08/21/2001 (2)
".
: .'~".. ,I.~'.... ,I,' .",~ .....,:.,~...~.:.~.: ,', .'."~ I,'. :.".':~~ I~' ':. ..:. "I'" ~..4.11 >..:' ",:': """.~.~":.','ll, ~".4".'
".J.
,.\
;~ . \
" '
't . .:.
;:
,.
",
. ~.
;
'"
.",
",'I
"
,',
.'.;" .
:,
,J,
"
,.j "
"
:'
"
j'>'
";\'
.... \
1,'.;
,:
',. '~.'
.'.
.~. + . .
,\
\l'tr
"
"
\ ~ . '.
; It"
. . .,' ',J" .:;.
.~~~~,:n:';"'..~,:,~,',~., ;f:'~" " ~~,"':'>;';"':':~",
".1
t'
'.'
;..
.~ ~', ~
,.'.'"
,',
, ~,
Q,
" ,
;'..h~~
''I',' ,
.~;
',\' ,"
.'
< ,j
. u ~.
~. '.~ ~;.~: .:, : ;
, ..
~. . . ."
.:,',\
':."0':':::!:':';
>r~:<.\: '
::'hr<\ .~ "
~:/f;?' ....
~tr}. '. ,I. 0'
M::,: ,; ,
~f:' ,,:. .'
~?;.~:. '.
~,', \'" .
~}'.~~.,.::,. ':
~~;.l, !,;':' .',."
~r\.\\: . '
~k::.:~:,'
".":t) ,
~,:.'~ ,::'; .
c'(,:,
~" ." \"
~~ ~<< ': ".{'.
,';;\ '.~' , .~ . '
;:;: .~. .
,": ,.
'}',' .....
;'~<.. i.
~.~(: " >. '.
".t ,','..
1:I~t.:"
'"
., .'
" .
.~~.., +
;./yC:;> :~
, '.ro" ~ ..'
,.:'" ;' 'c",'
. ,~.
, .
.'{~) /,
I.,'
/~T '~ '
, : . ~ ,
,'1'<"
<.
j: '
"'0"
':., <;.
, '
If, '.
{.:;~. " c ,"" I
,. .
, c"o.
','
:.~ ,
't'
:.::
"
",
~", -.
I ~ 1, .
"M~.,;::'.'!; .'
'. '~
.\
>.; I.
'.
"
",
" .
)' ,
COB
,
"
,,'
Community Development .B~ard Meeti~g
, MINUTES
1
I
I
I
I
j
" 'I
,I
" I
.'
I,
, '
"
~ " , .
..'
. l'
;'
"
. ,
"
Og! :,).110 I
~ 1 I j
:;" Date
",' ~ '
"
" ,
, "
':'
I,
"
"
, "
.",
, "
~ l ' , ,
,..
"
, ,
, '
','
.:
I':
'.'
"
. ,
, ,
..
.'
.: ~ 1
.'
"
"
cJ7'?,
;.
,I
I \l.. :,'
. ,
I, \,
'"
'I.
, .
'.
" " , . , , ,~'." ..," I ~ ' +j , t' ,:, ~ . ;'. ,"'.: ' . ' , . .....4' +' I' . "'. :." """.'..',. ..,' ',' . .,.,'..;,', :,. . ;' , '.; '+'~. " 'I' '. .', .. I, .
,~
.' ~ .
rl"iq. .
( , ~
, . \.1.10:(1:;1
!,1
" .
'. ".'~
!v'
" .
ACTION AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
August 21, 2001
M,eeting called to order at 2:qO p.m. at City Hall
ITEM A - APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 07/17/01
ACTION -APPROVED AS SUBMITTED - 6:0
ITEM B - CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AS SUBMITTED LESS ITEM #B,3 - 6:0
Item #B1 - 3011 Virginia Avenue: Taylor G. Bingham /II - Ownerl Applicant.
Request annexation of 0.11 acre to the City with a land Use Plan amendment to
RU, Residential Urban, and rezoning to lMDR, Low Medium Density Residential
. District at BayView City, Subdivision, Block 1, North 47 feet of lots 5 and 6.
, ANX 01-06-12 (Recommended Approval)
Item #B2 - 2652 McMullen-Booth Road: Countryside Joint Venture/City National
Bank of Florida, Trustee - Ownerl Applicant. Request flexible development approval
to permit a 6-foot high fence with gate in the required front setback along
McMullen-Booth Road at The Vinings at Countryside, lot 1, with one condition.
,FL 01-05-22
Item #B3 - 304-308 North Osceola Avenue: Malcolm & Beverley Croft I Bennett &
Harriett Weber (Osceola Bay Development, llC) - Ownerl Applicant. FL 01-05-22
SEE ITEM #01
'ITEM C - 'REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERED ITEMS - None.
ITEM 0 -lEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS
. .,
Item #D1 - 304-308 North Osceola Avenue: Malcolm & Beverh3V Croft I Bennett &
Harriett Weber (Osceola Bay Development, LLC) - Owner/ Applicant. Request
flexible develC?pment approval to increase the height of an attached dwelling
development from 50 feet to ,150 feet, as part of a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelop~ent Project at Sec. 09~29-15, M&B 43.06, and Clovis C. lutz, lots A &
B. Fl 01~05-22
, ACTION - RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 4:2 (PLISKO/MORAN) - with conditions:,
1 ) final design of building to be consistent with conceptual elevations submitted; 2)
density of site to be limited to 25 dwellings units; 3) Stormwater Management ,
requirements to be met,. prior to Issuance of building permits'; 4J a new fire hydrant
assembly/new fire Department connections to be installed on exterior (street side) ,
of proposed six-foot wall, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and 5) all
signage to comply with Code.
acdOa01
1
08/21/01
\ ..
~. .. I .
