11/17/2009
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
November 17, 2009
Present: Nicholas C. Fritsch Chair
Thomas Coates Vice Chair
Jordan Behar Board Member
Frank L. Dame Board Member
Doreen DiPolito Board Member
Richard Adelson Board Member
Brian A. Barker Board Member
Norma R. Carlough Alternate/Acting Board Member
Also Present: Gina Grimes Attorney for the Board
Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney
Michael L. Delk Planning Director
Robert Tefft Development Review Manager
Patricia O. Sullivan Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 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.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: October 20, 2009
Member Behar moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of October 20, 2009, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Carlough did not vote.
D. 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 1-10)
1. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2009-08026 – 300 Hamden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado
Drive and a portion of 316 Hamden Drive)
(Related to DVA2009-00002, FLD2009-08027/DVA2009-00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust.
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC.
Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email:
eda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 1.106 acres located on the south side of Third Street between Coronado Drive
and Hamden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Community Development 2009-11-17 1
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 142-room overnight accommodation
use, 3,900 square-feet of retail sales floor area and 2,750 square-feet of restaurant floor area in
the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 48,190.53 square-feet (1.106 acres), a lot width of 167
feet along Hamden Drive, 220 feet along Third Street and 243.68 feet along Coronado Drive, a
front (east) setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to building), 6.5 feet (to upper level
balconies) and 13.8 feet (to pavement), a front (north) setback along Third Street of 11.8 feet (to
building), 6.7 feet (to upper level balconies) and five feet (to patio), a front (west) setback along
Coronado Drive of 16 feet (to building), 12 feet (to upper level balconies) and 5.4 feet (to patio),
a side (south and east) setback of zero feet (to building and pavement adjacent to proposed
Hotel B), a side (south) setback of 21 feet (to building adjacent to Coronado Drive), a building
height of 74.33 feet (from BFE to flat roof) and 82 feet (to top of architectural embellishments)
and 182 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of CDC Section 2-803.C, and approval of a two-year development order; and (2)
Increase the permitted density by the allocation of 95 overnight accommodation units from the
Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design.
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 142 rooms (148.90 rooms/acre on
net lot acreage, including the allocation of 95 units from the Hotel Density Reserve), restaurant
use of 2,750 square-feet, retail sales use of 3,900 square-feet (0.137 FAR for restaurant and
retail sales uses based on original lot square footage) and approximately 5,190 square-feet of
accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 74.33 feet (to flat roof deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Behar declared a conflict of interest.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17.
See page 5 for motion of approval.
2. Level Three Application
Case: DVA2009-00002 – 300 Hamden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado
Drive and a portion of 316 Hamden Drive)
(Related to FLD2009-08026, FLD2009-08027/DVA2009-00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust.
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC.
Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email:
eda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 1.106 acres located on the south side of Third Street between Coronado Drive
and Hamden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between Agostino Digiovanni, Francesco Carriera and John Conti, as Co-Trustees of the
Tropicana Resort Land Trust (the property owners) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the
allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design.
Community Development 2009-11-17 2
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 142 rooms (148.90 rooms/acre on
net lot acreage, including the allocation of 95 units from the Hotel Density Reserve), restaurant
use of 2,750 square-feet, retail sales use of 3,900 square-feet (0.137 FAR for restaurant and
retail sales uses based on original lot square footage) and approximately 5,190 square-feet of
accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 74.33 feet (to flat roof deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Behar declared a conflict of interest.
See Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2009-00002 2009-11-17.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides announced that the second hearing for Case
DVA2009-00002 is scheduled for December 17, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
See page 5 for motion to recommend approval.
3. Level Two Application
Case: FLD2009-08027 – 316 Hamden Drive (including a portion of 316 Hamden Drive and
326 and 330 Hamden Drive)
(Related to DVA2009-00003, FLD2009-08026/DVA2009-00002 and FLD2009-09036)
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust; and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers, LLC.
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC.
Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email:
eda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 0.82 acre located on the west side of Hamden Drive approximately 200 feet
south of Third Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 118-unit overnight accommodation use
and 1,335 square-feet of retail sales floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of
35,730.06 square-feet (0.82 acres), a lot width of 312 feet along Hamden Drive, a front (east)
setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to building), 6.5 feet (to upper level balconies) and 11
feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero
feet (to building adjacent to proposed Hotel A), a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to building
adjacent to proposed Hotel A) and 10.7 feet (to Hotel B building), a building height of 84 feet
(from BFE to flat roof) and 99.5 feet (to top of architectural embellishments) and 120 parking
spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of CDC Section
2-803.C, and approval of a two-year development order; and (2) Increase the permitted density
by the allocation of 79 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created
pursuant to Beach by Design.
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 118 rooms (149.44 rooms/acre on
net lot acreage, including the allocation of 79 units from the Hotel Density Reserve), retail sales
use of 1,335 square-feet (0.037 FAR based on original lot square footage) and approximately
1,060 square-feet of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 84 feet (to flat roof deck).
Community Development 2009-11-17 3
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Behar declared a conflict of interest.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17.
See page 5 for motion of approval.
4. Level Three Application
Case: DVA2009-00003 – 316 Hamden Drive (including a portion of 316 Hamden Drive
and 326 and 330 Hamden Drive)
(Related to FLD2009-08027, FLD2009-08026/DVA2009-00002 and FLD2009-09036)
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust; and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers, LLC.
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC.
Agent: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP (P.O.
Box 1368, Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-461-1818; fax: 727-462-0365; email:
eda@jpfirm.com).
Location: 0.82 acre located on the west side of Hamden Drive approximately 200 feet
south of Third Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between Agostino Digiovanni, Francesco Carriera and John Conti, as Co-Trustees of the
Tropicana Resort Land Trust and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers, LLC (the property
owners) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density
Reserve under Beach by Design.
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 118 rooms (149.44 rooms/acre on
net lot acreage, including the allocation of 79 units from the Hotel Density Reserve), retail sales
use of 1,335 square-feet (0.037 FAR based on original lot square footage) and approximately
1,060 square-feet of accessory use to the hotel at a height of 84 feet (to flat roof deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Behar declared a conflict of interest.
See Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2009-00003 2009-11-17.
Ms. Dougall-Sides announced that the second hearing for Case DVA2009-00003 is
scheduled for December 17, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
See page 5 for motion to recommend approval.
Community Development 2009-11-17 4
5. Case: FLD2009-09036 – 300 and 316 Hamden Drive Level Two Application
(Related to FLD2009-08026/DVA2009-00002 and FLD2009-08027/DVA2009-00003)
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust; and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers, LLC.
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC.
Agent: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting (1714 CR 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone:
727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email: terriskapik@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 1.926 total acres located on the east and west sides of Hamden Drive, directly
south of Third Street.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a commercial dock in conjunction with
proposed hotels at 300 and 316 Hamden Drive for 18 slips totaling 2,592.7 square-feet, under
the provisions of Section 3-601.C.3, and approval of a two-year development order.
Proposed Use: Commercial dock for 18 slips.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member Behar declared a conflict of interest.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-09036 2009-11-17.
Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2009-08036, FLD 2009-08027, and
FLD2009-09036 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the
application(s) and the Staff Report(s), and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law stated in the Staff Report(s), with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly
seconded. Members Coates, Dame, DiPolito, Adelson, and Barker, Chair Fritsch, and Acting
Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Member Behar abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
Member Coates moved to recommend approval of Cases DVA2009-00002 and
DVA2009-00003 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the
application(s) and the Staff Report(s), and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law stated in the Staff Report(s). The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Dame,
DiPolito, Adelson, and Barker, Chair Fritsch, and Acting Member Carlough voted “Aye”; Member
Behar abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Level Two Application
Cases: FLD2008-09035/PLT2009-00002 – 109 S. McMullen-Booth Road
Owner/Applicant: Agostino DiGiovanni
Agent: Ronald Letize, (1928 Valencia Way, Clearwater FL, 33764; phone: 727-797-8972;
fax: 727-797-8928; email: ronletize@tampabay.rr.com).
Location: 0.595 acre located at the southeast corner of McMullen-Booth Road and
John's Parkway.
Atlas Page: 292A.
Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit four attached dwellings in the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-204.E.; and Preliminary Plat approval for a 4-lot subdivision for attached dwellings.
Community Development 2009-11-17 5
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Matt Jackson, Planner II.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2008-09035/PLT2009-00002 2009-11-17.
See page 8 for motion of approval.
7. Case: DRI2009-00001 – 430 Park Place Boulevard Level Three Application
Owner: Glenborough Fund XII, LLC.
Applicant: Glenborough Park Place, LLC.
Agent: Randy Coen, Coen & Company (P.O. Box 10658, Tampa, FL 33679; phone: 813-
877-7989; fax: 813-877-7609; email: randy@coenconsulting.com).
Location: 99.13 acres generally bordered by Drew Street on the north, Gulf-to-Bay
Boulevard on the south, Hampton Road on the east, and various properties that front on
US Highway 19 N on the west.
Atlas Page: 291A.
Zoning: Commercial (C); Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT); Office (O); and
Preservation (P) Districts.
Request: To amend the previously approved development order for the Park Place
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) through the Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC)
process to adopt a land use conversion factor for Parcel 7 for the conversion of retail
commercial development to office development; allocate a total of 55,278 square-feet of
approved retail commercial development potential to Parcel 7; allocate a total of 10,200 square-
feet of retail commercial development potential to Parcel 9; and recognize the extension of the
build-out and termination dates of the DRI until December 31, 2011.
Existing Uses: Attached Dwellings, Manufacturing, Offices, Restaurants, and Retail Sales and
Services.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager.
See Exhibit: Staff Report DRI2009-00001 2009-11-17.
Ms. Dougall-Sides announced that the second hearing for Case DRI2009-00001 is
scheduled for December 17, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
See page 8 for motion to recommend approval.
8. Case: FLD2008-12033 – 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Level Two Application
(Related to DVA2008-00002)
Owner/Applicant: William M. Shephard, Trustee.
Agent: Alex Azan, Keith Zayac & Associates (P.O. Box 1156, Safety Harbor, FL 34695;
phone: 727-793-9888; email: alex@keithzayac.com).
Location: 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open
Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately
600 feet east of Hamden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) and Open Space/Recreation Districts.
Community Development 2009-11-17 6
Request: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96-unit
overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186-unit overnight accommodation
use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview
Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed
building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east)
setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed
building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and
decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed
building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top
of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet-
only in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight
accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design.
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 186 rooms (78.48 rooms/acre on lot
acreage zoned Tourist (T) District, including the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density
Reserve) and approximately 37,647 square-feet of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of
134 feet (to flat roof deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17.
See page 8 for motion of approval.
9. Case: DVA2008-00002 – 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Level Three Application
(Related to FLD2008-12033)
Owner/Applicant: William M. Shephard, Trustee.
Agent: Harry S. Cline, Esq., MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen (P.O. Box 1669,
Clearwater, FL 33757; phone: 727-441-8966; fax: 727-442-8470; email:
hsc@macfar.com).
Location: 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open
Space/Recreation District) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard
approximately 600 feet east of Hamden Drive.
Atlas Page: 276A.
Zoning: Tourist (T) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) Districts.
Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement
between William M. Shephard, Trustee (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater,
providing for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design.
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 186 rooms (78.48 rooms/acre on lot
acreage zoned Tourist (T) District, including the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density
Reserve) and approximately 37,647 square-feet of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of
134 feet (to flat roof deck).
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Beach Association and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report DVA2008-00002 2009-11-17.
Community Development 2009-11-17 7
Ms. Dougall-Sides announced that the second hearing for Case DVA2008-00002 is
scheduled for December 17, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2008-09035/PLT2009-00002 and FLD
2008-12033 on today’s Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the
application(s) and the Staff Report(s), and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law stated in the Staff Report(s), with conditions of approval as listed and moved to recommend
approval of Cases DRI2009-00001 and DVA2008-00002 on today’s Consent Agenda based on
evidence in the record, including the application(s) and the Staff Report(s), and hereby adopt
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report(s). The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
10. PULLED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
Case: FLD2009-09033 – 1225 S. Highland Avenue Level Two Application
Owner: O & P Investments of Tampa, Inc. and RLI Beneficial Acquisitions of Tampa, Inc.
Applicant: Pine Berry Senior Limited Partnership
Agent: David L. Bilyeu, P.E., Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. (13825 Icot Boulevard, Suite 605,
Clearwater, FL 33760; phone: 727-524-1818; fax: 727-524-6090; email:
dbilyeu@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com).
Location: 3.22 acres located on the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Barry
Street.
Atlas Page: 307A.
Zoning: Commercial (C) District and High Density Residential (HDR).
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings in the High Density
Residential (HDR) District and Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 140,075 square-feet, a
lot width of 166 feet (along Highland Avenue) and 627 feet (along Barry Street), a front (west)
setback of 289.3 feet (to porte-cochere) and 29.2 feet (to pavement), a front (north) setback of
26 feet (to building) and 17.5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 22.8 feet (to building)
and 8.3 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 30.3 feet (to building), a rear (south)
setback of 134.1 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of 24.7 feet (to building) and 16 feet (to
pavement), a rear (south) setback of five feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of four feet
(to pavement), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to pavement) and a side (east) setback of 41.6
feet (to building) and five feet (to pavement), a building height of 49 feet (to midpoint of roof) and
91 parking spaces under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-504.F and
2-704.C as a residential infill project and comprehensive infill redevelopment project
respectively and a reduction to interior landscape requirements from 10 percent to 5.5 percent,
a reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from 10 feet to five feet, a reduction to the side
(west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to four feet and a reduction to the rear (south) landscape
buffer from 10 feet to five feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202G.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17.
Raymond DeVries requested Party Status.
Community Development 2009-11-17 8
Member Coates moved to grant Raymond DeVries Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Lorne Page requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Lorne Page Party Status as representative for Building
One Kalmia Condominium Association. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Member Barker moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code
enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Carlough did not vote.
Planner III Scott Kurleman reviewed the staff report. In response to questions, he said the
ratio of project parking spaces to apartments will be slightly less than 1:1. Neighbor concerns
relate to the common wall on the south property line and the historical access condominium
owners have had to several garages.
Development representative Dusan Peric said he had contacted the condominiums’
property management company, met with the condominium association president, and thought all
issues of concern had been addressed.
Party Status Holder Raymond DeVries said the developer purchased the 33-foot
easement that some condominium owners need to access their garages. He expressed
concern that access could be lost if the subject property is sold and requested a written
agreement that retains cross access between the properties. He said without this access,
condominium owners would have to drive on the grass to reach their garages.
Mr. Peric agreed to provide condominium owners access to their garages. He said he
could not provide a written agreement, as that could impact the award of tax-credits to the
development. He assured the condominium owners that the issue can be worked out.
