Plan from the Residential Medium (RM) category
to the Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) category and a rezoning from the Business (B) District to
the Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) and Preservation (P) Districts is requested. The subject
site is 3.87 acres and is surrounded by residential uses to the north, south, west and the
Intracoastal Waterway to the east. The proposed future land use plan amendment and rezoning
is compatible with the existing surrounding area, does not require nor affect the provision of
public services, is compatible with the natural environment and is consistent with the
development regulations of the City. The proposed land use plan amendment and rezoning is
consistent with the Countywide Plan and the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Based on the above analysis, the Planning Department recommends approval of 1) The
Future Land Use Plan amendment from the Residential Medium (RM) Classification to the
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) Classification, and 2) The rezoning from the Business (B)
District to the Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Preservation (P) Districts.
Please see page 54 for motion to recommend approval.
5. Case:
FLD2008-07021 – 1314 South Missouri Avenue Level Two Application
Owner:
George C. Harrison Realty Company
Applicant:
Dr. Kazi Hassan, President, Florida Pain Management, Inc.
Representative:
Dillon Alderman, Southeast Principal, The Waterfield Design Group, Inc. (4340
South Manhattan Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33611; phone: 813-839-5700; fax: 813-839-5774;
e-mail: dalderman@waterfielddesign.com).
Location:
1.1-acre parcel on the west side of Missouri Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of
Lakeview Road.
Atlas Page:
306A.
Request:
Flexible Development approval for a medical clinic within the Commercial (C) District
with a lot area of 48,320 square-feet, a lot width of 512 feet, a building height of 25 feet, front
(east) setbacks of 9.58 feet (to building) and 11 feet (to parking), side (north) setbacks of 149
feet (to building) and 10 feet (to parking), side (south) setbacks of 116 feet (to building) and 5.99
feet (to parking), rear (west) setbacks of 4.47 feet (to building) and 2.5 feet (to parking), with 47
off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C.
Proposed Use:
Medical Clinic.
Neighborhood Associations:
South Clearwater Citizens for Progress and Clearwater
Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter:
Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager.
The 1.1-acre subject property is located on the west side of Missouri Avenue,
approximately 200 feet south of Lakeview Road. The property is zoned Commercial (C) District
with an underlying Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial General (CG). The property
presently consists of a vacant 25,569 square-foot building that was most recently occupied by
Thomasville Furniture, a 25-space off-street parking lot on the south side of the building, six (6)
parking spaces at the southeast corner of the building that back-out on to Missouri Avenue, and
substantial excess asphalt between the building and Missouri Avenue.
It is noted that both the existing building and the off-street parking lot are nonconforming
with regard to setbacks. Additionally, the off-street parking lot does not meet current design
Community Development 2008-09-16 44
standards (i.e. minimum drive-aisle and parking spaces dimensions) and the back-out parking is
not permissible with commercial uses.
On July 2, 2008, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was
submitted for the subject property. Under the development proposal a 9,195 square foot portion
of the existing building will be demolished to make way for a 22-space off-street parking lot at
the north end of the property. In addition, the existing 25-space off-street parking lot at the
south end of the property will be reconfigured to meet current design standards, and the existing
back-out parking and excess pavement along the east side of the building will be replaced by
landscaping.
The request had been made as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as the
proposed Medical Clinic use is only specifically authorized within the Commercial (C) District as
a Flexible Standard Development (FLS) use with no flexibility in required setbacks and reduced
setbacks to the building and pavement have been requested.
The development proposal’s compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, within the CG Future Land Use Plan category, the
maximum allowable F.A.R. is 0.55; therefore the 1.11-acre parcel is permitted a maximum of
26,576 square feet of gross floor area. The development proposal is for only 16,374 square feet
(0.34 FAR); thus the proposal is in compliance with the above requirement.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, within the CG Future Land Use Plan category, the
maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. As proposed, the development will have an I.S.R. of 0.72
and therefore meets the above requirement.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, there is no applicable minimum lot area or lot width for
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, as a Flexible Standard Development
(FLS) use, medical clinics are required a minimum lot area and lot width of 10,000 square feet
and 100 feet, respectively. The subject property has a lot area of 48,320 square feet and a lot
width of 512 feet, which are both far in excess of those requirements.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, there is no applicable maximum building height for
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, as a Flexible Standard Development
(FLS) use, medical clinics are permitted a height of 25 feet. The development proposes a
building height of 25 feet from the average existing grade, which meets the aforementioned
standard for medical clinics.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, within the C District, there are no applicable minimum
setbacks for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, the medical clinic use
has a minimum required front setback of 25 feet, a side setback of 10 feet and a rear setback of
20 feet, which is typical for most development within the C District.