, ,
....,
'it;'" .'.......~.~.'.... "'''~;f.' I.' ".': :'. .:.' ::-','..'. ..... f ....~..f...t'.:, .;: ',<', ,':.,:',... "', '. '.... .f..I, ."ff~" "..1 :':"..\.I;+:..~~~:':.' :....\,~+\>::.:.....
. "
"
, i
tl' , Item #D2 -,Amendments to Community Development Coda: CitY of Clearwater-
'''.'' . Applicant. Request' recommendation for approval of amendments to the Code: 1)
amend notice requirements for continuances; 2) add provisions requiring
neighborhoods to conduct a vote on each development standard proposed as part of
a NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District); 3) add provisions specifying
procedures to amend or eliminate NCOD requirements; and 41 eliminate percentage
of development rights that may be transferred from a site. TA 01-07-03
ACTION - RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 6:0
ITEM E - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS
, "
Item #E1 - 217 Dolphin Point: Houle Industries, Inc. - Owner/Applicant. Request
flexible development approval: 1) reduce minimum lot width from 1 50 feet to 125 '
feet; 2) reduce north front setback along Dolphin Point from 25 fe'et to 4. feet; 3)
reduce south rear setback from 16 feet to 0 feet; and 4' increase the ~eight from'
30 feot to 50 feet, as part of a Residential lnfill Project at Island Estates of .
Clearwater,'Unit 5-A, Lots 10-11., FL 01-06-23
,
, '
~)
'..
,ACTION - APPROVED WITH AMENDED HEIGHT INCREASE ~ 5:0 - with conditions:
1) final design of buildings to be consistent with conceptual elevations submitted;
" 2) density to be limited to nine dwellings units and building height to be ,limited to
, 44.5 feet; 3} Solid Waste & Stormwater Management requirements to be met, prior,
to issuance of building permits; 4) setback reduction for hot tub along seawall to be
secured through application to the Board of Adjustment and Appeal for Building and
Flood, prior to issuance of building permits; and 5) all signage to comply with Code.
ITEM F - DIRECTORS ITEMS
Addition to expert witness list - Richard Kephart, Senior Planner
ACTION -APPROVED - 6:0
Agenda - September 14, 2001 Work Shop at Municipal Services Building
ACTION -REVIEWED
ITEM G - ADJOURNMENT - 5:21 p.m.
'.J"....
. '
... ,
BcdoeD1
2
08/21/0,1
~.I'..-II' " ~ ~
. .~ .~~."."'''''~'',c.'' ....."". u .. . f,. T," > ..
, ...,.. ..~,....c ~ ... J...t..a.. .o' ,.., ~ ... .,.'.., ~ 1 '.:). ~'. ~~ J' + J': .. c.." ~ .....~ r ~ 1"-.0,. ~ \:\ ~'l :, ...: " ~,"\" ' . . e ,."
"" '
. .
'.. .
.c.' J:j'
; , ~
.i',~
'. .
~\t:~L.;
O.<OJ
: ,.~,,~~
FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY,
MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
lAST HAME. FIRST NAME. MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCI!., COMMISSION AUTHORITY OR
Z-tJ l:"..b tV. '/L~ COMM1TrEeC-Op. J>.b.r- fJd
MAILING ADDRESS THE BO/l.RO, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORITY OR
^ If ~ (( () COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF:
I '3 b IV l~ '(' '1"\ "'_ d. t'..1 f(L. IT'{ 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
CITY; I COUN~ ,..,. ME?F POLITICAL SUBIVISION:
o e.~""JJt:.r&lI- -:f:.t}t>/I~~ t./e~y)...J...-{-~
DATE ON WHICH VOTe OCCURED .' .-:/,' . MY POSITION IS:
y
APPOINTIVE
o ELECTIVE
WHO MUST fiLE FORM 8B
This form is fOf use by an person SOMng at tho county, city, or other locallevol of government on an ap~inted or elected board, council,
commisslon, ,authority, or CQ01mittoo. It ~pplies oqually to members of advisory llncl non.advisory bodies who lire presenlod with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, FloOda Statut05.
Your responsibilities under the Jaw when faced with a nwasure In Ytttlch you have a conflict of Inlerest will vary greaUy depending on ....mellier
you hold an elective or appointive position. For thia reason. please pay closa attention 10 the instruc60ns on this form before comploting the
re~erse sIde and fmng the form.
INSTRUCTlONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A pefSOO holdil'"r9 eIec1ivo or appointivo county, municipal. or other local public offICe MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measuro which inures
to his special privata Q:lin. Each elocted or appointed local offlCOr also is prohibited from !mowingly voting on a measure whIch inures to the
specIal gain of a principal (other than a government agency} by whom he is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a
corporate princIpal by which ho Is retained); to the special privale gain of a relatiya; or to the GpQciaI pri'lato gaIn of a business associate.
Commlssionors of community redevelopment agencios under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357. F.S.. and officers of independent special tax districts
e\octod on a ona-acre. one-vote bas1s are not prohibited from voting in that capacity,
Foe purposes of this law, a ~relative" Includes only the officer's father, mother. $0/1, d;ilughlor, husbdnd, wife, falho(~in.law, moll1er~in.law,
son.jn.law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" moans any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the
offlC8f as a 'partner, joint venturer, co-owner of property, or corporate shareholdor (where the shares of the corporation are not listed 0(1 any
national 0( regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFiceRS:
In OldditiOO to abstaIning from voting in tho situations described above, you must disclose the connict
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly staling to the assembly tho nature of your interost in the measure on which you are
abstaining from voting; end
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE. VOTe OCCURS by completing and filing this 10rm with \he person responsible for recording the minutes
of the meeting, who should incoc'porata tho foem 10 tho minutes.