Party Status Holder Lorne Page expressed concern that a large opening along the
roofline will remain after the developer removes its portion of the building the condominium
owners use for a recreation center. Discussion ensued regarding the common wall. Mr. Peric
agreed to finish the common wall to the roofline when the developer’s portion of the building is
removed.
Three residents expressed concerns regarding flooding, retaining access to
condominium garages and 13 parking spaces, low-income housing in the development, and
increased traffic.
Mr. Kurleman said the City does not regulate apartment residents’ income. The
development’s stormwater plan is satisfactory.
Development representative David Bilyeu reviewed stormwater solutions. He said old
water and sewer lines will be removed. He said the developer has coordinated efforts with the
City to protect an easement east of the existing building where the new lines will be installed.
Community Development 2009-11-17 9
Discussion ensued with comments that the common wall agreement should identify who
is liable for repairs. It was stated that the developer and condominium owners need to meet
and coordinate efforts related to the wall and parking.
Mr. Peric said the developer will repair and fill in any gaps to the common wall and work
with neighbors regarding cross access to the garages.
Member DiPolito moved to approve Case FLD2009-09033 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 and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Carlough did not vote.
E. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS: (Item 1)
1. Case: FLD2009-08030 – 900 N. Osceola Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Basin Marina, LLC.
Agent: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting (1714 CR 1, Suite 22, Dunedin, FL 34698; phone:
727-786-5747; fax: 727-786-7479; email: terriskapik@woodsconsulting.org).
Location: 5.10 acres (3.55 acres upland and 1.55 acres submerged) located on the west
side of N. Osceola Avenue at the terminus of Nicholson Street, approximately 500 feet
north of Seminole Street
Atlas Page: 277B.
Zoning: Tourist (T) District.
Request: Flexible Development approval to permit an 87-slip marina in the Downtown (D)
District with a dockmaster building height of 17.33 feet and 50 parking spaces, under the
provisions of Section 2-903.H.
Proposed Use: Marina.
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition and Old Clearwater Bay
Neighborhood Association.
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III.
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17.
Vickie Morgan requested Party Status.
Member Dame moved to grant Vickie Morgan Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Jeff Litton requested Party Status.
Member Coates moved to grant Jeff Litton Party Status. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
Member DiPolito moved to accept Scott Kurleman as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, landscape ordinance, tree ordinance, and code
enforcement. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board
Member Carlough did not vote.
Community Development 2009-11-17 10
Mr. Kurleman reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended denial.
Applicant representative Todd Pressman requested additional time for his presentation.
Member Coates moved to provide Mr. Pressman 15 minutes to make his presentation.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough
did not vote.
Mr. Pressman said a quiet marina, without fuel or commercial boats, is proposed. He
said the Old Bay character district transitions from the downtown core to residential and does
not prohibit marinas. He said the project would revitalize an area in disrepair, eliminate blight,
and provide a recreational opportunity. He said the site had marina activity in the 1960s and
this use is harmonious with the intense marine use next door at the Seminole boat ramps. He
said the project will preserve views of the water and meet the City’s comprehensive plan to
preserve recreation and commercial working waterfronts. He said the project will provide public
access to the waterfront, a bench, bicycle rack, and bathrooms. He said the Chamber of
Commerce has agreed to install an information kiosk. He said light poles will match the Old Bay
style. If requested, he said the project will install signage on the Pinellas Trail directing trail
users to the marina.
Mr. Todd said the project’s second phase will develop the uplands. Construction had
stopped on the Antigua project following the installation of pilings. The pilings, which are viable
for future use, will be fenced and surrounded by hedges and large trees.
Party Status Holder Vickie Morgan requested that conditions related to phase two
remain in place. She said the retaining wall that her property shares with the subject property
needs reinforcement.
Party Status Holder Jeff Litton spoke in support of the project, stating that the property’s
current condition is unacceptable. He requested that the project’s first task repair the retaining
wall that abuts his property. He said the wall is unstable and his property is eroding due to
excavation done for the Antigua project.
Two people spoke in support of the project.
Mr. Kurleman said not every item in the Downtown Plan is acceptable in every character
district. A project cannot select only the goals, objectives, and policies that support the subject
endeavor. The project should include completion of phase two and address the pilings and
rebar, rather than hiding them. He said the project’s residential component is critical. With the
exception of the boat launch, all nearby properties are residential. He said the proposal is
inconsistent with the visions of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
In response to questions, Mr. Kurleman said this project will allow an abandoned
construction site with pilings to remain on the property and hinder the use of adjacent
properties. The dock master building will have no bearing on setbacks for the condominium
project.
Community Development 2009-11-17 11
Mr. Litton expressed concern that the retaining wall had slipped three feet. He
suggested that the rebar could be cut off the tops of the pilings. He said the landscaping would
be an improvement. He said he looks into a pit every day.
Mr. Pressman said the neighborhood supports the project. He said the boat ramp will
continue to be the main attractor to the neighborhood. He said the project will inspect and
repair the retaining wall and provide an outstanding landscape buffer. In response to a
question, he said there is no time line for phase two; the residential market needs to rebound.
Discussion ensued with comments that it would be unreasonable to expect someone to
build a condominium project in today’s economy; the condominiums will be constructed when it
makes economic sense. It was suggested that this project could help jumpstart phase two.
Support was expressed for reducing onsite blight. Concern was expressed regarding repairs
necessary to the neighbors’ sea wall. It was stated that the project is in harmony with the boat
ramp next door. Concern was expressed that phase two plans had not accompanied this
request.
Ms. Dougall-Sides requested that staff bring back conditions of approval for board
consideration in December. She said the project does not have an easement to use the
Seminole boat ramp property for emergency access.
Member Dame moved to approve Case FLD2009-08030 based on the evidence and
testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby
make the following Findings of Fact based on said evidence that the development proposal is
consistent with: 1) the district vision of the old Bay character district of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan due to the location of the Seminole Boat Ramp next door; 2) the Flexibility
criteria of the Community Development Code; 3) the commercial dock review criteria of the
Code; 4) the marina review criteria of the Code; 5) the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals of the Code as the proposal is in harmony with adjacent properties, including density
and hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the application complies with the City Community
Development Code Sections 2-903.H, 3-601.C.3, 3-603, and 3-913, and request that Staff
develop a list of Conditions of Approval, including that the site be made safe to OSHA standards
regarding rebar, that the retaining wall abutting the properties of Mr. Litton and Ms. Morgan be
repaired to safe conditions, that standard setbacks on the north side of the property be retained,
that an emergency easement on the southern side of the property be obtained and that Staff
present the list of Conditions for final approval at the December 15, 2009 meeting. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Board Member Carlough did not vote.
The CDB (Community Development Board) recessed from 3:15 to 3:27 p.m.
F. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL: (Item 1)
1. Case: APP2009-00007 – 321 Lotus Path
Owners/Appellants: Daniel and Sharon Meek.
Agent: R. Carlton Ward, Esq. (1253 Park Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; phone: 727-
443-3281; fax: 727-447-8830; email: cward@richardsgilkey.com).
Location: 0.199 acre located on the south side of Lotus Path, approximately 400 feet east
of Druid Road South.
Atlas Page: 295A.
Community Development 2009-11-17 12
Zoning: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District.
Request: An appeal from a Level One (Flexible Standard Development) denial decision,
pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-501.A.3, for a front (north) setback
reduction from 25 to 21 feet for a garage addition (related to Case FLS2009-09016).
Existing Use: Detached Dwelling.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition.
Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III.
Member DiPolito declared a conflict of interest.
See Exhibit: Staff Report APP2009-00007 2009-11-17.
Planner III Wayne M. Wells reviewed the staff report and reasons for staff’s denial of the
request to add a garage to the front of the property. He said the requested setback is not
consistent with the neighborhood. In response to a question, he said approval would not affect
Harbor Oaks’ designation as a historic neighborhood. The home’s architectural style is not
historic.
Appellant representative Carlton Ward discussed neighborhood houses that are closer to
the sidewalk than the proposed addition. He said Lotus Path is next to Morton Plant Hospital,
which is not the most secure area of the neighborhood. The garage addition would allow Mrs.
Meeks to access her house directly from the garage. He said the five-foot wide sidewalk in front
of the house is 13 feet from the curb. As proposed, he said the garage would be 48 feet from the
curb. This house, built in the 1950s, was excluded from the neighborhood’s historic district. He
said neighborhood setbacks vary and the addition would be consistent with the neighborhood. He
said four other houses on the street were granted similar variances.
Property owner Dan Meek said following treatment at Morton Plan Hospital, an indigent
person had stolen a laptop from a car in his driveway. He said a panhandler had approached him
in front of his house. He said he wants his family to be able to access their home without incident
when he is out of town.
One person spoke in support of the addition.
It was commented that the aesthetics of the proposed addition match the neighborhood
and that setbacks have been allowed over time. It was felt that the family’s safety should be
considered. It was noted that concerns about the neighborhood’s historic nature do not apply to
this house. Discussion ensued regarding front setbacks with comments that decisions regarding
front setback patterns are subjective and 16 nearby houses are closer to the road than the
addition would be. It was felt the neighborhood lacks sufficient uniformity to deny this request.
Support was expressed for the staff’s decision.
Member Coates moved to grant the appeal, Case APP2009-00007, and reverse the
Staff’s development order denying the application based on the evidence and testimony
presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today’s hearing, and hereby make the
following Findings of Fact based on said evidence: 1) the decision appealed from misconstrued
or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of this development code; 2) The decision of the CDB
will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this development code; and 3) The
decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare and
Community Development 2009-11-17 13
hereby issue the Conclusions of Law that the application complies with the City Code Section(s)
2-203 anc;l 3-913. The motion was duly seconded. Members Coates, Behar, Dame, Adelson,
and Barker, and Chair Fritsch voted "Aye"; Acting Member Carlough voted "Nay." Member
DiPolito abstained. Motion carried.
G. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:09 p.m.
~~c=)
Chair
Community Development Board
Community Development 2009-11-17
14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-08026 (Related to DVA2009-00002; and FLD2009-
08027/DVA2009-00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Agenda Item: D.1. (Related to E.1.; and D.2., D.3. and E.2.)
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC
Representative: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Address: 300 Hamden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive and a
portion of 316 Hamden Drive)
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 142-room overnight
accommodation use, 3,900 square feet of retail sales floor area and
2,750 square feet of restaurant floor area in the Tourist (T) District
with a lot area of 48,190.53 square feet (1.106 acres), a lot width of
167 feet along Hamden Drive, 220 feet along Third Street and
243.68 feet along Coronado Drive, a front (east) setback along
Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to building), 6.5 feet (to upper level
balconies) and 13.8 feet (to pavement), a front (north) setback
along Third Street of 11.8 feet (to building), 6.7 feet (to upper level
balconies) and five feet (to patio), a front (west) setback along
Coronado Drive of 16 feet (to building), 12 feet (to upper level
balconies) and 5.4 feet (to patio), a side (south and east) setback of
zero feet (to building and pavement adjacent to proposed Hotel B),
a side (south) setback of 21 feet (to building adjacent to Coronado
Drive), a building height of 74.33 feet (from BFE to flat roof) and
82 feet (to top of architectural embellishments) and 182 parking
spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under
the provisions of CDC Section 2-803.C, and approval of a two-
year development order; and (2) Increase the permitted density by
the allocation of 95 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel
Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design.
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN Small Motel
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
CHARACTER
DISTRICT:
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: 46-room motel and 138-seat restaurant
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 142
rooms (148.90 rooms/acre on net lot acreage,
including the allocation of 95 units from the Hotel
Density Reserve), restaurant use of 2,750 square
feet, retail sales use of 3,900 square feet (0.137
FAR for restaurant and retail sales uses based on
total lot area) and approximately 5,190 square feet
of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 74.33
feet (to flat roof deck)
EXISTING North:Tourist (T) District Overnight accommodations
SURROUNDING South:Tourist (T) District Retail sales, Offices and
ZONING AND USES: Overnight accommodations
East: Preservation (P) District Clearwater Harbor
West: Tourist (T) District Overnight accommodations,
Restaurant and Retail sales
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.106 acres located on the south side of Third Street between Coronado Drive and Hamden
Drive. The subject property is currently developed with a 46-room motel and 138-seat
restaurant. The subject site has approximately 243 feet of frontage along Coronado Drive and
220 feet of frontage along Third Street. The subject property is being modified from its platted
and developed property lines to accommodate the proposed development and will have
approximately 167 feet of frontage along Hamden Drive. There are also four waterfront lots on
the east side of Hamden Drive that are attached to the properties on the west side of Hamden
Drive and are 10-foot in depth from Hamden Drive to the water. The waterfront lots are also
being modified to coincide with this proposed hotel (Hotel A) and the adjacent hotel under
FLD2009-08027 at 316 Hamden Drive (Hotel B). There are existing docks in varying conditions
of deterioration for approximately 20 boats.
On January 16, 2007, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved Case FLD2006-
10054 with eight conditions of approval for the same subject property, permitting a commercial
dock for 20 slips totaling 2,734 square feet to be used in conjunction with the existing motels.
The applicant complied with conditions of approval to record Declarations of Unity of Title,
record drainage easements and apply for an upland permit to construct fire risers for the docks
(BCP2007-08185). This building permit for the fire risers was not pursued and the permit was
voided, placing this approval in an expired status.
Other overnight accommodation uses exist to the north of the subject property. The
Aqualea/Hyatt overnight accommodation project and public parking garage is directly across
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 2 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
Coronado Drive from this subject property. Also directly across Coronado Drive is the existing
Surf Style retail sales and Britts restaurant property, which is the subject of a proposed
redevelopment project for expanded retail sales and restaurant floor area and a parking garage.
Properties to the south of the subject property along Coronado Drive include overnight
accommodation uses, retail sales and service uses and a restaurant. The proposed Hotel B at 316
Hamden Drive is adjacent to the south. Clearwater Harbor exists to the east of the subject
property.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to construct a 142-unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 148.90
rooms/acre (based on net lot acreage), which includes the allocation of 95 units from the Hotel
Density Reserve under Beach by Design. Besides the hotel, a 2,750 square-foot restaurant and
3,900 square feet of retail sales uses are proposed as primary uses along Coronado Drive (0.137
FAR for restaurant and retail sales uses, based on original lot square footage). A land use
intensity calculation has been performed for this proposal to ensure the gross floor area of
commercial floor area and the number of hotel rooms complies with the maximum allowable
intensity through the future land use category and Beach by Design. The proposal also includes
approximately 5,190 square feet of accessory uses to the hotel (meeting rooms and an exercise
room), which represents approximately 6.27 percent of the gross floor area of the hotel, in
compliance with recently adopted Code provisions. This is the third hotel to be placed on the
Community Development Board agenda since the amendment of Beach by Design in July 2008
creating the Hotel Density Reserve as a means to encourage the construction of new mid-size
hotels on the beach in response to the loss of hotel rooms since 2002. Also on this CDB agenda
is a companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00002) that must be approved by City
Council, which provides for the allocation of the 95 units from the Hotel Density Reserve. This
Development Agreement provides for mandatory evacuation/closure of the hotel in the event of
the posting of a hurricane watch including Clearwater Beach by the National Hurricane Center,
which also complies with Beach by Design criteria. The applicant indicates room rates for this
hotel will be reasonably priced for a family beach vacation contrasted with the Sandpearl and
Aqualea/Hyatt resorts. This proposal complies with the Beach by Design criteria to access all
rooms through a lobby and internal corridors. This proposal is also related to a proposed
overnight accommodation use at 316 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08027/DVA2009-00003, Hotel
B). These two hotels are joined through the parking garage and amenity levels at the southeast
portion of this subject property.