The existing building is generally not compliant with the above requirements. The
building has only a 10-foot setback from the east (front) property line, a 4.24-foot setback from
the north (side) property line and 4.47-foot setback from the west (rear) property line. However
the setback from the south (side) property line is 116.56 feet, which is well in excess of
requirements. This south setback will be retained with the proposal as will the west setback.
Community Development 2008-09-16 45
The east setback will be lessened slightly to 9.58 feet for a revised covered entry, and the north
setback will be increased to 149 feet as a result of demolishing a large portion of the building.
With regard to setbacks to pavement/parking, the majority of the property as it exists has
been paved without the provision of any setback. The development proposal will modify this
providing a setback between 11 and 15 feet along the east property line, a 10-foot setback
along the north property line, a setback of just less than 6 feet along the south property line, and
a 2.5-foot setback along the west property line. While the west setback sounds insignificant, it
must be understood that this distance is for only a 72-foot segment of the total property, and
that for the majority of the property pavement will be set back at least 12 feet.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects shall
have their minimum off-street parking requirement determined by the Community Development
Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards.
The development proposal would establish a total of 47 off-street parking spaces for the
16,374 square foot medical clinic, which is a rate of 2.87 spaces per 1,000 square-feet of gross
floor area. Typically, medical clinic uses within the C District are required to provide off-street
parking at a rate of three spaces per 1,000 square-feet, which in this instance would be the
provision of 49 off-street parking spaces - only two more than presently proposed. In its most
recent use as a retail sales and services business (Thomasville Furniture), the subject property
was substantially nonconforming with regard to the provision of off-street parking. As it exists
the building is 25,569 square-feet, which at the required rate of five spaces per 1,000 square-
feet, would require 128 off-street parking spaces. The site, as striped, has 31 parking spaces;
however the overwhelming majority of these do not meet current design standards with regard
to dimensions or they back into the adjacent Missouri Avenue right-of-way. Thus, there is a
substantial nonconformity with regard to off-street parking for a retail sales and services use on
the subject property.
With this proposal this use of the property will be changed to a use with a less intense
off-street parking requirement, a considerable portion of the existing building (9,195 square-feet)
will be demolished, the nonconforming back-out parking spaces will be eliminated, the existing
25-space off-street parking lot (south side of property) will be brought into compliance with
current design standards, and a new 23-space off-street parking lot will be constructed on the
north side of the property. This development proposal represents a substantial improvement
upon the properties current situation and is most likely the best opportunity to obtain quality
redevelopment of this property.
As noted previously, the development proposal is short two off-street parking spaces
from achieving a parking requirement of three spaces per 1,000 square-feet. However, in order
to provide these off-street parking spaces enough of the building would have to be demolished
that the parking spaces would no longer be required. As such, and given the improvements
already being proposed, it has been determined that the development proposal meets is off-
street parking requirement.
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.
Community Development 2008-09-16 46
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting
materials at its meeting of August 7, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB).
Findings of Fact. The Planning Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by
the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is
substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1) That the 1.11 acre
subject property is located on the west side of Missouri Avenue, approximately 200 feet south of
Lakeview Road; 2) That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and
the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist of a 16,374
square foot medical clinic and associated off-street parking lots and solid waste facility; 3) That
the existing building and off-street parking lot encroach into the required setbacks for the
Commercial (C) District, and the proposed modifications will substantially reduce these existing
nonconformities; and 4) That the prior retail sales and service use of the property did not meet
the minimum off-street parking requirement, and that the proposed modifications and change of
use will bring the site into compliance with off-street parking requirements.
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 Maximum Development Potential standards as per CDC Section 2-
701.1; 2) That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the
applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Section 2-704; 3) 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 2-704.C; and 4) 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, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application for a medical clinic within the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of
48,320 square-feet, a lot width of 512 feet, a building height of 25 feet, front (east) setbacks of
9.58 feet (to building) and 11 feet (to parking), side (north) setbacks of 149 feet (to building) and
10 feet (to parking), side (south) setbacks of 116 feet (to building) and 5.99 feet (to parking),
rear (west) setbacks of 4.47 feet (to building) and 2.5 feet (to parking), with 47 off-street parking
spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Community Development
Code Section 2-704.C with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any
outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed; 2) 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; 3) 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; 4) 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 5) 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.