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstaIn 'rom voting in tho situations doscribod above, you othelWiso may particip3te in these matters. However. you
must discloso the nature of \he connict bofore making any attempt to innuooca the decision. whether orany or in writing and whether made by
you or your directicn.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY AliEMPT TO INfLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WilL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complote and fila this form (bofore making any attempt to inOuonce tho decision) with tho parson msponsiblo lor recording tho
minutes of the mooting, who will incorporate U1Q form In thD minutes.
. A copy of the form must be provided immedialely 10 tho other members of tho agency.
~ . The form must be read p~blic)y at the next meeling atter the form is filed.
. CE Form BB - 10.91
PAGE 1
.#. ,
~
()
-' ,'. '..~
;.,J
.. J,I . ~.
. ." ,
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
· Yoo must. d~ 0li1I~ tho nature c( 'PX conftict in the l'l193suro bofOl'e parliclpatlng. ,
. ' , 1.<;"', ('1
· You 'must c:ompeta the fonn and (lie It withIo 15 cb)'G aftor tho vote OOCU"I 'Mlh tho person re$ponsit~ for recording !he minutes 0( [~, 'i-,'
mooting, who rJlUSt Incorporate the foon In the mlnut8s. A c::opy 0( tho form must bet prcMdod Immo<flaloly to the other mombora of the
aoencY. and the fonn must be read publ"lCty at the next mootlog after the fcxm Is fllOO.
, , J
.', :t,DtsCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFlCER'S INTEREST
, I,
IE cL-.c r-eI
.'~
~"-','
-J\"':'~'" . hereby d'rscIose Ih:rt on
f /2--1 /tJ I
I./r
before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gaIn;
inured to tho 'spacial gain of my buslooss associate,
'Inured to tho special gaIn of my rotative,
~ inured to tho special gain of eo?!^- Ld"~~
inurod to the special gain of
. whom I Ql1'I retained; or
. which is tho parent
org3niza~ or subsidiary of a prindpal.whlch has retained me.
(b) l1le measure beforo my agency and the nature of my connicting Interest in the measuro Is as fo/lO'Ws:
Jft:;: F L () I - 0 ~ - Z ~ ~-
. M~ ~~ r~t-I!~~' ~t- ~
~ f~~J~/ h fL t)b~ ~ ~J
I
,
:- ",
t
,glz~ I
Date Filed
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES S112.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSU~~
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS fOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOV
OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOITION. REDUCTIONS IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALlY
NOT TO EXCEeO $5,000.
, CE Form SS . 10.91
PAGE 2
.,:-., p' ,,'. :."" ..':'....,. .::- .:'.!~'.,.'.~:"::.,.~,:L~'r:',,,:;:..(,.:>,,:.,"I'~.:<':..,'.....1. .i~..... ;~... ~.I; :,~R...~. ....;Jl~~',..~.:......... .'i.~:~"~'>'...:..;...\.;~::~::.:.~:~t~.'.'''''r:
:: .J....: "-'~.. ,'~I'r:"':"" '.... .... :. -':.,:" .1 ":. .', .';"""'.' '_l~'~~'~/." "\,'t"'~"""""~':' ';'.::_.4'."", '~.":.'" ,'..:~..'.::'''''.-::~':..''"~,,,:,,'',:'~..:.
'"
4!". .
~. .. ..
I, '
~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
CITY OF CLEARWATER
, August 21, 2001
Present:
Gerald Figurski
Carlen A. Petersen
Edward Mazur, Jr.
Shirley Moran
Alex Plisko
Ed Hooper
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Absent:
David Gildersleeve.
Frank Hibbard
Board Member
Alternate Board ~ember
, '
" '
1(.:",
Also Present: leslie Dougall.Sides
Cynthia Tarapani
Lisa L. Fierce
Patricia O. Sullivan
Assistant, City Attorney
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director '
Board Reporter
, ' ,
J~: 'e'
.', .
",
, '
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by
the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance.
"
"','~:)
To provide continuity for research, Items are In agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
ITEM A - APPROVAL OF MINUTES
, Member Petersen moved to approve the minutes of the regula~ meeting of
July 17, 2001, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board
member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM B - CONSENT AGENDA (Items #B1 - #B3) less #B3
Consent Agenda items are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring
property owners, etc. and may be approved by a single vote at the beginning of the
meeting.
Item DB1 - 3011 Virginia Avenue: Taylor G. Bingham III ~ Owner/ Applicant.
Request annexation iJf 0.11 acre to the City with a land Use Plan amendment to
RU, Residential Urban, and rezoning to lMDR, low Medium Density Residential
District at BayView City, Subdivision.' Block 1, North 47 feet of lots 5 and 6.
ANX01.06-12
.' "':'i,,~
..,"~
The property owner has requested this annexation of 0.11 acre to receive
sanitary ~ewer and water services from the City. The property will have a land use
plan'deslgnation of Residential Urban. low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
zoning Is proposed. The site is Vacant. The applicant intends to relocate a 1,188
square~foot, single-family home to this site.
mcd0801'
1
08/21/01
L I. ,'. ~, '
"
:~
The property is non-conforming with regard to lot area and width. The
parcel does not meet the minimum lot area of 5,000 square-feet and 60~foot
minimum width. The applicant has applied for a Flexible Standard development to
reduce the required lot area to 4,700 square feet and the lot width to 47 feet as
, part of a Residentiallnfill Project. On July 12, 2001, the DRC (Development
Review Committee) reviewed the application and supporting materials. The
annexation is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and goals and policies in the
City's Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval.