The proposal includes redefining or modifying lot lines from that existing. The proposed Hotel
A parcel is made up of three existing parcels and a portion of a fourth parcel. A recommended
condition of approval will require the recording of a Minor Lot Adjustment prior to the issuance
of any permits, so that the new lot line locations will be corrected in accordance with this
application. In compliance with the conditions of approval for Case FLD2006-10054 for the
docks (now expired), the applicant recorded three Declaration of Unity of Title documents, tying
the water lots to the main lots on the west side of Hamden Drive. As part of the Minor Lot
Adjustment process, Staff will prepare Release of Unity of Title documents for the prior
recorded documents, as well as new Declaration of Unity of Title documents corresponding to
the new parcels for Hotels A and B.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 3 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
The proposed 142-room hotel is proposed on 1.106 acres that is designed with frontages along
Hamden Drive, Third Street and Coronado Drive. The hotel is proposed at a height of 74.33 feet
from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof deck and at a height of 82 feet to the top of
architectural embellishments that gives visual interest to the top of the building. The hotel will
take primary access from Hamden Drive, but will have a secondary access driveway on
Coronado Drive. A covered entry portico and drop-off area off Hamden Drive is designed
directly south of the hotel lobby. The ground level of this hotel provides the hotel lobby and
4,520 square feet of meeting rooms. The 2,750 square-foot restaurant is located on the ground
level at the northwest corner of the hotel (at the intersection of Coronado Drive and Third
Street). Retail sales uses of 3,900 square feet are also located on the ground floor along, and
oriented to, Coronado Drive. The restaurant with an outdoor seating area and the retail sales uses
will assist in activating the street frontage along Coronado Drive. While located within the hotel
building, the restaurant and retail sales uses are designed as primary uses, not accessory uses to
the hotel, and they will serve the needs of beach customers as well as hotel guests. The ground
through third floors of this hotel on this subject property provide a total of 182 parking spaces of
the total 302 spaces in the overall parking garage between Hotels A and B. The fourth level
provides an outdoor amenity deck for a swimming pool and other outdoor activities. The fourth
level of the hotel also has 34 rooms and the exercise room. The fifth, sixth and seventh floors
provide 36 rooms per floor. All parking garage levels will be open for natural ventilation.
Balconies are provided for many guest rooms on all sides of the hotel building. The proposed
74.33-foot building height for this project transitions building height from the highest on the west
side of Coronado Drive (Aqualea/Hyatt – 150-foot maximum height) to the detached dwellings to
the northeast of this site on Devon Drive (30-foot maximum height). The exterior base and body
colors of the building will be primarily Roman Column, Welcome White and Compatible Cream.
Wall accents will be Copper Mountain at the base and white trim. Roof tiles will be Spanish tile
of reds and gray-browns, while metal awnings will be a burgundy color. All areas within the
setbacks provided will be landscaped to enhance the site and building.
The proposal includes setback reductions to various structures around the perimeter of the
proposed parcel. The minimum required front setback for overnight accommodation, restaurant
and retail sales uses under the Tourist (T) District is 15 feet. The building is proposed with a
front (east) setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to building), 6.5 feet (to upper level
balconies) and 13.8 feet (to pavement). The front building setback is to the parking garage area
(Levels 1 – 4), whereas the actual hotel tower will be set back 10.4 feet (all levels). Front (north)
setbacks proposed along Third Street include 11.8 feet (to building), 6.7 feet (to upper level
balconies) and five feet (to patio). Along Coronado Drive, front setbacks of 16 feet (to building),
12 feet (to upper level balconies) and 5.4 feet (to patio) are proposed. Minimum side setbacks
for overnight accommodation, restaurant and retail sales uses are 10 feet. The proposal includes
a side (south and east) setback of zero feet, where the building and pavement are adjacent to the
proposed Hotel B. The building is proposed at a side (south) setback of 21 feet adjacent to the
common property line of 317 Coronado Drive.
There is a retention vault proposed under the ramp in the parking garage from the first to the
second floor. There is also a retention pond for water quality purposes proposed along the south
side of the Hotel A building adjacent to 317 Coronado Drive. The outfall structure at this
retention pond will allow overflow water to flow through pipes traversing the Hotel B property,
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 4 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
joining up to an existing drainage pipe crossing Hamden Drive and through the seawall on the
east side of Hamden Drive.
Docks that will be accessory to and serve both Hotels A and B are also being processed on this
same CDB agenda under Case No. FLD2009-09036. These docks will be accessible to the
guests of the hotels by a walkway from the public sidewalk along the east side of Hamden Drive.
The existing paved areas on the water lots will be removed and the water lots landscaped as an
enhancement to the hotels. Existing overhead utility lines running along the east side of Hamden
Drive will be placed underground with this proposal. The proposal includes seven-foot wide
sidewalks along both sides of Hamden Drive and along Third Street.
The applicant is requesting a two-year development order due to market conditions. Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must
be submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise
specified under this approval.
Density/Intensity: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2-801.1,
the maximum density for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 50 overnight
accommodation rooms per acre and the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1.0. The applicant
and Planning and Development Department Staff have prepared a “mixed use” calculation to
ensure the maximum allowable intensity is not exceeded. Based on the 6,650 square feet of
commercial floor area proposed as primary uses along Coronado Drive, this floor area was
subtracted from the proposed lot area of 48,190.53 square feet (1.106 acres) to determine the net
lot acreage for the purposes of determining the maximum number of hotel rooms allowable (both
for the base density and the maximum permissible for the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by
Design [adopted as an amendment to Beach by Design under Ordinance 7925-08]). Based on the
net lot acreage of 0.9536 acres and the base density of 50 rooms/acre, a maximum of 47 rooms is
permitted. Based on the same net lot acreage and the maximum density under the Hotel Density
Reserve of 150 rooms per acre, a maximum of 143 rooms is permissible. When the base density
number of rooms is subtracted from the overall maximum under the Hotel Density Reserve, the
maximum number of rooms the applicant could request from the Hotel Density Reserve is 96
rooms. The applicant is only requesting 95 rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve. As such, the
proposed FAR, based on the original lot square footage) is 0.137 and the proposed density is
148.90 rooms/acre, based on the net lot acreage, which meets the maximum intensity established
in Beach by Design for projects that have acquired units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable
I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.752, which is consistent with the Code
provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum lot area for
overnight accommodations can range between 10,000 – 20,000 square feet and for restaurants
and retail sales uses the range is 5,000 – 10,000 square feet. The overall proposed site is
48,190.53 square feet of lot area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for
overnight accommodations can range between 100 – 150 feet and for restaurants and retail sales
uses the range is 50 – 100 feet. For the proposed Hotel A site, the lot width along Coronado
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 5 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
Drive is approximately 243 feet and 220 feet of lot width along Third Street. The subject
property is being modified from its platted and developed property lines to accommodate the
proposed development and will have approximately 167 feet of frontage along Hamden Drive.
The proposal exceeds these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum front setback for overnight
accommodations, restaurants and retail sales uses can range between 0 – 15 feet (this site must
meet front setbacks along Hamden Drive, Third Street and Coronado Drive), while the minimum
side setback can range between 0 – 10 feet (structures on corner lots must meet front setbacks
along rights-of-way and meet side setbacks adjacent to the other property lines). The proposal
includes setback reductions to various structures around the perimeter of the proposed parcel.
The building is proposed with a front (east) setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to
building), 6.5 feet (to upper level balconies) and 13.8 feet (to pavement). The front building
setback is to the parking garage area (Levels 1 – 4), whereas the actual hotel building will be
setback 10.4 feet (all levels). Front (north) setbacks proposed along Third Street include 11.8
feet (to building), 6.7 feet (to upper level balconies) and five feet (to patio). Along Coronado
Drive, front setbacks of 16 feet (to building), 12 feet (to upper level balconies) and 5.4 feet (to
patio) are proposed. Minimum side setbacks for overnight accommodation uses are 10 feet. The
proposal includes a side (south and east) setback of zero feet, where the building and pavement
are adjacent to the proposed Hotel B. The building is proposed at a side (south) setback of 21
feet adjacent to the common property line of 317 Coronado Drive.
It is important to note that the proposed building will exceed the minimum front setback along
Coronado Drive (16-foot setback proposed). While upper level balconies will be closer to the
front property line, the actual building will be set back so it is not adjacent to (on top of) the
street. The balconies will break up the façade of the building and are not designed linearly on
each floor. While the Aqualea/Hyatt project dedicated 10 feet for additional right-of-way for
Coronado Drive, that building is located at a zero front setback to Coronado Drive. The ground-
level, outdoor dining area will be set back 5.4 feet from the front property line along Coronado
Drive, but the sidewalks to the south in front of the retail sales uses will undulate at greater
setbacks, thereby providing the minimum five-foot wide foundation landscape area along this
side of the building. The reduced setback for this ground-level patio and sidewalk will
contribute to a more active and dynamic street life along Coronado Drive. While the proposal
includes a 11.8-foot front setback from the Third Street property line, this setback is to two
portions of the building. There are other portions of the building at a 20-foot or greater setback.
The outdoor seating area for the restaurant, located only at the northwest corner of this property,
is designed at a five-foot front setback from Third Street. The fact that the building faces water
across the roadway mitigates the front setback reduction along Hamden Drive.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the maximum allowable height for
restaurants can range between 25 – 100 feet, while overnight accommodation and retail sales
uses can range between 35 – 100 feet. The proposed building is 74.33 feet in height from Base
Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof, which is below the Code maximum. The request has also
been advertised to reflect the proposed height of 82 feet to the top of architectural
embellishments, where such features give visual interest to the top of the building. This site is
located within the Small Motel character district of Beach by Design, which does not prescribe
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 6 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
any maximum heights for this area. Good planning practice is to transition building heights from
a compatibility standpoint. The Aqualea/Hyatt overnight accommodation project at 301 S.
Gulfview Boulevard (across Coronado Drive from the subject property) was approved with a
150-foot building height (Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and FLD2004-07052). The detached dwellings
on Devon Drive to the northeast of this site are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District where the maximum building height is 30 feet. The proposed building height for this
project transitions building height from the highest on the west side of Coronado Drive to the
detached dwellings to the east of this site.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum required parking for
overnight accommodations is 1.2 parking spaces per room. Additionally, parking for restaurants
can range between 7 – 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet and parking for retail sales uses can range
between 4 – 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This proposal has been designed with a parking
garage shared with the proposed Hotel B at 316 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08027). Hotel B is
proposed with 118 rooms and 1,335 square feet of retail sales use. CDC Section 3-1405 requires
two or more uses to calculate parking based on a Shared Parking basis. When taking all uses
into account for both Hotels A and B and the Shared Parking calculation, the required parking
totals 376 parking spaces. The shared parking garage proposes a total of 302 parking spaces. On
the Hotel A site there will be 182 parking spaces, while 120 parking spaces are proposed on the
Hotel B site. The proposal includes a reduction to required parking from 376 to 302 spaces. A
Parking Reduction Study has been submitted as part of the application material, which has
analyzed the parking demand against the proposed parking supply. This study concludes that
adequate parking will be available on-site to service the proposed uses of both sites for guests,
employees and customers. A minority of the customers (40%) for the restaurant and retail sales
uses will need to park on-site, where many of the customers will be from the on-site Hotels A
and B or as walk-up customers that have parked or are staying elsewhere on the beach. Eighty
percent (80%) of the employees are presumed to need to park on-site. Hotel A is self-sufficient
for parking (with its 180 spaces) and access without the construction of Hotel B and its attendant
parking garage, with the exception of a drive aisle connecting the parking accessed from the
driveway on Coronado Drive and the shared trash collection area. From an amenities standpoint
accessory to the hotel, the proposal includes a meeting room of approximately 4,520 square feet
and an exercise room of approximately 670 square feet, or a total of approximately 5,190 square
feet (6.27 % of the gross floor area of Hotel A). With such minimal amenities, the provided
parking appears adequate for guests, employees and customers.
This proposal will take primary driveway access from Hamden Drive, while a secondary
driveway is proposed on Coronado Drive. Existing driveways on Coronado Drive, Third Street
and Hamden Drive, including all back-out parking, will be removed. With the proposed
driveway on Coronado Drive, there will be no loss of on-street parallel parking. A total of five
parallel parking spaces along Coronado Drive will remain. An existing seven-foot wide
sidewalk exists along Coronado Drive. Seven-foot wide sidewalks will be constructed for the
site frontages along Third Street and both sides of Hamden Drive.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. There will
be mechanical equipment located on top of the flat roof of the building. The parapets
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 7 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
surrounding the roof may be insufficient to screen the mechanical equipment and additional
screening may be required. This will be reviewed at time of the building permit submission.
Access to the roof for maintenance of these rooftop units will be by the stairwell that exits
toward Coronado Drive.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Hamden Drive and Coronado Drive, and the street intersections of
Coronado Drive/Third Street and Hamden Drive/Third Street, 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. A portion of the outdoor seating area for the
restaurant at the intersection of Coronado Drive/Third Street is proposed within the sight
visibility triangle. This encroachment has been reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering
Department and been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility
triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this hotel will be
installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. There exist overhead utility
lines within the right-of-way along the east side of Hamden Drive. The proposal will
underground these existing overhead lines along the site frontage on Hamden Drive. It is
unknown of the location of proposed electric panels, boxes and meters for this Hotel A. If
located exterior to the building, to ensure views are minimized, this electrical equipment should
be painted the same color as the building. The location and potential views of such electrical
equipment will be addressed at the building permit stage.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
Tourist District for this overall site. This proposal meets or exceeds the required minimum five-
foot wide building foundation landscape area along Coronado Drive, Third Street and Hamden
Drive. Along Coronado Drive, the landscaping is provided between the public sidewalk and on-
site access sidewalks and the restaurant outdoor seating area adjacent to the building. Along
Hamden Drive, the landscaping is provided between the property line and the building and the
drop-off zone pavement. The overall site for both Hotels A and B will be planted with a various
palm trees (Florida royal, coconut, pigmy date, senegal date and medjool date), buttonwood trees,
shrubs (Indian hawthorn, schefflera, ixora, podocarpus and petite pink oleander) and ground covers
(jasmine, green carpet natal plum, variegated flax lily and gold mound duranta). Landscaping
assists with softening and reducing building massing to both pedestrians and motorists. Since
the sidewalks planned in the Third Street and Hamden Drive rights-of-way will be adjacent to
the street curb, landscaping is also planned within the rights-of-way, which will require a Right-
of-Way Use Permit. The waterfront lots on the east side of Hamden Drive are also planned to be
planted for beautification of the site.