Community Development 2008-09-16 47
Please see page 54 for motion to approve.
6. Case:
FLD2008-08028 – 1640 N. Arcturas Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant:
City of Clearwater.
Representative:
Phuong Vo, Engineering Department, City of Clearwater (100 S. Myrtle Avenue,
Clearwater, Florida 33756; phone: 727-562-4752; e-mail: phuong.vo@myclearwater.com).
Location:
6.90-acre parcel on the west side of the intersection of North Arcturas Avenue and
Sherwood Street.
Atlas Page:
271A.
Request:
Flexible Development approval for a public facility use within the Institutional (I)
District with a lot area of 300,564 square feet, a lot width of 1,075 feet, a maximum building
height of 50 feet, front (east) setbacks of 16 feet (to building) and 20 feet (to pavement), side
(north) setback of 1,496 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of 2,553 feet (to building) and
2,411 feet (to pavement), and rear (west) setbacks of 2,260 feet (to building) and 2,060 feet (to
pavement), with 37 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
as per Community Development Code Section 2-1204.A; as well as a waiver to the interior
landscaping requirements, and a partial waiver to the perimeter landscaping requirements
where the existing landscape materials would be determined to be an acceptable perimeter
buffer, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use:
Public Facility.
Neighborhood Association:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter:
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
The 6.90 acres is a triangular shaped parcel with approximately 1,075 feet of frontage on
the west side of North Arcturas Avenue. Both Carroll Street and Sherwood Street intersect the
parcel on North Arcturas Avenue. The property is currently developed with a public facility
(storage and transfer station). Located on the site are various pieces of heavy equipment, piles
of gravel, shell, asphalt and sand. A dense landscape buffer of oleander and wax myrtle exists
on the Arcturas Avenue frontage. The Clearwater Airpark is both to the west and south of the
subject property. To the east there is a variety of industrial uses. Just to the north is the City
Public Works facility. The 6.90 acres is part of a 62.74-acre site.
The proposal is to redevelop the site with Department of Environmental Protection code
compliant refuse bins and site upgrades. The proposal includes three phases. The first phase
includes a 35-foot wide asphalt drive west of the proposed storage and transfer bins. The four bins
proposed in phase one include a sanitary grit bin, a wash down bin, a street sweep and street inlet
debris bin and a storm-water grit bin. Phase two includes seven bins and a concrete silo. Phase two
bins will be utilized as a lime-rock bin, a broken asphalt bin, a broken concrete bin, a shell bin, a
concrete sand bin, a concrete aggregate bin and a concrete pea gravel bin. The final phase includes
a scale house, restroom facility and a 12,750 square foot, open sided, covered structure for small
equipment storage. A total of 37 oversized parking spaces will be constructed for City work vehicles
only. While the public facility use is not permitted in the Industrial (I) category, it is permitted in the
underlying future land use plan category of Transportation/Utilities (T/U); thus the processing of this
application as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project.
Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1201.1, the maximum
F.A.R. for properties with a future land use designation of Transportation/Utility (T/U) is 0.70.
The site proposes a 12,750 square foot covered structure for small equipment and bins totaling
23,750 square-feet, resulting in a floor area ratio of 0.012. Based upon the above, the
Community Development 2008-09-16 48
development proposal is consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan with regard to
the maximum allowable F.A.R.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1201.1, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.90. The overall
proposed I.S.R. is 0.58, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1204, there is no applicable minimum lot area or lot width for
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment projects. Further, the public facility use does not have
specifically authorized development standards within the Industrial (I) district. However, within the
Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) district, CDC Section 2-1303, there are development
standards for the public facility use. Those standards set forth a minimum lot area of 10,000 square
foot and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The subject property is 300,564 square feet in area and has
a width of 1,075 feet both of which are far in excess of the typical requirements for the use.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1204, there are no applicable front, rear and side setbacks
for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment projects. The proposal includes setbacks to buildings
to include a front (east) setback of 16 feet (to covered bins), a side (north) setback of 1,496 feet
(to building), a side (south) setback of 2,553 feet (to building) and a rear (west) setback of 2,260
feet (to building). The front setback of 16 feet (to covered bins) currently exists on the site and is
consistent with code provisions.
Additionally, setbacks to pavement include a front (east) setback of 20 feet (to
pavement), a side (south) setback 2,411 feet (to pavement) and a rear (west) setback of 2,060
feet (to pavement). The front (east) setback of 20 feet (to pavement) also currently exists and is
consistent with code provisions. Finally, the current site with the above setbacks has a heavily
landscaped buffer on Arcturas Avenue. Both side and rear setbacks are clearly not an issue.