Item #B2 - 2652 McMullen-Booth Road: Countryside Joint Venture/City National
Bank of Florida, Trustee - Owner/ Applicant. Request flexible development approval
to permit a 6-foot high fence with gate in the required front setback along
McMullen~Booth Road at The Vinings at Countryside, Lot 1. FL 01-05-22
,;
The 1 6~acre site, on the southwest corner of Allen Avenue and McMullen-
Booth Road, is within a residential area on the McMullen~Booth Road corridor. The
lot, with 680 feet of frontage on McMullen~Booth Road, is more than 1,000 feet
deep and contains 320 dwellings in 13, two- and three.story, masonry-block
buildings, developed in 1989 under a former 'Code. The buildings are 35 feet in
height and at least 50 feet from any property line. Parking spaces throughout the
site are within five feet of any side or rear property line.
mcd0801
2
08/21/01
i
",
'1')
.,.....J.v
The request is to install a six-foot fence within the east front setback along
McMullen-Booth Road to improve security as part of an overall site upgrade. The
fence will be similar in style and size to other area fences. Code permits fences.
within the front setback in the MHDR District to a height of three feet. As part of a
level Two (Flexible Development) application, brick walls, masonry walls, or walls
with masonry columns linked by SUbstantial grill work may be permitted up to a
height of six feet. The proposed fence, with decorative iron posts linked by
wrought-iron fencing, meets the requirements of Code. Extensive landscaping
exists throughout the site meets the intent of the Code.
The fence will be 1 3 feet from the east property line and run along the north
property line approximately 170 feet east of the west rear property line and will
extend 630 feet to the east. The fence will continue south across the northern
drive aisle to the main office. The proposal includes gates at the driveway 'on
McMullen-Booth Road, across the north drive aisle, and within the east parking lot
north' of Building One., Limits to this request affect a portion of the fence and one
gate along the east property line along McMullen-Booth Road.
Emergency vehicles will be able to access the site using an approved entry
system. A private company currently provides solid waste management for the
development. Access will be maintained with this proposal.
.'~
. On June 14, 2001, the DRC reviewed the application and supporting
materials. Staff recommends approval with three bases and one condition. Bases
for approval: 1) The proposal complies with the general applicability criteria 'and
...-....'.~.I ..~.,.:.:-.:;.~..::...~...-~>..:..:...:..'~1. ... "::.'!_~',~.:. ,p,,(.....~.' /...'........'.:..I~.'.~::,. 'l,.t:..,:' '.'1'..,;. .... t._ ;~'.'.. .,~.I '..f..",+:.',.:.l-:.
11'
criteria for Flexible Development approval; 2) The proposal will enhance the existing
, development; and 3) The proposal is compatible with the existing established
character along the McMullen Booth Road corridor. Condition for, approval: That a
knox gate entry system be installed for emergency equipment entry prior to the final
Inspection of the site!
Item #83 - See Item #01 below.
Member Petersen moved to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted, less
Item #83. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
ITEM C - REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCE/RECONSIDERATION - None.
ITEM D - lEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS
Item #01 - . 304~308 North Osceola Avenue: Malcolm & Beverley Croft 1 Bennett &
. Harriett Weber (Osceola Bay Development, lLC) - Ownerl Applicant. Request
flexible development approval to increase the height of an attached dwelling
development from 50 feet to 1 50 feet, as part of a Comprehensive Infill '
Redevelopment Project at Sec. 09-29-15, M&B 43.06, and Clovis C. lutz, lots A &
B. FL'01-05-22
':)
Planner Mark Parry reviewed the request. The rectangular, 1 .07-acre site,
north of Jones Street, is within the Old Clearwater Bay neighborhood, an older,
residential section abutting Clearwater Harbor. The site has 13 residential units in
four attached structures, which are between 1,000 and 2,800 square feet large and
less than 24 feet high. The heavily wooded site has a steep slope, which starts at
sea level and rises to 27 feet at Osceola Avenue.
A previous application for a Resldentiallnfill Project (FL 00-01-03) for this
site included additional parcels and totaled 3.24 acres. That application had
proposed: 1) 150 attached dwellings for' an increase in density to 45 dwelling units
per acre; 2) a height increase from 30 feet to 174 feet; 3) a six-foot fence within
the front setbacks along Osceola, Jones, and Georgia Street; and 4) the partial
vacation and relocation of Osceola Avenue right-of-way between Jones and Georgia
,streets. On June 20, 2000, the COB (Community Development Board) approved
the application pending legal acquisition of all subject parcels and the vacation and
subsequent relocation of North Osceola Avenue. The development has been
reduced in scale and the previous application has been withdrawn. The City
Commission did not vacate Osceola Avenue.
:;J
At the time of the original application, the zoning district was HDR, High
Density Residential District. On April 19, 2001, the City Commission changed the
zoning to 0, Downtown, and adopted the new Periphery Plan, which guides land
use and densities. The site, In the Northwest Periphery Area, is designated for
multi-family residential reuse with development oriented toward Clearwater Harbor
and designed to incorporate those views. The maximum permitted density is 25
dwelling units per acre. The Periphery Plan encourages higher density, residential
mcd0801
3
08/21/01
. ., ~. .",' . . ,/.:_, . . . : .. ~ ) ~'. :;~ ., "~,, , . {! . I' . I.: .. r. . f,~..; : . ;'0". ~ ... :... i. ~ '. :.'.:' . '. ~. ... :..' : <.... II ,','.., . . .':1 I.": ~ ~:. . .:. \... '. ~ ;. ~ ~ :.', I ': \'.. ,. L .. : . :". - j " I I' ~. ., : ~ .' ,.' ~:., ... 1 '.. .', ~ .' ~ '.. '. ...
~,
development, primarily west of Osceola Avenue. Due'to high traffic volume,
narrow sidewalks, and a lack of landscape buffering, current pedestrian activity is
limited. New development will Improve pedestrian movement.
The applicant seeks to increase the permitted height from 50 feet to 1 50
feet for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Flexible Development
provisions permit multi-famHy structures to be 100 feet tall. Buildings between
Drew t Myrtle, and Court may reach 1 50 feet in height. The project proposes 25
dwelling units in aile building. Underground parking will be provided. The number
of parking spaces will exceed Code. Site access is planned at a gated entrance/exit.
on Osceola Avenue. The condominium structure to the north is app~oximately 115-
feet ~igh and the condominium structure to the south is approximately 80-feet high.