Solid Waste: A compactor dumpster is proposed for both Hotels A and B, to be located in a
trash and compactor room on the Hotel B property. Hotel housekeeping staff will remove trash
from hotel units. It is presumed that the restaurant and retail sales employees will transport their
trash to the compactor dumpster. In the event Hotel A is constructed in advance of Hotel B, a
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 8 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
temporary trash enclosure will need to be constructed through an appropriate easement. Any
such temporary trash enclosure will need to be consistent with the material and color of the Hotel
A building. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department.
Signage: The proposal does not include a freestanding sign at this time. However, any future
freestanding sign should be designed as a monument-style sign, match the exterior materials and
color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six-foot height
through a Comprehensive Sign Program, in accordance with the flexibility criteria of CDC
Section 2-803.I.3. Attached signage must meet Code requirements.
Additional Beach by Design Guidelines: Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of
greater than 5,000 square feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building
dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed hotel building
footprint is approximately 14,004 square feet. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions
are approximately 152 feet along Coronado Drive, 194 feet along Third Street and 62 feet along
Hamden Drive, while the vertical plane is approximately 79 feet from grade to the top of the flat
roof. None of these dimensions are equal. Modulation of the building massing also provides
considerable dimensional variation.
Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet
without an offset of more than five feet. All façades of the building have been designed in
compliance with this requirement, with the largest linear dimension of approximately 89 feet
along the Coronado Drive “center” portion of the building. All other portions of the building
façade are modulated with at least a five-foot deviation, whether along the street frontages or on
the “back” side of the building. For the parking garage portions of the building, the linear
dimensions are approximately 86 feet along the Coronado Drive side and approximately 87 feet
along the Hamden Drive side of the building. The southern side of the parking garage off
Coronado Drive is 100 feet to the Hotel B building.
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or
architectural decoration. The applicant has calculated the west elevation along Coronado Drive
at 70 percent, the north elevation along Third Street at 62 percent, the east elevation along
Hamden Drive at 66 percent and the south elevation at 64 percent.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There is an active Code Enforcement case at 301 and 305
Coronado Drive for pennants at the restaurant (BIZ2009-00413).
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-801.1 and 2-
803:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 50 units/rooms per acre 142 units/rooms (148.90 X 2
1
units/rooms per net acre)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 6,650 square feet (0.137 X 2
based on original lot square
footage)
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 9 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Impervious Surface 0.95 0.752 X 3
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area Overnight accommodations: 48,190.53 sq. ft. X 3
10,000 – 20,000 sf
Restaurant: 5,000 – 10,000 sf
Retail Sales: 5,000 – 10,000 sf
Minimum Lot Width Overnight accommodations: Hamden Drive: 167 feet X 3
100 – 150 feet
Restaurant: 50 – 100 feet Third Street: 220 feet
Retail Sales: 50 – 100 feet Coronado Drive: 243 feet
Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 – 15 feet Hamden Drive: 9.3 feet (to X 3
building); 6.5 feet (to upper
level balconies); 13.8 feet (to
pavement)
Third Street: 11.8 feet (to
building), 6.7 feet (to upper
level balconies); five feet
(to patio)
Coronado Drive: 16 feet (to
building); 12 feet (to upper
level balconies); 5.4 feet (to
patio)
Side: 0 – 10 feet South: 0 feet (to building X 3
and pavement adjacent to
proposed Hotel B)
East: : 0 feet (to building
and pavement adjacent to
proposed Hotel B)
South: 21 feet (to building
adjacent to Coronado Dr.)
Maximum Height 35 – 100 feet 74.33 feet (from BFE to flat X 3
roof) and 82 feet (to top of
architectural
embellishments)
Minimum Overnight accommodations: 1.2 302 total parking spaces X 4
Off-Street Parking parking spaces per unit/room (376 spaces required per
Shared Parking calculation;
Restaurant: 7 – 15 spaces per
182 spaces on Hotel A
1,000 square feet
property)
Retail Sales: 4 – 5 spaces per
1,000 square feet
1 Includes 95 units/rooms allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve pursuant to Beach by Design
2 Based on a “mixed use” calculation; See analysis in Staff Report
3 See analysis in Staff Report
4 Based on Parking Reduction Study; See analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X 1
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 10 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X 1
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X 1
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X 1
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment
of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area
that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning
designation; or
a. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X 1
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance,
the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the
following design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
?
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 11 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X 1
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 1
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X 1
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X 1
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meetings of September 3, 2009, and October 1, 2009, and deemed the development
proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB),
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development 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.The 1.106 acres is located on the south side of Third Street between Coronado Drive and
Hamden Drive;
2.The proposed Hotel A parcel is made up of three existing parcels and a portion of a fourth
parcel, which will be modified through a Minor Lot Adjustment so that the property lines
will coincide with the new lot line locations proposed with this application;
3.The proposal is to construct a 142-unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 148.90
rooms/acre, which includes the allocation of 95 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under
Beach by Design;
4.A companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00002) that must be approved by City
Council is also on this CDB agenda, providing for the allocation of the 95 units from the
Hotel Density Reserve;
5.In addition to the hotel, this proposal includes a 2,750 square-foot restaurant and 3,900
square feet of retail uses as primary uses along Coronado Drive (0.137 FAR for restaurant
and retail sales uses, based on original lot square footage);
6.The proposal also includes approximately 5,190 square feet of accessory uses to the hotel
(meeting rooms and an exercise room), which represents approximately 6.27 percent of the
gross floor area of the hotel;
7.The hotel is proposed at a height of 74.33 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the
roof deck and 82 feet (to the top of architectural embellishments);
8.The proposed 74.33-foot building height transitions building height from the highest on the
west side of Coronado Drive (Aqualea/Hyatt – 150-foot maximum height) to the detached
dwellings to the northeast of this site (30-foot maximum height);
9.The ground through third floors of this hotel on this subject property provide a total of 182
parking spaces of the total 302 spaces in the overall parking garage between Hotels A and B;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 12 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
10.The proposal includes setback reductions from all property lines, except adjacent to 317
Coronado Drive;
11.The hotel is proposed with a front (east) setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to
building), 6.5 feet (to upper level balconies) and 13.8 feet (to pavement). The advertised
front building setback is to the parking garage area (Levels 1 – 4), whereas the actual hotel
tower will be set back 10.4 feet (all levels);
12.The proposal includes setback reductions to the front (north) setbacks proposed along Third
Street of 11.8 feet (to building), 6.7 feet (to upper level balconies) and five feet (to patio).
The advertised building front setback is to two portions of the building, while other portions
of the building at a 20-foot or greater setback;
13.Along Coronado Drive, front setbacks of 16 feet (to building), 12 feet (to upper level
balconies) and 5.4 feet (to patio) are proposed. The building exceeds the minimum front
setback of 15 feet;
14.The proposal includes a side (south and east) setback of zero feet, where the building and
pavement are adjacent to the proposed Hotel B; and
15.The active Code Enforcement issue associated with this subject property does not affect the
development proposal.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-
803 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
803.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.That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the (1) Flexible Development application to permit a 142-room overnight accommodation use,
3,900 square feet of retail sales floor area and 2,750 square feet of restaurant floor area in the
Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 48,190.53 square feet (1.106 acres), a lot width of 167 feet
along Hamden Drive, 220 feet along Third Street and 243.68 feet along Coronado Drive, a front
(east) setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to building), 6.5 feet (to upper level balconies)
and 13.8 feet (to pavement), a front (north) setback along Third Street of 11.8 feet (to building),
6.7 feet (to upper level balconies) and five feet (to patio), a front (west) setback along Coronado
Drive of 16 feet (to building), 12 feet (to upper level balconies) and 5.4 feet (to patio), a side
(south and east) setback of zero feet (to building and pavement adjacent to proposed Hotel B), a
side (south) setback of 21 feet (to building adjacent to Coronado Drive), a building height of
74.33 feet (from BFE to flat roof) and 82 feet (to top of architectural embellishments) and 182
parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of CDC
Section 2-803.C, and approval of a two-year development order; and (2) Increase the permitted
density by the allocation of 95 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve
created pursuant to Beach by Design, with the following conditions:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 13 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
Conditions of Approval:
1.That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development
Agreement with the City (Case DVA2009-00002);
2.That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later
than November 17, 2011, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
3.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Minor Lot Adjustment, Releases of Unity of Title
and new Declarations of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records;
4.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
5.That, in the event Hotel A is constructed prior to Hotel B, plans be revised prior to the
issuance of any building permit to show ground level parking areas be connected through a
paved drive aisle on Hotel B property and an appropriately sized and located trash enclosure
meeting City standards. Appropriate easements for such shall be recorded in the public
records prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
6.That any freestanding sign be a monument-style sign, be designed to match the exterior
materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at
six-foot height through a Comprehensive Sign Program;
7.That the books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room be open for inspection by
authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm
compliance with the Hotel Density Reserve criteria of Beach by Design as allowed by
general law;
8.That, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a hurricane evacuation plan for the
hotel and accessory docks be submitted and approved by the City for all guests of the hotel;
9.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, plans be revised to show mirrors and/or
other devices to aid motorists with blind spots in the parking garage;
10.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, cross easements for parking,
drainage, fire systems, maintenance, etc. be recorded in the public records;
11.That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, existing overhead utility lines
within the right-of-way along the east side of Hamden Drive be placed underground;
12.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the location and visibility of electric
equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the
building where visible from adjacent roadways, be painted the same color as the building;
13.That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits;
14.That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits;
15.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, plans be revised to:
a.clearly indicate seven-foot sidewalks to be constructed along Hamden Drive;
b.show visibility triangles on Sheet L1.1; and
c.dimension the height from the top of the roof deck to the top of the stair tower
that exits to Coronado Drive; and
16.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering,
Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 14 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08026 2009-11-17
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Hamden 300 Tropicana Resort Hotel A (T) 2009.xx - 11.17.09
CDB - WW\Hamden 300 Hotel A FLD Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08026 – Page 15 of 15
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00002 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Number: DVA2009-00002 (Related to FLD2009-08026; and FLD2009-
08027/DVA2009-00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Agenda Item: E.1. (Related to D.1.; and D.2., D.3. and E.2.)
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC
Representative: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Address: 300 Hamden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive and a
portion of 316 Hamden Drive)
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a
Development Agreement between Agostino Digiovanni, Francesco
Carriera and John Conti, as Co-Trustees of the Tropicana Resort
Land Trust (the property owners) and the City of Clearwater,
providing for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density
Reserve under Beach by Design.
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN
CHARACTER
DISTRICT: Small Motel
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: 46-room motel and 138-seat restaurant
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 142
rooms (148.90 rooms/acre on net lot acreage,
including the allocation of 95 units from the Hotel
Density Reserve), restaurant use of 2,750 square
feet, retail sales use of 3,900 square feet (0.137
FAR for restaurant and retail sales uses based on
total lot area) and approximately 5,190 square feet
of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 74.33
feet (to flat roof deck)
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2009-00002 – Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00002 2009-11-17
SURROUNDING Overnight accommodations
ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District
Retail sales, Offices and Overnight accommodations
East: Preservation (P) District
Clearwater Harbor
West: Tourist (T) District
Overnight accommodations, Restaurant and Retail
sales
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.106 acres is located on the south side of Third Street between Coronado Drive and
Hamden Drive. The subject property is currently developed with a 46-room motel and 138-seat
restaurant.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal includes a companion Flexible Development application (FLD2009-
08026) to permit an overnight accommodation use of a total of 142 rooms (148.90 rooms/acre on
net lot acreage, including the allocation of 95 units from the Hotel Density Reserve), restaurant
use of 2,750 square feet, retail sales use of 3,900 square feet (0.137 FAR for restaurant and retail
sales uses based on total lot area) and approximately 5,190 square feet of accessory uses to the
hotel at a height of 74.33 feet (to flat roof deck). This proposed hotel (Hotel A) is joined to
another hotel (Hotel B, 316 Hamden Drive, FLD2009-08027/DVA2009-00003) through three
levels of parking and an amenity deck on the fourth level. There are 182 parking spaces on the
Hotel A site. There is also an 18-slip accessory dock planned on the east side of Hamden Drive
(FLD2009-09036).
Development Agreement:
The Development Agreement is a requirement for the allocation of hotel units from the Hotel
Density Reserve, adopted as an amendment to Beach by Design under Ordinance 7925-08 on
July 17, 2008. A total of 1,385 hotel rooms are available under the Hotel Density Reserve and
this proposal requests the allocation of 95 units from it. The City has established the
Development Agreement format as a means to facilitate the allocation of the units and to set
forth appropriate provisions related to the development of the property. The proposed
Development Agreement will be in effect for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, meets the
criteria for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design and
includes the following main provisions:
Provides for the allocation of 95 units from the Hotel Density Reserve;
?
Requires the developer to obtain building permits and certificates of occupancy in
?
accordance with Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407;
Requires the return of any hotel unit obtained from the Hotel Density Reserve that is not
?
constructed;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2009-00002 – Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00002 2009-11-17
For units allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve, prohibits the conversion of any hotel
?
unit to a residential use and requires the recording of a covenant restricting use of such
hotel units to overnight accommodation usage; and
Requires a legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the hotel will be
?
closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is
posted by the National Hurricane Center.
The Community Development Board (CDB) has been provided with the most recent
Development Agreement.
The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger commitment
on comprehensive and capital facilities planning, to ensure the provision of adequate public
facilities for development, to encourage the efficient use of resources, and to reduce the
economic cost of development. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development
Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of September 3, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code (CDC), finds
that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.That the 1.106 acres is located on the south side of Third Street between Coronado Drive and
Hamden Drive;
2.That the property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of Beach by Design, the Design
Guidelines contained therein as the property is located within the Small Motel character
district and the criteria for allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the requirements for the
construction of on-site and off-site improvements under the related site plan proposal
(FLD2009-08026);
2.That the Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of CDC Section
4-606;
3.That the Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the Visions, Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2009-00002 – Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00002 2009-11-17
4.That the Development Agreement is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of Beach by Design and the Small Motel character district; and
5.That the Development Agreement complies with the criteria in Beach by Design for the
allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
APPROVAL
, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement between
Agostino Digiovanni, Francesco Carriera and John Conti, as Co-Trustees of the Tropicana Resort
Land Trust (the property owners) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the allocation of units
from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design, for the property at 300 Hamden Drive
(including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive and a portion of 316 Hamden Drive).