The proposed parking for City work vehicles will be located north of the proposed
covered structure. These spaces will be oversized measuring 10 feet by 20 feet. The spaces
near the east property line will be adequately buffered with existing dense vegetation.
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-1204, there is no applicable maximum building height for
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment projects. The proposed bins will be eight feet to the
midpoint of the roof covering and 30 feet to the top of the proposed roof on the open sided
building thus consistent with this code provision. It is noted that while this request was
advertised with a height of 50 feet, it is not anticipated that any of the proposed buildings will
exceed 30 feet. The advertisement of 50 feet was due to the fact that the proposed small
equipment storage building has not been designed as yet and the maximum height typically
allowed for the public facility use is 50 feet. In this way the building will be able to be designed to
meet its needs and further review will not be necessary.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at driveway intersections with
Arcturas 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 CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all
utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. The site plan for this proposal indicates that all on-site
electric and communication lines for this project will be placed underground in conformance with
this Code requirement.
Community Development 2008-09-16 49
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a 15-foot wide landscape
buffer along North Arcturas Avenue. The current heavily landscaped buffer on North Arcturas
Avenue meets this requirement. The applicant is requesting both a waiver to the interior
landscaping requirements, and a waiver to the side and rear perimeter landscaping
requirements. Staff supports this request, as it would be fruitless to require buffers and interior
landscaping in the center of a heavily used storage and transfer yard.
All solid waste for this site is taken off-site to City Public Works facilities. This has been
found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
No specific signage is proposed at this time.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting
materials at its meeting of August 2, 2007, and deemed the development proposal to be
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: 1) The 6.90 acres is located on the west side of North Arcturas Avenue,
both Carroll Street and Sherwood Street intersect the parcel on North Arcturas Avenue; 2) The
property is currently developed with a public facility (storage and transfer station); 3) The
proposal is to redevelop the site with Department of Environmental Protection code compliant
refuse bins and site upgrades; 4) A total of 37 oversized parking spaces will be constructed; 5)
The proposal includes a lot area of 300,564 square feet, a lot width of 1,075 feet, a maximum
building height of 50 feet, front (east) setbacks of 16 feet (to building) and 20 feet (to pavement),
side (north) setback of 1,496 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of 2,553 feet (to building)
and 2,411 feet (to pavement), and rear (west) setbacks of 2,260 feet (to building) and 2,060 feet
(to pavement) as well as a waiver to the interior landscaping requirements, and a partial waiver
to the perimeter landscaping requirements where the existing landscape materials would be
determined to be an acceptable perimeter buffer; 6) The front (east) setbacks from Arcturas
Avenue of 16 feet (to building) and 20 feet (to pavement) reflect existing conditions; 7) The
proposed transfer bins will be eight feet in height and the proposed open sided structure will be
30 feet in height to the top of the roof; and 8) There are no outstanding Code Enforcement
issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: 1) That the development proposal is consistent with the Maximum
Development Potential Standards as per CDC Section 2-1201.1; 2) That the development
proposal is consistent with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Section 2-1204; 3)
That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-
1204.A; and 4) That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for
Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends approval of the Flexible
Development application for a public facility use within the Institutional (I) District with a lot area
of 300,564 square feet, a lot width of 1,075 feet, a maximum building height of 50 feet, front
(east) setbacks of 16 feet (to building) and 20 feet (to pavement), side (north) setback of 1,496
feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of 2,553 feet (to building) and 2,411 feet (to pavement),
and rear (west) setbacks of 2,260 feet (to building) and 2,060 feet (to pavement), with 37 off-
street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Community
Development Code Section 2-1204.A; as well as a waiver to the interior landscaping
requirements, and a partial waiver to the perimeter landscaping requirements where the existing
Community Development 2008-09-16 50
landscape materials would be determined to be an acceptable perimeter buffer, as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 3-1202.G. with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval: 1) That the final design of the proposed transfer/storage bins
and covered building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified
by, the CDB; 2) That the existing landscape buffer on Arcturas Avenue be maintained in
perpetuity; and 3) That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised to
indicate underground utilities and communication lines for the proposal will be relocated
underground.
Please see page 54 for motion to approve.
7.
Level Three Application
Case:
TA2008-07004 – Amendments to the Community Development Code
Applicant:
City of Clearwater, Planning Department.