Mediterranean architecture is planned. Roof tiles are designed to minimize views of
rooftop mechanical equipment. The design is similar to the previously approved
plan.
,....a.)
J....~~
The'landscape plan exceeds the requirements of Code. The site will be
enclosed by fencing: 1) six-foot wrought-iron style fence with masonry columns
E!long north and south property lines and 2) six-foot masonry wall with masonry
columns along east property line. The masonry portions of the fence and walls will
match the structure. Amenities include a waterfront swimming pool and a tennis
court near Osce'ola Avenue~ .Storage space for residents will be near underground .
parking. A wood dock exists and the proposal does not request new docks. D~ck
requests must me~t Code or be approved by the CDS. A four-foot sidewalk along
North Osceoh:i Avenue will improve area pedestrian access.
mcd0801
4
08121/01
: )
The plan refers to a retention pond on the site's northwest corner but does
not include a sufficient grading plan nor percolation tests to indicate the pond will
recover within 24 hours of a storm event. This information must be provided to
satisfy stormwater management criteria, prior to issuance of any permits. Also, a
fire hydra'nt assembly and Fire Department connections must be installed on the
north side of the entry gate, on the street side of the six-foot wall, prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.
On July 12, 2001, the DCC reviewed the application and supporting
materials. Staff recommends approval with five conditions.
Mr. Parry indicated the project's 50 parking spaces will be on one level. In
response to a question, he said roof mechanicals are hidden behind architectural
features.
. t~
Matrix lodging ropresentative Jerry Ellenburg said his firm is completing its
first local project, a Starbucks, at the corner of Cleveland Street and Ft. Harrison
Avenue. He said the boutique project will be award-winning with single unit floors
at the top. The scaled down project will impact less on the neighborhood. In
response to a question, Mr. Ellenburg said downsizing the project was a corporate
decision. He said he was closing title on the subject property in two weeks.
Five residents opposed the project.
Concern was expressed nearby residents had not objected to the larger
project previously approved. In response to a question, Ms. Fierce said the 15-story
building will have a 6,000 square-foot footprint. The project is 17 feet from the
Belvedere property. Ms. Tarapani said the Code limits construction hours. The,
decorative fencing will, not block street access from abutting properties.
, Mr. Ellenburg said his, firm will work to address neighbor's special needs. He
said the proposed height is in harmony with downtown development. He said the
building's shadow will scarcely affect abutting properties. He said limiting the
project to one lot will constrain the development potential of the abutting lot. In
response to a question, Ms. Fierce said the tall residential building to the north is at
least 200 feet from the project. Due to the property's grade, the building will not
appear as tall from the street.
mcdOa01
6
08/21/01
'JA5.\
fll:'ll
Concern was expressed approval would establish a negative precedent.
Member Hooper moved to approve flexible development to'increase the
height of an attached dwelling development from 50 feet to 150 feet, as part of a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Sec. 09-29-15, M&B 43.06, and
Clovis C. Lutz, Lots A & B with conditions: 1) final design of building to be
consistent with conceptual elevations submitted; 21 density of site to be limited to
25 dwellings units; 31 Storrnwater Management requirements to be met, prior to
issuance of building permits; 4) a new fire hydrant assembly/new Fire Department
connections to be installed on exterior (street sldel of proposed six-foot wall, prior
to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and 5).a1l signage to comply with Code
and with four bases: 11 The proposal complies with the Flexible Development
criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; 21 The proposal is in
compliance with other standards in the Code including the general applicability
criteria; '3) The application is consistent with the Northwest Periphery Area in the
, , Periphery Plan; and 4) The development is compatible with the surrounding area and
will enhance other redevelopment efforts. The motion was duly seconded.
In rasponS8 to a questIon, Ms. Fierce said the project must meet City ,
- storm water requirements. Language related to signage assures the applicant is aware
of related Code restrictions.
, Upon the vote being taken, Members Petersen, Mazur, and Hooper and Chair
~ Figurski voted "Aye"; Members Moran and Plisko voted "Nay." Motion carried.
.~ '~"'.'" ;:"'..' .,~.!r:..I.'... ...... .I~. ....~..~:..'....I.~ :;..\"l.-I..~:\,.,...,"',': ':~..,,''';,,'':'..,' .....';t' ,'....~:'."...:._..~.,... ..~..;.:'..:';.. '..'~."." ~~::/\,:.'..;~<'
f~
Item #02 - Amendments 10 Community Development Code: City of Clearwater -
Applicant. Request recommendation for approval of amendments to the Code: 11
amend notice requirements for continuances; 21 add provisions requiring
neighborhoods to conduct a vote on each development standard proposed as part of
a NeOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District); 31 add provisions specifying
procedures to amend or eliminate NCOD requirements; and 41 eliminate percentage
of development rights that may be transferred from a site. TA 01-07-03
Long Range Planning Manager Gina Clayton reviewed the proposed
amendments to,the Code. During discussion regarding initiating the Island Estates
NeOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District), the City Commission directed
staff to amend NCOD regulations regarding the final review of proposed zoning
provisions. The Commission also discussed the type and cost of such elections,
voting eligibility, and how to determine results, Staff also recommends addressing:
1) notice requirements for continued public hearings and 2) transfer of development
rights. The proposed amendments are important and should not be delayed until
the annual Code review.
(f:''';'~)
'. r.... ,.J
Staff proposes amendments to notice requirements related to continued '
public hearings. In June 2000, provisions were added to public hearing ,
requirembnts to require advertising all continued public hearing in the newspaper
and noticing all persons previously noticed. Florida Statutes require notice be
provided only if the public hearing is not continued to a date certain. Due to high
newspaper advertising costs and the ineffectiveness of such notice, staff proposes
to eliminate this requirement. However, the Planning Department recommends
~econd notices be mailed to property owners who had received the original notice.