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Development Agreement with Exhibits
?
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Future Land Use Map
?
Zoning Map
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\DVA2009-00002 - Hamden 300 Hotel A (T) 2009.xx - 11.17.09
CDB - WW\Hamden 300 Hotel A DVA Staff Report for 11.17.09 CDB.doc
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2009-00002 – Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-08027 (Related to DVA2009-00003; and FLD2009-
08026/DVA2009-00002 and FLD2009-09036)
Agenda Item: D.2. (Related to E.2.; and D.1., D.3. and E.1.)
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust; and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers,
LLC
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC
Representative: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Address: 316 Hamden Drive (including a portion of 316 Hamden Drive and 326 and
330 Hamden Drive)
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit a 118-unit overnight
accommodation use and 1,335 square feet of retail sales floor area
in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 35,730.06 square feet
(0.82 acres), a lot width of 312 feet along Hamden Drive, a front
(east) setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to building), 6.5
feet (to upper level balconies) and 11 feet (to pavement), a side
(south) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of
zero feet (to building adjacent to proposed Hotel A), a rear (west)
setback of zero feet (to building adjacent to proposed Hotel A) and
10.7 feet (to Hotel B building), a building height of 84 feet (from
BFE to flat roof) and 99.5 feet (to top of architectural
embellishments) and 120 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of CDC Section
2-803.C, and approval of a two-year development order; and (2)
Increase the permitted density by the allocation of 79 overnight
accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created
pursuant to Beach by Design.
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN Small Motel
CHARACTER
DISTRICT:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: 18-room motel and temporary parking lot
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 118
rooms (149.44 rooms/acre on net lot acreage,
including the allocation of 79 units from the Hotel
Density Reserve), retail sales use of 1,335 square
feet (0.037 FAR based on original lot square
footage) and approximately 1,060 square feet of
accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 84 feet (to
flat roof deck)
EXISTING North:Tourist (T) District Overnight accommodations
SURROUNDING South:Tourist (T) District Overnight accommodations
ZONING AND USES: East: Preservation (P) District Clearwater Harbor
West: Tourist (T) District Retail sales, Offices and
Overnight accommodations
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.82 acres is located on the west side of Hamden Drive approximately 200 feet south of
Third Street. The subject property is currently developed with an 18-room motel. This site was
previously developed with a 12-unit motel at 326 Hamden Drive and a 20-unit motel at 330
Hamden Drive. These two motels were demolished in early 2009 and this area is currently used
as a temporary parking lot. The subject property is being modified from its platted and
developed property lines to accommodate the proposed development and will have
approximately 312 feet of frontage along Hamden Drive. There are also four waterfront lots on
the east side of Hamden Drive that are attached to the properties on the west side of Hamden
Drive and are 10-foot in depth from Hamden Drive to the water. The waterfront lots are also
being modified to coincide with this proposed hotel (Hotel B) and the adjacent hotel under
FLD2009-08026 at 300 Hamden Drive (Hotel A). There are existing docks in varying
conditions of deterioration for approximately 20 boats.
On January 16, 2007, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved Case FLD2006-
10054 with eight conditions of approval for the same subject property, permitting a commercial
dock for 20 slips totaling 2,734 square feet to be used in conjunction with the existing motels.
The applicant complied with conditions of approval to record Declarations of Unity of Title,
record drainage easements and apply for an upland permit to construct fire risers for the docks
(BCP2007-08185). This building permit for the fire risers was not pursued and the permit was
voided, placing this approval in an expired status.
Other overnight accommodation uses exist to the north of the subject property (part of Hotel A
property). Properties to the west of this subject property along the east side of Coronado Drive
are developed with retail sales, offices and overnight accommodation uses. Existing overnight
accommodation uses exist directly to the south and southeast across Hamden Drive. Clearwater
Harbor exists to the east of the subject property.
Development Proposal:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 2 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
The proposal is to construct a 118-unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 149.44
rooms/acre (based on net lot acreage), which includes the allocation of 79 units from the Hotel
Density Reserve under Beach by Design. Besides the hotel, a 1,335 square-foot retail sales use is
proposed as a primary use (0.037 FAR based on original lot square footage). A land use
intensity calculation has been performed for this proposal to ensure the gross floor area of
commercial floor area and the number of hotel rooms complies with the maximum allowable
intensity through the future land use category and Beach by Design. The proposal also includes
approximately 1,060 square feet of accessory use to the hotel (exercise room), which represents
approximately 1.33 percent of the gross floor area of the hotel, in compliance with recently
adopted Code provisions. This is the fourth hotel to be placed on the Community Development
Board agenda since the amendment of Beach by Design in July 2008 creating the Hotel Density
Reserve as a means to encourage the construction of new mid-size hotels on the beach in
response to the loss of hotel rooms since 2002. Also on this CDB agenda is a companion
Development Agreement (DVA2009-00003) that must be approved by City Council, which
provides for the allocation of the 79 units from the Hotel Density Reserve. This Development
Agreement provides for mandatory evacuation/closure of the hotel in the event of the posting of
a hurricane watch including Clearwater Beach by the National Hurricane Center, which also
complies with Beach by Design criteria. The applicant indicates room rates for this hotel will be
reasonably priced for a family beach vacation contrasted with the Sandpearl and Aqualea/Hyatt
resorts. This proposal complies with the Beach by Design criteria to access all rooms through a
lobby and internal corridors. This proposal is also related to a proposed overnight
accommodation use at 300 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08026/DVA2009-00002, Hotel A). These
two hotels are joined through the parking garage and amenity levels at the northwest portion of
this subject property.
The proposal includes redefining or modifying lot lines from that existing. The proposed Hotel
B parcel is made up of one existing parcel and a portion of a second parcel. A recommended
condition of approval will require the recording of a Minor Lot Adjustment prior to the issuance
of any permits, so that the new lot line locations will be corrected in accordance with this
application. In compliance with the conditions of approval for Case FLD2006-10054 for the
docks (now expired), the applicant recorded three Declaration of Unity of Title documents, tying
the water lots to the main lots on the west side of Hamden Drive. As part of the Minor Lot
Adjustment process, Staff will prepare Release of Unity of Title documents for the prior
recorded documents, as well as new Declaration of Unity of Title documents corresponding to
the new parcels for Hotels A and B.
The proposed 118-room hotel is proposed on 0.82acres with frontage along Hamden Drive. The
hotel is proposed at a height of 84 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof deck and
at a height of 99.5 feet to the top of architectural embellishments that gives visual interest to the
top of the building. The hotel will take access from Hamden Drive on the Hotel A property as its
main drive access to the parking garage. An entry portico and drop-off area off Hamden Drive is
designed directly north of the hotel lobby (south of the retail sales use). The ground level of this
hotel provides the hotel lobby, storage and back-of-house areas. The retail sales use of 1,335
square feet is also located on the ground floor oriented to Hamden Drive. While located within
the hotel building, the retail sales use is designed as a primary use, not an accessory use to the
hotel, and it will serve the needs of beach customers as well as hotel guests. The ground through
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 3 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
third floors of this hotel on this subject property provide a total of 120 parking spaces of the total
302 spaces in the overall parking garage between Hotels A and B. The fourth level provides an
outdoor amenity deck for a swimming pool. The fourth level of the hotel also has 22 rooms and
the exercise room. The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth floors provide 24 rooms per floor. All
parking garage levels will be open for natural ventilation. Balconies are provided for many guest
rooms on all sides of the hotel building. The proposed 84-foot building height for this project
transitions building height generally from the highest on the west side of Coronado Drive
(Aqualea/Hyatt – 150-foot maximum height) to the maximum allowable height of four stories over
ground-level parking for attached dwellings and overnight accommodation uses on Brightwater
Drive (per Beach by Design). The exterior base and body colors of the building will be primarily
Roman Column, Welcome White and Compatible Cream. Wall accents will be Copper
Mountain at the base and white trim. Roof tiles will be Spanish tile of reds and gray-browns,
while metal awnings will be a burgundy color. All areas within the setbacks provided will be
landscaped to enhance the site and building.
The proposal includes setback reductions to various structures around the perimeter of the
proposed parcel, except to the south property line. The minimum required front setback for
overnight accommodation and retail sales uses under the Tourist (T) District is 15 feet. The
building is proposed with a front (east) setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to building), 6.5
feet (to upper level balconies) and 11 feet (to pavement). The front building setback is to the
parking garage area (Levels 1 – 4) at the northeast corner adjacent to Hotel A, whereas the actual
hotel tower will be set back 10.4 feet (all levels). Minimum side setbacks for overnight
accommodation and retail sales uses are 10 feet. The proposal includes a side (north) setback of
zero feet, where the building and pavement are adjacent to the proposed Hotel A. The building
is proposed at a side (south) setback of 10 feet adjacent to the common property line of 332
Hamden Drive. Minimum rear setbacks for overnight accommodation and retail sales uses are
20 feet. The proposal includes a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to the building adjacent to
proposed Hotel A) and 10.7 feet (to Hotel B building from the common property line for those
properties fronting on Coronado Drive.
A retention vault is proposed under the ramp in the parking garage from the first to the second
floor on the Hotel A property, serving the needs of this property. There is also a retention pond
for water quality purposes proposed along the south side of the Hotel A building adjacent to 317
Coronado Drive. The outfall structure at this retention pond will allow overflow water to flow
through pipes traversing this Hotel B property, joining up to an existing drainage pipe crossing
Hamden Drive and through the seawall on the east side of Hamden Drive.
Docks that will be accessory to and serve both Hotels A and B are also being processed on this
same CDB agenda under Case No. FLD2009-09036. These docks will be accessible to the
guests of the hotels by a sidewalk from the public sidewalk along the east side of Hamden Drive.
The existing paved areas on the water lots will be removed and the water lots landscaped as an
enhancement to the hotels. Existing overhead utility lines running along the east side of Hamden
Drive will be placed underground with this proposal. The proposal includes seven-foot wide
sidewalks along both sides of Hamden Drive.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 4 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
The applicant is requesting a two-year development order due to market conditions. Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407 specifies that an application for a building permit must
be submitted within one year of the date the CDB approves the project, unless otherwise
specified under this approval.
Density/Intensity: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2-801.1,
the maximum density for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 50 overnight
accommodation rooms per acre and the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1.0. The applicant
and Planning and Development Department Staff have prepared a “mixed use” calculation to
ensure the maximum allowable intensity is not exceeded. Based on the 1,335 square feet of
commercial floor area proposed as a primary use along Hamden Drive, this floor area was
subtracted from the proposed lot area of 35,730.06 square feet (0.82 acres) to determine the net
lot acreage for the purposes of determining the maximum number of hotel rooms allowable (both
for the base density and the maximum permissible for the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by
Design [adopted as an amendment to Beach by Design under Ordinance 7925-08]). Based on the
net lot acreage of 0.7896 acres and the base density of 50 rooms/acre, a maximum of 39 rooms is
permitted. Based on the same net lot acreage and the maximum density under the Hotel Density
Reserve of 150 rooms per acre, a maximum of 118 rooms is permissible. When the base density
number of rooms is subtracted from the overall maximum under the Hotel Density Reserve, the
maximum number of rooms the applicant could request from the Hotel Density Reserve is 79
rooms. As such, the proposed FAR, based on the original lot square footage) is 0.037 and the
proposed density is 149.44 rooms/acre, based on the net lot acreage, which meets the maximum
intensity established in Beach by Design for projects that have acquired units from the Hotel
Density Reserve.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable
I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.752, which is consistent with the Code
provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum lot area for
overnight accommodations can range between 10,000 – 20,000 square feet and for retail sales
uses the range is 5,000 – 10,000 square feet. The overall proposed site is 35,730.06 square feet
of lot area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for overnight accommodations
can range between 100 – 150 feet and for retail sales uses the range is 50 – 100 feet. The subject
property is being modified from its platted and developed property lines to accommodate the
proposed development and will have approximately 312 feet of frontage along Hamden Drive.
The proposal exceeds these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum front setback for overnight
accommodations, restaurants and retail sales uses can range between 0 – 15 feet, the minimum
side setback can range between 0 – 10 feet and the minimum rear setback for overnight
accommodations can range between 0 – 20 feet, while for retail sales uses the range is 10 – 20
feet. The proposal includes setback reductions to various structures around the perimeter of the
proposed parcel, except to the south property line. The building is proposed with a front (east)
setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to building), 6.5 feet (to upper level balconies) and 11
feet (to pavement). The front building setback is to the parking garage area (Levels 1 – 4) at the
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 5 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
northeast corner adjacent to Hotel A, whereas the actual hotel tower will be set back 10.4 feet
(all levels). While the proposal includes a 9.3-foot front setback from the Hamden Drive
property line, this setback is to two portions of the building on either side of the entry court.
There are other portions of the building set back approximately 14-foot or greater. The building
at the entry court is set back approximately 31 feet. The fact that the building faces water across
the roadway mitigates the front setback reduction along Hamden Drive. Minimum side setbacks
for overnight accommodation and retail sales uses are 10 feet. The proposal includes a side
(north) setback of zero feet, where the building and pavement are adjacent to the proposed Hotel
A. The building is proposed at a side (south) setback of 10 feet adjacent to the common property
line of 332 Hamden Drive, complying with the required setback. Minimum rear setbacks for
overnight accommodation and retail sales uses are 20 feet. The proposal includes a rear (west)
setback of zero feet (to the building adjacent to proposed Hotel A) and 10.7 feet (to Hotel B
building from the common property line for those properties fronting on Coronado Drive). The
minimum rear setback range for an overnight accommodation use at a Flexible Standard (FLS)
Staff level is 10 – 20 feet (but at a maximum height of 50 feet). The proposed rear setback for
the building is consistent with the proposed side (south) setback.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the maximum allowable height for
overnight accommodation uses can range between 35 – 100 feet. The proposed building is 84
feet in height from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof, which is below the Code
maximum. The request has also been advertised to reflect the proposed height of 99.5 feet to the
top of architectural embellishments, where such features give visual interest to the top of the
building. This site is located within the Small Motel character district of Beach by Design,
which does not prescribe any maximum heights for this area. Good planning practice is to
transition building heights from a compatibility standpoint. The Aqualea/Hyatt overnight
accommodation project at 301 S. Gulfview Boulevard (across Coronado Drive from the Hotel A
property) was approved with a 150-foot building height (Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and FLD2004-
07052). The proposed 84-foot building height for this project transitions building height generally
from the highest on the west side of Coronado Drive (Aqualea/Hyatt) to the maximum allowable
height of four stories over ground-level parking for attached dwellings and overnight
accommodation uses on Brightwater Drive (per Beach by Design).