Request:
Amendments to the Community Development Code to allow for a reduced off-street
parking requirement for changes of use within the Downtown (D) District where there are no
existing off-street parking spaces or available land for their construction.
Neighborhood Association:
Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter:
Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager.
Following the completion of the Cleveland Street Streetscape Project, there has been a
greater interest in occupying existing buildings and tenant spaces on Cleveland Street.
However, much of this interest has involved occupying the buildings and tenant spaces with
uses that are different from those previously established. As many of the building/properties in
this area have limited off-street parking or no off-street parking whatsoever, an issue has arisen
as to how conversions from office and retail uses to more parking intense uses such as
restaurants can occur. In response to this issue, the Planning Department has proposed an
amendment to the Community Development Code that would allow for a reduced parking
requirement when dealing with changes of use where there are no existing parking spaces or
available land for their construction.
The proposed amendment would apply only to the Downtown (D) District, and more
specifically only to those properties that have frontage on that portion of Cleveland Street
located between Osceola Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The amendment will add
a footnote to the existing Tables 2-902 and 2-903 within the Community Development Code
(CDC). The footnote would read as follows:
For those existing buildings/properties with frontage on Cleveland Street that are located
between Osceola Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue that have no existing off-street
parking spaces, nor the ability to provide any off-street parking spaces, the use(s) of the
buildings/properties may be changed without the off-street parking that would otherwise be
required for the change of use being provided.
The proposed Ordinance 7999-08 includes each of the amendments. 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:
Community Development 2008-09-16 51
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Goal, which will be
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.
2. The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code 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).
Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value
??
of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and
redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties (CDC Section 1-
103.B.2).
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.1).
The above referenced goal of the Comprehensive Plan and purposes of the Community
Development Code will be furthered, as the proposed amendment will establish additional
flexibility within the Code that will allow for the reoccupation of properties/buildings by new
users, which will allow for property owners to rent/lease there buildings/properties more easily
and quickly, which in turn protects the economic stability of the Downtown and the preservation
of the historic building pattern along Cleveland Street.
At its meeting of September 3, 2008, the DDB reviewed the proposed ordinance and
recommended it be approved. In addition, the Board suggested that the geographic area could
be enlarged to cover other areas of the downtown with similar constraints. While such an
enlargement has not been analyzed, it would be possible to expand the area at a later date.
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with
and will further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the
Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends
approval of Ordinance 7999-08 that amends the Community Development Code.
See page 55 for motion to recommend approval.
8. Case:
FLD2006-06034 – 622 Lembo Circle.
Owner:
Canterbury, LLC.
Community Development 2008-09-16 52
Representative:
Renee Ruggiero, Northside Engineering (P.O. Box 4948, Clearwater, FL
33758; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036).
Location:
0.39 acre located on the west side of Lembo Circle, approximately 180 feet west of
Lincoln Avenue.
Atlas Page:
296B.
Zoning District:
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District.
Request:
Extend the timeframe of the Development Order.
Proposed Use:
Attached Dwellings.
Presenter:
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
Northside Engineering Services, Incorporated, requests an extension of time relative to
the above referenced project located at 622 Lembo Circle. A one-year extension is being
requested which would expire on October 17, 2009.
Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407, extensions of time
“shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing.” The Code further delineates that
good cause “may include but are not limited to an unexpected national crisis (acts of war,
significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the
like.” In this particular case, the applicant has indicated that the project is being delayed due to
a significant downturn in the condominium/town-home market.
Community Development 2008-09-16 53
It should be noted that, pursuant to CDC Section 4-407, the Planning Director has
previously granted a one-year extension of time.
Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2008-07021, FLD2008-08028, and
FLD2006-06034, and recommend approval of Cases REZ2008-05003, REZ2008-05004,
REZ2008-05005, LUZ2008-05002, and T A2008-07004 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.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:07 p.m.
Attest:
~Adti.)n(Jh
Board Reporter
Community Development 2008-09-16
54
: Clea~ater
u
Going Green with less paperwork
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for September 16, 2008
September 11,2008
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting August 19, 2008
Site investigation and packet listing
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1- 5):
1. .." Case: REZ2008-05003 - 1170, 1180, 1200 and 1226 Gulf Boulevard
Yes no
2. 6se: REZ2008-05004 - 1520, 1540 and 1560 Gulf Boulevard
,/ Y~s no
3. ,JCase: REZ2008-05005 - 1501 Gulf Boulevard
Yes no
4. kase: LUZ2008-05002 - 1551 Gulf Boulevard
r./ Yes no
5. Jase: FLD2008-02002 -1590 Gulf Boulevard
Yes no
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2):
1. Case: FLD2008-05012 - 2855 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (PULLED FROM AGENDA DUE
TO ADVERTISING E~
Yes no
2. .-lase: FLD2008-07021 - 1314 South Missouri Avenue
t/Yes no
~ase: FLD2008-08028 - 1640 N. Arcturas Avenue
Yes no
3.