\ffkJ
Staff proposes to revise NeOD provisions: 1) Section 4-608(0)(1) - require
NCOD petition to' be filed with Community Development Coordinator instead of City
Clerk. All land development applications are filed with the Community Development
Coordinator. The Planning Department is responsible for processing NCOD
designation requests: 2) Section 4~608(Dl(3) ~ permit up to four alternate members
of study committees; 3) Section 4-608(D)(4) - add requirement that property
owners within proposed NCOD vote on each development standard proposed for
inclusion in NCOD. Results of such vote, including total votes cast, to be presented
to City Commission for consideration. Community Development Coordinator to
approve voting format and method. Neighborhood petitioning for NCOD designation
to pay election.related costs; 4) Section 4.608(0)(6) - recognizes a proposed NCOD
'involves amendments to Code and requires that NCOD code amendments be
considered in accordance with Section 4M60 1, which governs text amendments: and
5) add subsection (7) to Section 4.608(0) - establish procedures to amend
, provisions of an established NCOD or to eliminate a NCOD. The procedure would
be the same as required to Initiate a NCOD, a petition signed by owners of 60% of
,the property within the NeOD submitted to the Community Development
, Coordinator, with an explanation of the amendments or reasons for eliminating the
NCDD. Within 30 days of receiving the petition and explanation, the City Manager
would recommend to the City Commission whether the amondment/elimination
process should begin. The City Commission would consider the request. The
mcd080 1
6
08/21/01
IT, :" .
. ' 1-. > /
,". ;t
a
amendment or deletion of the overlay district would follow the same process and
no~ice requirements as required for the original adoption.
Staff proposes to delete a provision of Code Section 4.1402 regarding the
amount of development rights, which can be transferred. In September 2000, the
Countywide Planning Authority approved an amendment to the Countywide Plan
Rules to allow the transfer of development rights within a designated redevelopment
area. This provision specifies that density/intensity may exceed the maximum
density/intensity of the Future land Use Plan category for the receiving parcel by an
~mount not to exceed 20% of the permitted maximum.
. Staff proposes to delete limits on the amount of rights that can be
transferred from the "sending" site. Code would continue to limit transfers so that,
the "receiving" site does not exceed 20% of the permitted maximum. The
proposed amendment is consistent with the Countywide Rules. The current
provision related to development of the sending site will remain. The COB will
review both sending and receIving sites. Staff feels the current sending site rule
could inhibit development alternatives that are compatible with the area.
mcd0801
7
08/21/01
Concern was expressed problems could result from each NCOD deciding on a
voting format. Planning Director Cyndi Tarapani said the size of .a neighborhood will
determine if voting will be held at a site or by mail. It was felt changes should be
permi~ed if a majority of residents supports them. Ms. Tarapani said requiring 600/0
r"~,\ of property owners to support a change is a stronger indication of support for a
\'<''7,1 comprehensive plan amendment. She suggested changes may spark controversy. '
In response to a question, Ms. Clayton said the City Commission is not bound
by' resident votes but will review voting information when drafting NeOD standards.
The City Commission had directed staff to obtain a straw vote for guidance. It was
felt similar votes should result in similar action. Ms. Tarapani said the City
. Commission had accepted petitions as votes for the Coachman Ridge NCOD. Future
, NCOD applications are on hold until staff can determine how the overlay districts
work and what adjustments are necessary.
Discussion ensued' regarding the development and approval of NeOD
standards. Assistant City Attorney leslie Dougall-Sides said the study committee
develops a list of rules based on neighborhood input during a series of meetings. '
Neighborhood attendance is encouraged. A web site is available for information and
input. Concern was expressed a rule could be adopted with only 30% neighborhood
support.
It was suggested a neIghborhood could opt for a NCOD rather than hiring an
attorney and going to court to enforce deed restrictions. Concern was expressed
, neighborhoods not use staff for deed enforcement. Ms. Tarapani said NeOD
designation recognizes the uniqueness of preservation and other neighborhoods, Its
primary purpose is not to enforce deed restrictions. It was stated that Coachman
, U Ridge is a standard subdivision and has no historical value. Concern was expressed
;'
I. J
I' >", I
~ the pro'gram uses City staff to enforce deed restrictions. . Ms. Tarapani said the value
,:" of the'program will be assessed in a year.
, It was recommended neighborhoods be informed that resident straw votes on
guidelines do not obligate City Commission action. It was suggested a rule require at
least 61 % support by a straw poll before a guideline is presented to the City
Commission for ~doption.
Sheila Cole and Phyllis Boksen, of Island Estates, expressed concern the
process frustrates residents who have spent time, effort, and money on achieving'
resident cO,nsensus. They recommended firm rules be established.
It was suggested a rule require more than half of the residents vote on any
NeOD guideline. Ms. Tarapani said the neighborhood is responsible for voter turn
out.'
mcd080 1
8
08/21/01
, , rVlember Hooper moved for the CDB to recommend Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District related restrictions be ~pproved by a majority of NOCO
residents. Jhe motion was duly seconded.
.('..
It was noted the City Commission had not requested an opinion on this issue.
Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously.
" , .JfJ.:'
' , ( ,
. " ~~,~
Member Mazur moved for the CDB to recommend for approval amendments to
the Community Development Code: 1) amend, notice requirements for continuances;
2) add provisions requiring neighborhoods to conduct a vote on each development
standard proposed as part of a NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District);
3) add provisions specifying procedures to amend or eliminate NeOD requirements;
and 4)' eliminate percentage of development rights that may be transferred from a
site. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
I'rEM E - LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS
Item #E1 .- 217 Dolphin Point: Houle Industries, Inc. - Owner/Applicant. Request
flexible development approval: 1) reduce minimum lot width from 150 feet to 1 25
feet; 2) reduce north front setback along Dolphin Point from 25 feet to 4 feet; 3)
red,uce south rear setback from 1 6 feet to 0 feet; and 4) increase the height from
30 feet to 50 feet, as part of a Residential lnfill Project at Island Estates of
Clearwater, Unit 5-A, lots 10-11. FL 0 '-06-23
Mr. Mazur declared a conflict of interest and vacated the dais.