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum required parking for
overnight accommodations is 1.2 parking spaces per room. Additionally, parking for retail sales
uses can range between 4 – 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. This proposal has been designed with
a parking garage shared with the proposed Hotel A at 300 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08026).
Hotel A is proposed with 142 rooms, a restaurant of 2,750 square feet and 3,900 square feet of
retail sales use. CDC Section 3-1405 requires two or more uses to calculate parking based on a
Shared Parking basis. When taking all uses into account for both Hotels A and B and the Shared
Parking calculation, the required parking totals 376 parking spaces. The shared parking garage
proposes a total of 302 parking spaces. On the Hotel B site there will be 120 parking spaces,
while 182 parking spaces are proposed on the Hotel A site. The proposal includes a reduction to
required parking from 376 to 302 spaces. A Parking Reduction Study has been submitted as part
of the application material, which has analyzed the parking demand against the proposed parking
supply. This study concludes that adequate parking will be available on-site to service the
proposed uses of both sites for guests, employees and customers. A minority of the customers
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 6 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
(40%) for the restaurant and retail sales uses will need to park on-site, where many of the
customers will be from the on-site Hotels A and B or as walk-up customers that have parked or
are staying elsewhere on the beach. Eighty percent (80%) of the employees are presumed to
need to park on-site. Hotel B is not self-sufficient for parking (with its 120 spaces, whereas 142
spaces are required based on 1.2 spaces per room) or access without the construction of Hotel A
and its attendant parking garage. As such, Hotel B should not be issued a Certificate of
Occupancy prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Hotel A and appropriate cross
easements serving the Hotel B property are recorded in the public records. From an amenities
standpoint accessory to the hotel, the proposal includes an exercise room of approximately 1,060
square feet (1.33 % of the gross floor area of Hotel B). With such minimal amenities, the overall
provided parking appears adequate for guests, employees and customers.
This proposal will take primary driveway access from Hamden Drive, where such driveway
access and ramps to parking on Level 2 and 3 is located on the Hotel A property. A secondary
driveway is proposed on Coronado Drive on the Hotel A property, which will be available for
guests of this Hotel B. Existing driveways on Hamden Drive, including all back-out parking,
will be removed. Seven-foot wide sidewalks will be constructed for the site frontages along both
sides of Hamden Drive.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. There will
be mechanical equipment located on top of the flat roof of the building. The parapets
surrounding the roof may be insufficient to screen the mechanical equipment and additional
screening may be required. This will be reviewed at time of the building permit submission.
Access to the roof for maintenance of these rooftop units will be by the building’s stairwells.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Hamden Drive, 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. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to
be maintained to meet the Code requirements.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this hotel will be
installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. There exist overhead utility
lines within the right-of-way along the east side of Hamden Drive. The proposal will
underground these existing overhead lines along the site frontage on Hamden Drive. It is
unknown of the location of proposed electric panels, boxes and meters for this Hotel B. If
located exterior to the building, to ensure views are minimized, this electrical equipment should
be painted the same color as the building. The location and potential views of such electrical
equipment will be addressed at the building permit stage.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
Tourist District for this overall site. This proposal meets or exceeds the required minimum five-
foot wide building foundation landscape area along Hamden Drive. Along Hamden Drive, the
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 7 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
landscaping is provided between the property line and the building and the drop-off zone
pavement. The overall site for both Hotels A and B will be planted with a various palm trees
(Florida royal, coconut, pigmy date, senegal date and medjool date), buttonwood trees, shrubs
(Indian hawthorn, schefflera, ixora, podocarpus and petite pink oleander) and ground covers
(jasmine, green carpet natal plum, variegated flax lily and gold mound duranta). Landscaping
assists with softening and reducing building massing to both pedestrians and motorists. Since
the sidewalks planned in the Hamden Drive rights-of-way will be adjacent to the street curb,
landscaping is also planned within the rights-of-way, which will require a Right-of-Way Use
Permit. The waterfront lots on the east side of Hamden Drive are also planned to be planted for
beautification of the site.
Solid Waste: A compactor dumpster is proposed for both Hotels A and B, to be located in a
trash and compactor room on this Hotel B property. Hotel housekeeping staff will remove trash
from hotel units. It is presumed that the retail sales employees will transport their trash to the
compactor dumpster. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste
Department.
Signage: The proposal does not include a freestanding sign at this time. However, any future
freestanding sign should be designed as a monument-style sign, match the exterior materials and
color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at six-foot height
through a Comprehensive Sign Program, in accordance with the flexibility criteria of CDC
Section 2-803.I.3. Attached signage must meet Code requirements.
Additional Beach by Design Guidelines: Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of
greater than 5,000 square feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building
dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed hotel building
footprint is approximately 8,555 square feet. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions
are approximately 242 feet along Hamden Drive, 89 feet east to west, while the vertical plane is
approximately 89 feet from grade to the top of the flat roof. While the depth and height of the
building are equal, the provisions of the Guidelines are not intended to serve as regulations
requiring specific relief (except with regard to building height and spacing between buildings
exceeding 100 feet in height). Modulation of the building massing also provides considerable
dimensional variation.
Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet
without an offset of more than five feet. All façades of the building have been designed in
compliance with this requirement, with the largest linear dimensions of approximately 92 and 84
feet along the rear or west side of the building. All other portions of the building façade are
modulated with at least a five-foot deviation.
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows or
architectural decoration. The applicant has calculated the east elevation along Hamden Drive at
67 percent, the north elevation at least 61 percent, the west elevation at 67 percent and the south
elevation at 61 percent.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 8 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There is an active Code Enforcement case at 301 and 305
Coronado Drive for pennants at the restaurant (BIZ2009-00413).
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-801.1 and 2-
803:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 50 units/rooms per acre 118 units/rooms (149.44 X 2
1
units/rooms per net acre)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 1,335 square feet (0.037 X 2
based on original lot square
footage)
Impervious Surface 0.95 0.765 X 3
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area Overnight accommodations: 35,730.06 sq. ft. X 3
10,000 – 20,000 sf
Retail Sales: 5,000 – 10,000 sf
Minimum Lot Width Overnight accommodations: 312 feet X 3
100 – 150 feet
Retail Sales: 50 – 100 feet
Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 – 15 feet East: 9.3 feet (to building); X 3
6.5 feet (to upper level
balconies); 11 feet (to
pavement)
Side: 0 – 10 feet South: 10 feet (to building) X 3
North: 0 feet (to building
and pavement adjacent to
proposed Hotel A)
Rear 0 – 20 feet West: 0 feet (to building X 3
adjacent to proposed Hotel
A); 10.7 feet (to Hotel B
building)
Maximum Height 35 – 100 feet 84 feet (from BFE to flat X 3
roof) and 99.5 feet (to top
of architectural
embellishments)
Minimum Overnight accommodations: 1.2 302 total parking spaces X 4
Off-Street Parking parking spaces per unit/room (376 spaces required per
Shared Parking calculation;
Retail Sales: 4 – 5 spaces per
120 spaces on Hotel B
1,000 square feet
property)
1 Includes 95 units/rooms allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve pursuant to Beach by Design
2 Based on a “mixed use” calculation; See analysis in Staff Report
3 See analysis in Staff Report
4 Based on Parking Reduction Study; See analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X 1
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 9 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X 1
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X 1
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X 1
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment
of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area
that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning
designation; or
a. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X 1
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance,
the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the
following design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
?
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 10 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X 1
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 1
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X 1
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X 1
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meetings of September 3, 2009, and October 1, 2009, and deemed the development
proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB),
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development 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.The 0.82 acres is located on the west side of Hamden Drive approximately 200 feet south of
Third Street;
2.The proposed Hotel B parcel is made up of one existing parcel and a portion of a second
parcel, which will be modified through a Minor Lot Adjustment so that the property lines
will coincide with the new lot line locations proposed with this application;
3.The proposal is to construct a 118-unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 149.44
rooms/acre, which includes the allocation of 79 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under
Beach by Design;
4.A companion Development Agreement (DVA2009-00003) that must be approved by City
Council is also on this CDB agenda, providing for the allocation of the 79 units from the
Hotel Density Reserve;
5.In addition to the hotel, this proposal includes 1,335 square feet of retail uses as a primary
use (0.037 FAR based on original lot square footage);
6.The proposal also includes approximately 1,060 square feet of accessory use to the hotel
(exercise room), which represents approximately 1.33 percent of the gross floor area of the
hotel;
7.The hotel is proposed at a height of 84 feet from the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the roof
deck and 99.5 feet (to the top of architectural embellishments);
8.The proposed 84-foot building height transitions building height generally from the highest on
the west side of Coronado Drive (Aqualea/Hyatt – 150-foot maximum height) to the maximum
height of four stories over ground-level parking for attached dwellings and overnight
accommodation uses on Brightwater Drive;
9.The ground through third floors of this hotel on this subject property provide a total of 120
parking spaces of the total 302 spaces in the overall parking garage between Hotels A and B;
10.The proposal includes setback reductions to various structures around the perimeter of the
proposed parcel, except to the south property line;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 11 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
11.The building is proposed with a front (east) setback along Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to
building), 6.5 feet (to upper level balconies) and 11 feet (to pavement). The front building
setback is to the parking garage area (Levels 1 – 4) at the northeast corner adjacent to Hotel
A, whereas the actual hotel tower will be set back 10.4 feet (all levels);
12.The proposal includes a side (north) setback of zero feet, where the building and pavement
are adjacent to the proposed Hotel A;
13.The proposal includes a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to the building adjacent to proposed
Hotel A) and 10.7 feet (to Hotel B building from the common property line for those
properties fronting on Coronado Drive); and
14.The active Code Enforcement issue associated with this subject property does not affect the
development proposal.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-
803 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
803.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.That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the (1) Flexible Development application to permit a 118-unit overnight accommodation use and
1,335 square feet of retail sales floor area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 35,730.06
square feet (0.82 acres), a lot width of 312 feet along Hamden Drive, a front (east) setback along
Hamden Drive of 9.3 feet (to building), 6.5 feet (to upper level balconies) and 11 feet (to
pavement), a side (south) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to
building adjacent to proposed Hotel A), a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to building adjacent to
proposed Hotel A) and 10.7 feet (to Hotel B building), a building height of 84 feet (from BFE to
flat roof) and 99.5 feet (to top of architectural embellishments) and 120 parking spaces, as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of CDC Section 2-803.C, and
approval of a two-year development order; and (2) Increase the permitted density by the
allocation of 79 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant
to Beach by Design, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development
Agreement with the City (Case DVA2009-00003);
2.That application for a building permit to construct the approved project be submitted no later
than November 17, 2011, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
3.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Minor Lot Adjustment, Releases of Unity of Title
and new Declarations of Unity of Title be recorded in the public records;
4.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 12 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08027 2009-11-17
5.That no permits for Hotel B be issued prior to the issuance of permits for Hotel A and no
Certificate of Occupancy be issued for this Hotel B at 316 Hamden Drive prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Hotel A at 300 Hamden Drive under FLD2009-
08026/DVA2009-00002, nor until appropriate cross easements serving the Hotel B property
are recorded in the public records;
6.That any freestanding sign be a monument-style sign, be designed to match the exterior
materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at
six-foot height through a Comprehensive Sign Program;
7.That the books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room be open for inspection by
authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm
compliance with the Hotel Density Reserve criteria of Beach by Design as allowed by
general law;
8.That, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a hurricane evacuation plan for the
hotel and accessory docks be submitted and approved by the City for all guests of the hotel;
9.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, plans be revised to show mirrors and/or
other devices to aid motorists with blind spots in the parking garage;
10.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, cross easements for parking,
drainage, fire systems, maintenance, etc. be recorded in the public records;
11.That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, existing overhead utility lines
within the right-of-way along the east side of Hamden Drive be placed underground;
12.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the location and visibility of electric
equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the
building where visible from adjacent roadways, be painted the same color as the building;
13.That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits;
14.That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits;
15.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, plans be revised to:
a.clearly indicate seven-foot sidewalks to be constructed along Hamden Drive; and
b.show visibility triangles on Sheet L1.1; and
16.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of General Engineering,
Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and the Fire Departments be addressed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08027 – Page 13 of 14
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00003 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Number: DVA2009-00003 (Related to FLD2009-08027; and FLD2009-
08026/DVA2009-00002 and FLD2009-09036)
Agenda Item: E.2. (Related to D.2.; and D.1., D.3. and E.1.)
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust; and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers,
LLC
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC
Representative: E.D. Armstrong III, Esquire, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP
Address: 316 Hamden Drive (including a portion of 316 Hamden Drive and 326 and
330 Hamden Drive)
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a
Development Agreement between Agostino Digiovanni, Francesco
Carriera and John Conti, as Co-Trustees of the Tropicana Resort
Land Trust and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers, LLC
(the property owners) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the
allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by
Design.
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN
CHARACTER
DISTRICT: Small Motel
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: 18-room motel and temporary parking lot
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 118
rooms (149.44 rooms/acre on net lot acreage,
including the allocation of 79 units from the Hotel
Density Reserve), retail sales use of 1,335 square
feet (0.037 FAR for retail sales use based on total
lot area) and approximately 1,060 square feet of
accessory use to the hotel at a height of 84 feet (to
flat roof deck)
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2009-00003 – Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00003 2009-11-17
SURROUNDING Overnight accommodations
ZONING AND USES: South: Tourist (T) District
Retail sales, Offices and Overnight accommodations
East: Preservation (P) District
Clearwater Harbor
West: Tourist (T) District
Overnight accommodations, Restaurant and Retail
sales
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.82 acres is located on the west side of Hamden Drive approximately 200 feet south of
Third Street. The subject property is currently developed with a 18-room motel. This site was
previously developed with a 12-unit motel at 326 Hamden Drive and a 20-unit motel at 330
Hamden Drive. These two motels were demolished in early 2009 and this area is currently used
as a temporary parking lot.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal includes a companion Flexible Development application (FLD2009-
08027) to permit an overnight accommodation use of a total of 118 rooms (149.44 rooms/acre on
net lot acreage, including the allocation of 79 units from the Hotel Density Reserve), retail sales
use of 1,335 square feet (0.037 FAR for retail sales use based on total lot area) and
approximately 1,060 square feet of accessory use to the hotel at a height of 84 feet (to flat roof
deck). This proposed hotel (Hotel B) is joined to another hotel (Hotel A, 300 Hamden Drive,
FLD2009-08026/DVA2009-00002) through three levels of parking and an amenity deck on the
fourth level. There are 120 parking spaces on the Hotel B site. There is also an 18-slip
accessory dock planned on the east side of Hamden Drive (FLD2009-09036).