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2008\09 September 16, 2008\1 Cover MM 09,16,2008,doc
THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2)
1. Case: T A2008-07004 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
2. Case: REZ2008~070- 2855 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (REQUEST TO CONTINUE
UNTIL CASE FLD2008- 012 IS HEARD)
Yes . No
Director's Item (Item 1)
~:e Extension - ~:006-06034 - 622 Lembo Circle
~
Date: CJjl b ID 9
Si
~
PRINT NAME
J C0LL
CLt..-.
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2008109 September 16,2008\1 Cover MM 09. 16.2008.doc
"
~ Clearvvater
u
Going Green with less paperwork
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for September 16, 2008
September 11, 2008
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting August 19, 2008
Site investigation and packet listing
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1- 5):
1. /Case: REZ2008-05003 - 1170, 1180, 1200 and 1226 Gulf Boulevard
V Yes no
2. /Case: REZ2008-05004 - 1520, 1540 and 1560 Gulf Boulevard
t" Yes no
3. ~ase: REZ2008-05005 - 1501 Gulf Boulevard
~ Yes no
4. /Case: LUZ2008-05002 - 1551 Gulf Boulevard
V Yes no
5. /'Case: FLD2008-02002 - 1590 Gulf Boulevard
V Yes no
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2):
1. Case: FLD2008-05012 - 2855 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (PULLED FROM AGENDA DUE
TO ADV~TISING EF)
~Yes - - no
2.,/Case: FLD2008-0702l ~uth Missouri Avenue
V Yes no
3. ~Case: FLD2008-08028 - 1640 N. Arcturas Avenue
Yes no
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDBI2008\09 September 16,2008\1 Cover MM 09. 16.2008.doc
THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2)
1. Case: T A2008-07004 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
2. Case: REZ2008-07007 - 2855 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (REQUEST TO CONTINUE
UNTIL~ASE FLD2008-05012 IS HEARD)
V Yes No
Director's Item (Item 1)
1. Time Extension - FLD2006-06034 - 622 Lembo Circle
Yes
/"
.~ No
Signature:
9- L- !p'
Date: I-~ /0<.1
.
r f<..A.rl/~ L .J")~~
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2008\09 September 16,200811 Cover MM 09. 16.2008.doc
i
~ Clearvvater
u
Going Green with less paperwork
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for September 16,2008
September 11, 2008
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting August 19, 2008
Site investigation and packet listing
CONTINUED ITEMS (Items 1 - 5):
1.
~se: REZ2008-05003 - 1170, 1180, 1200 and 1226 Gulf Boulevard
I/, Yes no
2. }?ase: REZ2008-05004 - 1520, 1540 and 1560 Gulf Boulevard
~Yes no
3.
ICase: REZ2008-05005 - 1501 Gulf Boulevard
V Yes no
4. ~ase: LUZ2008-05002 -1551 Gulf Boulevard
~Yes no
5. j Case: FLD2008-02002 - 1590 Gulf Boulevard
Yes no
LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2):
1. Case: FLD2008-05012 - 2855 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (PULLED FROM AGENDA DUE
TO A0-'ERTISING ERROR)
~Yes no
2. Icase: FLD2008-07021 - 1314 South Missouri Avenue
) Yes no
.
3. / Case: FLD2008-08028 -1640 N. Arcturas Avenue
--v-- Yes no
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2008\09 September 16,200811 Cover MM 09. 16.2008.doc
THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2)
1. Case: T A2008-07004 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
2. yase: REZ2008-07007 - 2855 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (REQUEST TO CONTINUE
UNTI CASE FLD2008-05012 IS HEARD)
Yes No
Director's Item (Item 1)
1. Time Extension - FLD2006-06034 - 622 Lembo Circle
Yes
/No
Signature:
Date:
pUl (!f( OLA-s
-rr~('t<G~
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDB\2008109 September 16,2008\1 Cover MM 09. 16.2008.doc