~
Mr. Parry reviewed the request. The rectangular, O.37-acre site Is on the,
south side of Dolphin Point, west of Larboard Way. The site's two lots, combined
by a Unity of Title, are vacant. The site is in a redeveloping. residential area of
Island Estates, abutting Clearwater Harbor. The area features several, similar
. developments on similarly sized lots.
,',
~
"
. ~ '.
The project will construct a four~story building with 9 dwelling units. Due to
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) requirements, the first floor can be
used for parking only. The structure will be 16 feet from any other building. The
17 planned parking spaces exceed Code. Twelve spaces will be under the bUilding.
Parking will not be visible from adjacent properties. Site access will be via a single
curb cut on Dolphin Point,'
The architecture will be Mediterranean. Proposed landscaping exceeds the
-intent of Code. All sight triangles will be honored. Signage must meet Code. .
,Amenities include a hot tub to the rear ot'the building. If the hot tub Is below grade
and withih 18 feet of the seawall,' a variance from the Board of A9justment and
Appeal for Building and Flood is necessary.
The applicant seeks to: 1} reduce the minimum lot width from 150 feet to
125 feet: 2) reduce the north front setback: from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement);
3) 'reduce south rear setback from 15 feet to zero feet; and 4) increase the
building's height from 30 feet to 50 feet. While the application's elevations
illustrate a 44.5':foot high building, the applicant now requests approval of a 50 foot
high building. The zoning and land use limit density to 11 dwelling units.
Although the lot exceeds'the minimum size requirement of 15,000 square-
feet, it does not meet Code's minimal lot width requirement. As surrounding lots
td.~ are developed, no opportunities exist to expand the site or Increase its width.
"~~'~ Surrounding properties are developed with attached dwellings and have similar
setbacks to these proposals. The lot's narrow width creates difficulty in designing
a reasonably sized building without reducing setbacks as requested.
While the plari features a retention pond on the site's northwest corner, the
application, did not include percolation tests proving the pond will recover within 24
'hours of a storm event. This information is required before the issuance of any
permits. ' A dumpster with chut~ planned for the northwest side of the building
must be designed to meet Solid Waste Department requirements. The application's
multi-use dock request will be forwarded to the CDB at a future date.
,
. .:
", .,,!)
\:J
, On July 12, 2001, the ORe reviewed the application and supporting
materials. Staff recommends approval with five co'nditions,'
. In response to questions, Mr. Parry said the building at the end of the road is
approxirT1ately 110 feet tall. Buildings next to this site are between 30- and 35~feet
tall. The CDB must reconsider this project if the developer increases density.
Concern was expressed the application was amended to increase the height of the
building from 44.5 feet to 50 feet without submission of an amended site plan. Mr.
Parry said the applicant has requested the additional height to increase ceiling
heights or to add a floor with additional units. A front setback reduction is
requested for parking spaces.
mcd080 1
9
08/21/01
':-t.5~.~::\:. :~:!'~~:~;..~.:. . .~~.~~~~. ,"~~f~'.~'L- .V... .'~ '" .
. , ,
I"~ ,'." "r \; ....\.:..
.. .:' /.' .,.. .: "', '., ..... . , '::,' ,: .,.. , , : .'. : . L. '.; . I 'I I' '.' I.: '. ; ~. .:"L' I < ~ " . . .. ". ,1 't r . . ... ' : '\ .. :",. ~ :' " ' . ~. .:. .,'..:.' . , : ~.. . . . . I t ~ 4., '. . ~ .... I" .... .: '. ' '. f.
,~
Assistant Planning Director Usa Fierce reported staff had received two letters
of opposition. One letter supports the application.
Robert Pergolizzi, representative, reviewed the request. He said the rear
setback is requested to install brick pavers and a hot tub. Most of the structure will
comply with Code. The landscape plan exceeds Code. He said density permits 11
units on the site. He sai~ the applicant will submit an amended application to add
two penthouse units. He said minimum Code requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit.
He said the building's height would be measured from the FEMA (Federal '
Emergency Management Administration) elevation.
In response to a concern that the site plan was not updated, Mr. Pergolizzi
said the applicant needs to close on'the property by the end of the month. It was
stated the closing could be delayed as the property has been on the market for
maryy years. It was suggested the application be withdrawn and resubmitted.
(, '
r.
~~:'> '
t ':'I:.I.t:
Roger Larson; representative, stated no parking is permitted on the street.
He.said demographics indicate most buyers will have one car only. He said the
applicant will submit a multi~use dock permit in the future. He said plans for an
'additional floor are not firm. The 50~foot height requested would provide flexibility
,to the development. ' He said the abutting developments feature small two-story
rentals, constructed two decades previously. He said the subject building will be
similar in height to nearby structures. He said the Code requires a setback for the
planned waterfront pavers.
, Two residents opposed the project. Also Island Estates Civic Association
President Boksen said the board opposed the project.
In response to a question, Ms. Tarapani said the project meets Code Infill
requirements, except for a small corner of the building. She said proposed setbacks
are similar to nearby properties. The structure will be 18 feet from the seawall. In
response to a 'question, Mr. Parry said most properties would require flexible
development standards to rebuild following a calamitous event. ' Few properties
meet current minimum lot widths. Ms. Fierce said the only alternative for the
property is home construction, which is inconsistent with neighboring uses. Ms.