Development Agreement:
The Development Agreement is a requirement for the allocation of hotel units from the Hotel
Density Reserve, adopted as an amendment to Beach by Design under Ordinance 7925-08 on
July 17, 2008. A total of 1,385 hotel rooms are available under the Hotel Density Reserve and
this proposal requests the allocation of 79 units from it. The City has established the
Development Agreement format as a means to facilitate the allocation of the units and to set
forth appropriate provisions related to the development of the property. The proposed
Development Agreement will be in effect for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, meets the
criteria for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design and
includes the following main provisions:
Provides for the allocation of 79 units from the Hotel Density Reserve;
?
Requires the developer to obtain building permits and certificates of occupancy in
?
accordance with Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407;
Requires the return of any hotel unit obtained from the Hotel Density Reserve that is not
?
constructed;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2009-00003 – Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00003 2009-11-17
For units allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve, prohibits the conversion of any hotel
?
unit to a residential use and requires the recording of a covenant restricting use of such
hotel units to overnight accommodation usage; and
Requires a legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the hotel will be
?
closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is
posted by the National Hurricane Center.
The Community Development Board (CDB) has been provided with the most recent
Development Agreement.
The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger commitment
on comprehensive and capital facilities planning, to ensure the provision of adequate public
facilities for development, to encourage the efficient use of resources, and to reduce the
economic cost of development. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development
Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of September 3, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code (CDC), finds
that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.That the 0.82 acres is located on the west side of Hamden Drive approximately 200 feet
south of Third Street;
2.That the property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High
(RFH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of Beach by Design, the Design
Guidelines contained therein as the property is located within the Small Motel character
district and the criteria for allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the requirements for the
construction of on-site and off-site improvements under the related site plan proposal
(FLD2009-08027);
2.That the Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of CDC Section
4-606;
3.That the Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the Visions, Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2009-00003 – Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2009-00003 2009-11-17
4.That the Development Agreement is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of Beach by Design and the Small Motel character district; and
5.That the Development Agreement complies with the criteria in Beach by Design for the
allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
APPROVAL
, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement between
Agostino Digiovanni, Francesco Carriera and John Conti, as Co-Trustees of the Tropicana Resort
Land Trust and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers, LLC (the property owners) and the
City of Clearwater, providing for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under
Beach by Design, for the property at 316 Hamden Drive (including a portion of 316 Hamden
Drive and 326 and 330 Hamden Drive).
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Development Agreement with Exhibits
?
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Future Land Use Map
?
Zoning Map
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\DVA2009-00003 - Hamden 316 Hotel B (T) 2009.xx - 11.17.09
CDB - WW\Hamden 316 Hotel B DVA Staff Report for 11.17.09 CDB.doc
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2009-00003 – Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09036 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-09036
Agenda Item: D.3.
Owners: John Conti, Francesco Carriera, Agostino DiGiovanni as Co-Trustees of
Tropicana Resort Land Trust; and Flamingo Bay Condominium Developers,
LLC
Applicant: Tropicana Resort Motels, LLC
Representative: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting
Address: 300 and 316 Hamden Drive
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a commercial dock in
conjunction with proposed hotels at 300 and 316 Hamden Drive
for 18 slips totaling 2,592.7 square feet, under the provisions of
Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-601.C.3, and
approval of a two-year development order. (Related to FLD2009-
08026/DVA2009-00002 and FLD2009-08027/DVA2009-00003)
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT FUTURE Resort Facilities High (RFH) Category
LAND USE CATEGORY:
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Hotels/motels
Proposed Use: Commercial dock for 18 slips totaling 2,592.7
square feet (in association with proposed hotels)
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) and Low Medium Density Residential
SURROUNDING (LMDR) Districts
ZONING AND USES: Overnight accommodations and Detached dwellings
South: Tourist (T) District
Overnight accommodations
East: Preservation (P) District
Clearwater Harbor
West: Tourist (T) District
Overnight accommodations; Restaurant; and Retail
sales and services
ANALYSIS:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09036 – Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09036 2009-11-17
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.926 total acres is located on the east and west sides of Hamden Drive and on the east side
of Coronado Drive, directly south of Third Street. The upland parcels are developed with
motels, a restaurant and retail sales that have existed for some time, including the Sandman
Resort and Sea Cove Motel. Two motels at 326 and 330 Hamden Drive were demolished at the
beginning of 2009. There are also four waterfront lots on the east side of Hamden Drive that are
attached to the properties on the west side of Hamden Drive and are 10-foot in depth from
Hamden Drive to the water. There are existing docks in varying conditions of deterioration for
approximately 20 boats. The adjacent property to the south on Brightwater Drive is currently
developed with an overnight accommodation use. There is intervening Hamden Drive right-of-
way to the north of these waterfront lots. Detached dwelling lots are to the north along Devon
Drive.
On January 16, 2007, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved Case FLD2006-
10054 with eight conditions of approval for the same subject property, permitting a commercial
dock for 20 slips totaling 2,734 square feet to be used in conjunction with the existing motels.
The applicant complied with conditions of approval to record Declaration of Unity of Titles,
record drainage easements and apply for an upland permit to construct fire risers for the docks
(BCP2007-08185). This building permit for the fire risers was not pursued and the permit was
voided, placing this approval in an expired status.
The applicant pursued construction of these docks and the Planning and Development
Department signed off on the County permit for these docks August 9, 2007 (MIS2007-08041).
The County issued the commercial dock permit on December 12, 2007 (CA38533-07), valid
until December 12, 2010. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) issued
permit number 52-0270133-001 on July 28, 2009, valid until July 28, 2014. The US Army
Corps of Engineers issued permit number SAJ-2006-7777 on May 5, 2008, valid until March 10,
2012. A submerged land lease is currently being prepared by the FDEP. During permit with
these agencies, the deck area was reduced from 2,734 square feet to 2,592.7 square feet and from
20 to 18 slips.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal consists of the construction of a commercial dock in conjunction with
the proposed overnight accommodation uses at 300 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08026, Hotel A)
and 316 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08027, Hotel B) for 18 slips with a deck area of 2,592.7
square feet, as previously approved through the County, State and Federal agencies. Pursuant to
Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-601.C.3, a commercial dock is defined as any
dock, pier, or wharf, including boatlifts, that is used in connection with a hotel, motel or
restaurant where the slips are not rented, leased or sold; or such facilities used in connection with
a social or fraternal club or organization and used only by its membership; or such facilities
constructed and maintained by the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County or by any State or Federal
agency.
The proposed docks will replace the existing docks with up-to-date design and construction with
a central point of access approximately midpoint of the docks. The docks will be accessed via a
sidewalk connector from the public sidewalk within the Hamden Drive right-of-way. This dock
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09036 – Page 2 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09036 2009-11-17
proposal is being coordinated with the proposed construction of overnight accommodation uses
at 300 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08026, Hotel A) and 316 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08027,
Hotel B) also on this CDB agenda. Fire risers will be constructed prior to completion of the
docks. The proposed docks have been designed to minimize any negative environmental impacts
by placing the main access dock away from the seawall to avoid existing shoal grass. The
proposed dock design accommodates existing stormwater pipes that extend from Hamden Drive
through the waterfront lots and the seawall.
Many of the slips at the existing docks are presently rented, in violation of current Code
requirements, operating as a marina. The applicant has advised that the boats presently moored
at these docks will be removed. Upon completion of the new docks, any boats moored will need
to be owned by a guest of the overnight accommodation uses at 300 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-
08026, Hotel A) or 316 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08027, Hotel B). Any change of use of the
associated uplands development will require a re-review of this commercial dock and the use of
the slips by the CDB.
The applicant is requesting a two-year time frame for the Development Order to coincide with
the approvals of FLD2009-08026 and FLD2009-08027.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There is an active Code Enforcement case at 301 and 305
Coronado Drive for pennants at the restaurant (BIZ2009-00413).
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS:
The Planning and Development Department has
determined the property in question does not abut adjacent waterfront single family or two-
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09036 – Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09036 2009-11-17
family property, due to the existence of the Hamden Drive right-of-way to the north of the
subject waterfront lots. With regards to setbacks, the dimensional standards criteria set forth in
CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h state that docks shall be located no closer to any property line as
extended into the water than the distance equivalent to ten percent of the width of the waterfront
property line. The width of the waterfront property line is 437.6 feet; therefore the proposed
dock must be set back from the east and west property lines a minimum of 43.7 feet. As
proposed, the dock will be set back from the north and south property lines, as extended into the
water on a diagonal, in excess of this requirement with distances of 45.8 feet and 58.1 feet,
respectively.
With regards to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or
seawall of the subject property more than 75 percent of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock cannot exceed 328.2
feet. As proposed, the dock has a length of 69.5 feet. The same threshold that applies to length
also applies to width; therefore the width of the proposed dock cannot exceed 328.2 feet. The
dock has a proposed width of 274.6 feet; thus compliance with this standard is achieved. While
not consistent with existing, older and shorter docks, the proposed docks are consistent with
newer docks required to meet today’s Codes, wherein the length takes into account the water
depth at mean low water.
The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Setbacks 10% of the width of the subject North: 45.8 feet X
(Minimum) property (43.7 feet) South: 58.1 feet X
Length 75% of the width of the subject 69.5 feet X
(Maximum) property (328.2 feet)
Width 75% of the width of the subject 274.6 feet X
(Maximum) property (328.2 feet)
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL DOCKS (CDC
SECTION 3-601.C.3.a-g):
The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the
criteria for commercial docks. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been provided by
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09036 – Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09036 2009-11-17
the applicant and are included with their application. The individual criteria for commercial
docks are set forth in the following table:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, X
convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the
property.
2. The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent X
properties and the neighborhood in general.
3. The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general vicinity. X
4. Impacts on Existing Water Recreation Activities. The use of the proposed dock X
shall not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using
the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, it
shall not hinder or discourage the existing uses of the adjacent waterway by uses
including but not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats.
5. Impacts on Navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a X
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation,
recreational or other public conveniences.
6. Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine X
grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas.
7. Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats X
suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil
suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds
for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such artificial reef which
has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be
approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity;
oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries
or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat.
8. All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area associated X
with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to ensure that
a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest member of a
vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the water body at mean or
ordinary low water (-0.95 NGVD datum).
9. The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage, shoaling X
of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the area or
limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water quality in the area in
which the dock is proposed to be located.
10. The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of X
wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so as
to be contrary to the public interest.
11. The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative, terrestrial, X
or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one or more of
the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or feeding
grounds; habitats which display biological or physical attributes which would serve
to make them rare within the confines of the City; designated preservation areas
such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan, national wildlife
refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated preservation areas, and bird
sanctuaries.
12. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/Uplands. The dock shall not have a material adverse X
affect upon the uplands surrounding.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913.A:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09036 – Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09036 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of December 1, 2009, 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. The Planning and Development 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 1.926 total acres is located on the east and west sides of Hamden Drive and the east
side of Coronado Drive, directly south of Third Street;
2.That upland parcels are developed with motels that have existed for some time, including the
Sandman Resort and Sea Cove Motel;
3.That the subject property includes four waterfront lots on the east side of Hamden Drive that
are part of the properties on the west side of Hamden Drive and the waterfront lots are 10-
foot in depth from Hamden Drive to the water;
4.That there are existing docks in varying conditions of deterioration for approximately 20
boats;
5.That many of the slips at the existing docks are presently rented, in violation of current Code
requirements, and that the boats presently moored at these docks will be removed as a result
of this proposal;
6.That on January 16, 2007, the CDB approved Case FLD2006-10054 for similar docks (20
slips totaling 2,734 square feet) with eight conditions of approval for the same subject
property (which later lapsed and expired);
7.That County, State and Federal permits for these docks have been obtained under the prior
approval, where time frames have not expired;
8.That the development proposal consists of the construction of a commercial dock for 18 slips
totaling 2,592.7 square feet, accommodating boats up to 40 feet in length, in conjunction with
the proposed overnight accommodation uses at 300 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08026, Hotel
A) and 316 Hamden Drive (FLD2009-08027, Hotel B);
9.That the proposed docks comply with the setback, width and length standards of CDC
Section 3-601.C.3.h;
10.That the development proposal is compatible with dock patterns of the surrounding area;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09036 – Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09036 2009-11-17
11.That the applicant is requesting a two year time frame for the Development Order to coincide
with the upland overnight accommodation use approvals; and
12.That, while there is an active Code Enforcement issue associated with the larger upland
portion of the subject property, such does not affect the development proposal.
Conclusion of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusion of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the commercial dock review criteria as per
CDC Section 3-601.C.3; and
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability criteria as per
CDC Section 3-913.A.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the Flexible Development application to permit a commercial dock in conjunction with proposed
hotels at 300 and 316 Hamden Drive for 18 slips totaling 2,592.7 square feet, under the
provisions of CDC Section 3-601.C.3, and approval of a two-year development order, with the
following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That, due to County, State and Federal permits having been previously issued and unless time
extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407, construction of the approved docks
be no later than November 17, 2011;
2.That hurricane evacuation plans, required for the overnight accommodation uses at 300 and
316 Hamden Drive under DVA2009-00002 and DVA2009-00003 respectively, include
provisions for these accessory docks;
3.That use of the docks be for exclusive use for the mooring of boats by guests of the overnight
accommodation uses at 300 and 316 Hamden Drive and that the docks are not permitted to be
rented, leased or sold separately from use by guests of these hotels;
4.That any future change in use of the upland development different than hotels/motels
requires a re-review of these docks and the use of the slips. The owner shall notify the
Planning and Development Director in writing in the event of a proposed change in the
upland use;
5.That, prior to the completion of construction of the docks, fire risers for the docks be
constructed and operational. Should the docks be constructed in advance of either of the
overnight accommodation uses under FLD2009-08026 (Hotel A) or FLD2009-08027 (Hotel
B), a separate building permit for the fire risers shall be obtained;
6.That signage be permanently installed on the docks or at the entrance to the docks containing
wording warning boaters of the existence of protected sea grasses and manatees in the
vicinity; and
7.That a copy of the SWFWMD and/or FDEP Permit, Corps of Engineer's Permit and proof of
permission to use State submerged land be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department prior to commencement of construction.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09036 – Page 7 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09036 2009-11-17
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Hamden 300-316 Tropicana Resort Docks (T) 2009.xx -
11.17.09 CDB - WW\Hamden 300 Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09036 – Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09035/PLT2009-00002
2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Numbers: FLD2009-09035/PLT2009-00002
Agenda Item: D.7.
Owner/Applicant: Agostino DiGiovanni for Patio Homes
Representative: Ronald Letize
Address: 109 S McMullen Booth Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit four attached dwellings in the
Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District, as a Residential
Infill Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code
(CDC) Section 2-204.E.; and Preliminary Plat approval for a 4-lot
subdivision for attached dwellings.