Taraani said staff is encouraging reasonable development of the parking. '
It was felt the board should consider resident opposition to zero setbacks on
Island Estates. Mr. Larson said the building will be setback three feet farther from
the seawall than required by Code. The zero-foot setback is for pavers. The front
setback is for Code mandated parl<ing. The lot is larger then required. The angle of
the' cui de sac takes 20 feet from the lot where the requested setback is 23 feet
where 25 feet is required. He said the request is a minimum deviation from Code.
, '
It was suggested landscaping could replace the pavers and hot tub in the rear
setback.
u
'Mr. Pergolizi said most nearby properties are 100% Impervious. While the
Code now requires that 15% of the tot be impervious, he said this property will be
, ,
mcdOBO 1
10
08/21/01
.~ .. T ....... t. , ',' '.','... .." ..~~Idl\""""'>" ....~......."__. .,.,....h..
~
only 63% impervious. A professional landscape architect has designed buffering
with sod, hedge trees, crepe myrtles, etc. ' He said the rear will feature sod and a
palm tree. Plans are to Install brick pavers perpendicular to the docks for access.
Foot traffic would ruin sod. He said only haif of the rear of the property would
feature pavers. ,The front will feature a hedge and groupings of plants. The parking
lot asphalt will not reach the sidewalk along the entire property. In response to a
question, Mr. larson said deed restrictions require 15-foot front and rear setbacks.
He said the mechanicals will be installed on the flat roof.
Concern was expressed most flexible development applications request the
maximum flexibility permitted by Code. Concern for neighborhood regulations was
expressed. It was recommended the Code be reviewed regarding setback '
definitions. It was suggested setbacks should refer to vertical development, not flat
pavement. It was agreed no other 'code requires setbacks for horizontal surfaces.
Opposition to developing every property to its maximum use was stated. It was'
suggested flexible development require development issues be bartered to minimize
Infill development intrusion on neighborhoods. It was stated setbacks are large
enough to prevent shadows. Ms. Fierce said this would be a staff level application
ex'cept for the rear and side setback request. It was felt the applicant had
supported their position with sufficient evidence. It was suggested the board
should follow Code regulations, even if members disagree with them.
mcdOBO 1
1 1
OB/21/01
t"'~4:
, ,
'-
It was stated the applicant had not submitted the required site plan to amend
the height request. Discussion ensued regarding Infill requirenients and voting
rules.
Member Hooper moved to approve flexible development approval: l' reduce
minimum lot width from 1 50 feet to 1 25 feet; 2) reduce north front setback along
Dolphin Point from 25 feet to 4' feet; 3) reduce south rear setback from 15 feet to 0
feet; and 4} increase the height from 30 feet to 50 teet, as part of a 'Residential
Infill Project 'at Isl,and Estates of Clearwater, Unit 5-A, Lots 10-11 with conditions.
There was no second.
..' (~
Member Plisko moved to approve flexible development approval: 1) reduce
minimum lot width from 1 50 feet to 125 feet; 2) reduce north front setback along
Dolphin Point from 25 feet to 4 feet; 3) reduce south rear setback from 15 feet to 0
feet; and 4) increase the height from 30 feet to 44.5 feet, 'as part of a Residential
Infill Project at Island Estates of Clearwater, Unit 5-A, lots 10-11 with conditions:
1} final design of buildings to be consistent with conceptual elevations submitted;
2} density to be limited to nine dwellings units and building height to be limited to
44.5 feet; 3) Solid Waste' & Storm water Management requirements to be met, prior
to issuance of building permits; 4) setback reduction for hot tub along seawall to be
secured through application to the Board of Adjustment and Appeal for Building and
Flood, prior to issuance of building permits; and 6) all slgnage to comply with Code
, and with three bases: 1} The proposal complies with Flexible Development and
Residentiallnfill Project criteria; 2)The plan complies with general applicability
criteria; and 3}The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area.
t'~.~;.,. :: 4/.:.:":;J'.~: '.:" t.:~: "..:. I, ::'I"L'.'..'.r~I'. ..'. Of "~'1'.'" ."'.r' 'r.. .' '/; "'",, "."''J'.~' '.:~'. .,. .. ~~ I .I,.. '..
,f'
..~
The motion was duly seconded. Members Petersen, Moran, Pliska, and Hooper and
Chair Figurski voted "Aye"; Member Mazur abstained. Motion carried. ' .
"
, ITEM F - DIRECTORS ITEMS
, Addition to expert witness list - Richard Kephart
Mr. Plisko moved to designate Senior Planner Richard Kehpart as a planning
and development expert. The motion was duly seconded'and carried unanimously.
,
:: .', .
Agenda - September 14, 2001 Workshop at Municipal Services BUilding
\', .
, "
, A copy of the agenda was distributed. Staff estimated the 12:30 p.m.
workshop would last two hours. COB issues will be discussed and,Code changes
proposed. ' '
{+..'
::
~k~. '
. '
}'., .',
Amscot
mcd080 1
12
08/21/01
"
c"
It was stated the COB had approved the Amscot location on Gulf-to*Bay
Boulevard with a condition that its signs not advertise its check cashing services
after the business's owner had stated check cashing services would be less than
one.third of the location's business. Concern was expressed Amscot's marketing
campaign'advertises its check cashing services. Mr. Parry said on-site signage does
not advertise check cashing services. It was questioned if a City mechanism could ,
control national advertising. Ms. Tarapani said staff can monitor the business if
complaints are received. Ms. Dougall-Sides said it is illegal to misrepresent the use
of a building.
Promotions
"
, COB members congratul,ated Ms. Tarapani,' Ms. Fierce, and 'Ms. Clayton
regarding their promotions. '
. ITEM G - ADJOURNMENT '
The meeting adjourned at 5:21 p.m.
Chai
Community Development
Attest:
~
;",' >:l ;.:, ~ '1
V
. <, .
. '
"",.~.) .;'.':~ '.~L:'."I~~.\\l'.':"..I".t.<.1'1:":"'~1'.:;',"~'. :"'i..'~... :l,~ ....,