CURRENT ZONING: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
CURRENT FUTURE LAND Residential Urban (RU)
USE CATEGORY:
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: 4-lot subdivision for attached dwellings
EXISTING North: Pinellas County
SURROUNDING ZONING
Detached Dwellings
AND USES:
South: Mobile Home Park (MHP) District
Detached Dwellings
East: Low Medium Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
West: Office (O) District and Pinellas County
Detached Dwellings and Educational Facilities
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.595 acres is located at the southeast corner of McMullen Booth Road and John's Parkway. The
property was previously developed with a detached dwelling which has been demolished and the site is
now vacant.
The properties to the north within the City are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
and are developed with detached and attached dwellings. Properties to the west within the City are zoned
Office (O) District and are developed with educational facilities uses. Properties to the south are zoned
Mobile Home Park (MHP) District and are developed with a mobile home park. Properties to the east is
zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09035/ PLT2009-00002 – Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09035/PLT2009-00002
2009-11-17
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to redevelop the subject property with a 4-lot subdivision containing four attached
dwellings, one on each of the four lots, through the Residential Infill Project process. Attached dwellings
are permitted in the LMDR District through a Flexible Standard Development or Flexible Development
application contingent that the parcel proposed for development is a corner lot and vacant on the date of
adoption of the Code. While the subject property is a corner lot, it was developed with a detached
dwelling at the date of adoption of the Code. Therefore, approval through the Residential Infill
Development process is necessary.
Public sidewalks will be constructed on the south side of John’s Parkway within easements. Existing
water and sewer lines are located within the proposed private street right-of-way and a right-of-way
easement will be granted to the City for access to these facilities. All four of the lots will take driveway
access from John’s Parkway.
The redevelopment of this property with attached dwellings will be consistent with the majority of the
surrounding development, which are primarily detached and attached dwellings. The attached dwellings
will be compatible with the surrounding developed character and represent an upgrade from the existing
vacant lot conditions.
The Preliminary Plat for this subdivision complies with the design standards of the Community
Development Code. A Final Plat will be required to be approved and accepted by City Council prior to
recording in the public records.
Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 2-201.1, within
the Residential Urban (RU) land use category, the allowable I.S.R is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an
I.S.R of 0.42 is proposed.
Density: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban (RU) land use category, the
allowable density is 7.5 units per acre. As the lot area is 25,931 square feet/ 0.595 acres, four dwelling
units are allowed and therefore, the four proposed dwelling units are in compliance.
Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is no
minimum lot area. The aggregate proposed lot area for the four proposed lots is 25,931 square feet which
meets the attached dwelling flexible standard development standard of 5,000 square feet found in Table 2-
203.
Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is no
minimum lot width. The aggregate proposed lot width for the four proposed lots is 185.80 feet which
meets the attached dwelling flexible standard development standard of 100 feet found in Table 2-203.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, the minimum
setbacks in the LMDR District are 25-foot front, five-foot side and 15-foot rear. As the property fronts
two rights of way, (McMullen Booth Road to the west and John’s Parkway to the north), the property has
two front and two side setbacks. The proposal includes a front (north) setback of 25 feet, a front (west)
setback of 29 feet, a side (south) setback of 32.3 feet and a side (east) setback of 18.5 feet and is therefore
compliant with the above referenced requirements.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill projects, the
maximum building height in the LMDR District is 30 feet. The proposed building height of the attached
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09035/ PLT2009-00002 – Page 2 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09035/PLT2009-00002
2009-11-17
dwellings will maintain a maximum building height of 13.1 feet as measured to mean roof height, which
is consistent with the LMDR District standards.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Two parking spaces are required for attached dwellings in the LMDR
District. The proposal is to provide two parking spaces for each dwelling, which is consistent with Code
requirements. Furthermore, and pursuant to Section 3-1402.C, only detached dwellings may have back-
out parking into rights-of-way. The driveways have been designed as to allow vehicles to have turning
capability within each driveway as to enter the John’s Parkway in a forward motion.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.H.1, air conditioning and similar mechanical
equipment is exempt from the side and rear setback requirements, but such equipment must be screened
from view from streets and adjacent property. Outside condensing units for air conditioners will be
placed adjacent to the side of the dwellings. Screening requirements will be reviewed during the building
permit process.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1908.A, all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, water,
wastewater collection, electric, telephone and television cables, except major transmission lines and
transformers, shall be located underground. This proposal will comply with this requirement.
Solid Waste: Each dwelling will be provided a black barrel for solid waste disposal. The applicant has
indicated these black barrels will be stored exterior to the dwelling. CDC Section 3-201.D.1 requires
these black barrels to be screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. Provisions for walls,
fences or other appropriate screening materials will be reviewed during the building permit process.
Signage: There are presently no proposed subdivision signs for this property. Should any such signs be
desired, appropriate provisions in the Sign Code must be met.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the
subject property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency
of the detached dwelling subdivision proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 7.5 du/acre 6.71 du/acre X
I.S.R. 0.65 0.42 X
Minimum N/A Four lots totaling 25,931 square X 1
Lot Area feet
Minimum N/A Four lots totaling 185.80 feet X 1
Lot Width (measured at the front setback
line)
Minimum Front: 10 – 25 feet North: 25 Feet X
Setbacks West: 29 Feet
Side: 0 – 5 feet South: 32.3 X
East: 18.5
Rear: 0 – 10 feet N/A N/A
Maximum 30 13.1 feet X
Height
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09035/ PLT2009-00002 – Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09035/PLT2009-00002
2009-11-17
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Minimum Two spaces per dwelling unit Two spaces per dwelling unit X
Off-Street Parking
1 See analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of
the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-204.E (Residential Infill
Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following:
intensity or other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X
which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level
Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its
meetings of October 1, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move
forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09035/ PLT2009-00002 – Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09035/PLT2009-00002
2009-11-17
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. The 0.595 acres is located at the southeast corner of McMullen Booth Road and John's Parkway;
2. The property was developed with a detached dwelling until 2008, which has been demolished and the
site is now vacant;
3. The proposal is to redevelop the subject property with a 4-lot subdivision for attached dwellings;
4. The LMDR District standards require developing attached dwellings on land not vacant at the
adoption of the current code be approved through a Residential Infill Project application;
5. The proposal includes four lots with an aggregate lot area of 25,931 square feet and an aggregate lot
width (measured at the front setback line) of 185.80 feet; and
6. There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the
following conclusions of law:
1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204 of
the Community Development Code;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-204.E 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. That the development proposal is consistent with the requirements for Preliminary Plats in Sections 4-
704, 4-705 and 4-709 of the Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible Development
approval to permit four attached dwellings in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District, as a
Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E.; and Preliminary Plat approval for a 4-
lot subdivision for attached dwellings with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That the final design and color of the dwellings be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
2. That black barrels stored exterior to the dwellings and outdoor mechanical equipment including air
conditioning equipment be screened from view from adjacent streets and properties; and
3. That all utility facilities, including but not limited to gas, water, wastewater collection, electric,
telephone and television cables, except major transmission lines and transformers, shall be located
underground, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Prepared by Planning Department Staff: __________________________________________
Matt Jackson, Planner II
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09035/ PLT2009-00002 – Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DRI2009-00001 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Number: DRI2009-00001
Agenda Item: E. 4.
Owner: Glenborough Fund XII, LLC
Applicant: Glenborough Park Place, LLC
Agent: Randy Coen, Coen & Company
Address: 430 Park Place Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: To amend the previously approved development order for the Park
Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI)through the
Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC) process to adopt a land
use conversion factor for Parcel 7 for the conversion of retail
commercial development to office development; allocate a total of
55,278 square feet of approved retail commercial development
potential to Parcel 7; allocate a total of 10,200 square feet of retail
commercial development potential to Parcel 9; and recognize the
extension of the build-out and termination dates of the DRI until
December 31, 2011.
CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C); Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT);
Office (O); and Preservation (P) Districts.
CURRENT FUTURE Commercial General (CG); Industrial Limited (IL); Preservation
LAND USE CATEGORY: (P); Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R); and Residential/Office
General (R/OG).
DRI SIZE: 99.13 acres (4,318,810 square feet).
DRI PROPERTY USES: Attached Dwellings, Manufacturing, Offices, Restaurants, and
Retail Sales and Services.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DRI2009-00001 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DRI2009-00001 2009-11-17
BACKGROUND & PROPOSAL:
The Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) consists of eleven parcels of land
totaling 99.13 acres that are regulated by a development order and a Master Development Plan
commonly referred to as Map H. Map H identifies the locations of the various parcels as well as
the type of use permitted for the parcels and its related development potential (i.e. density or
intensity). The following table denotes those permissible land uses and development potentials
for the various parcels within the DRI:
Land Use Development Potential
Parcel 1a Light Industrial 100,000 square feet
Parcel 1b Office 63,300 square feet
Parcel 2 Multi-Family 156 dwelling units
Parcel 3 Multi-Family 234 dwelling units
Parcel 4 Office 101,900 square feet
Parcel 5 Office 120,560 square feet
Parcel 6 Office 100,000 square feet
Parcel 7 Commercial 49,906 square feet
Parcel 8 Office 82,179 square feet
Parcel 9 Commercial 5,372 square feet
Parcel 10 Commercial 11,303 square feet
Parcel 11 Commercial 14,539 square feet
* While still technically a single parcel within the DRI, Parcel 1 is listed as “a” and “b”
due to the use of an approved conversion factor that converted a portion of the allocated
light industrial development potential into office development potential.
History of DRI Amendments:
The development order for the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) was adopted
by the City Council on September 1, 1983. Subsequently, on October 20, 1983, the City Council
adopted an amendment to incorporate various recommendations of the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council (TBRPC).
At its meeting of December 19, 1991, the City Council adopted another amendment to provide
200,000 square feet for industrial development and reduce office development by 300,000 square
feet; provide a floor area ratio (FAR) for industrial development; amend conditions based upon
phasing; amend the developer’s payment schedule; and extend the build-out date by five years.
On January 19, 1995, another amendment was adopted by the City Council to modify phasing;
decrease office development by 7,480 square feet; extend the build-out date by four years; add
land use conversion factors for Parcels 1, 2, 3 and/or 8 for the conversion of office development
to multi-family residential development, and from industrial development to either office or
multi-family residential development (with the exception that Parcel 1 not have multi-family
residential development); and modify conditions to reflect changes in the transportation network.
On November 21, 1996, another amendment was adopted by the City Council to add a land use
conversion factor for Parcel 4 for the conversion of retail commercial development to office
and/or hotel development; and to reflect changes in ownership and configuration of the parcels
within the development.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DRI2009-00001 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DRI2009-00001 2009-11-17
On February 1, 2001, another amendment was adopted by the City Council to reduce the
approved office and retail commercial development potential for Parcel 6; add a land use
conversion factor for Parcel 6 for the conversion of office development to multi-family and/or
hotel development; and extend the build out date by three years to December 31, 2003.
On January 15, 2004, the City Council adopted the most recent amendment to the Park Place
DRI which extended the build-out date by five years to December 31, 2008. Subsequent to this
amendment, the State Statutes were amended [F.S. 380.06(19)(c)] to add language recognizing
the 2007 real estate market conditions and extended all phase, build-out and expiration dates by
three years for any DRI under active construction on July 1, 2007. The Park Place DRI was
considered to be under active construction as of this date and therefore the build-out and
expiration dates of the DRI are considered to be extended until December 31, 2011.
On August 24, 2009, a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) was submitted by the owner of
Parcel 7 to accomplish the following:
?Adoption of a land use conversion factor for Parcel 7 for the conversion of retail commercial
development to office development;
?Allocation of a total of 55,278 square feet of approved retail commercial development
potential to Parcel 7;
?Allocation of a total of 10,200 square feet of retail commercial development potential to
Parcel 9; and
?Recognition of the extension of the build-out and termination dates of the DRI until
December 31, 2011.
The NOPC includes the land use conversion factor allowing retail floor area to be converted into
office floor area out of a desire on the part of the applicant to be able to redevelop the property to
office use. It is noted that similar conversion factors are already allowed on other Parcels within
the DRI.
The allocation of 55,278 square feet of retail commercial development potential is already
allowed between Parcels 7 and 9 and is reflected on the current Map H; however there has been
some confusion as to whether this potential is only for Parcel 7. The NOPC would eliminate any
potential further confusion by allocating all 55,278 square feet of development potential to Parcel
7 and establishing an additional 10,200 square feet of development potential (that is not currently
allocated to the DRI) on Parcel 9. This new development potential would account for all
currently approved/constructed improvements on Parcel 9.
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Sections 4-605.F and G, in reviewing the
application for an amendment to a DRI, the Community Development Coordinator, the
Community Development Board (CDB), and the City Council shall consider whether and the
extent to which:
1.The development will interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted county-
wide plan applicable to the area.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DRI2009-00001 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DRI2009-00001 2009-11-17
2.The development is consistent with the City of Clearwater's Comprehensive Plan.
3.The development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning
agency.
4.The development is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
With regard to the above criteria, the following analysis is provided:
The Countywide Plan.
1.The Future Land Use Map is not being amended; thus, there are no
applicable regulations from the Countywide Plan.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan.
2. A review of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan was conducted with the following items identified as being
applicable to the proposed amendment:
Policy A.4.1.1 No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the
level of City services (traffic circulation, recreation and open space, water,
sewage treatment, garbage collection and drainage) to fall below minimum
acceptable levels. However, development orders may be phased or
otherwise modified consistent with provisions of the concurrency
management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently with
the impacts of development.
Objective A.6.4 Due to the built-out character of the city of Clearwater, compact urban
development within the urban service area shall be promoted through
application of the Clearwater Community Development Code.
Based on the information submitted by the applicant, as well as responses provided to
address specific concerns of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council staff, it has been concluded that the proposed amendment
will not decrease the transportation level of service and will not have a negative impact on
the operation of the signalized intersections in the area.
Further, it is noted that the proposed amendment includes a provision addressing solid waste
capacity. This provision states that “if the cumulative amount of any development on Parcel
7 exceeds the equivalent of 79,010 square feet of office, then the developer shall provide
documentation to the City and the TBRPC that additional solid waste capacity is available to
serve the additional solid waste demand generated by the development”.
Based upon the above, the proposed amendment has been found to be consistent with the
goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBPRC).
3. Pursuant to Subsections
380.06(19)(b)5 and 380.06(19)(e)3, Florida Statutes, this proposed change is presumed to
create a substantial deviation. A substantial deviation is defined as “any proposed change to
a previously approved development which creates a reasonable likelihood of additional
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DRI2009-00001 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DRI2009-00001 2009-11-17
regional impact, or any type of regional impact created by the change not previously
reviewed by the regional planning agency.”
Following their respective reviews of the proposed amendments, the FDOT stated in its letter
of September 8, 2009, that it has no objection to the request; and the TBRPC stated in its
report of October 12, 2009, “that no unmitigated regional impacts would be expected.” It is
noted that the TBRPC approved the proposed amendments on this date as well.
The State Comprehensive Plan.
4.A review of the State’s Comprehensive Plan was
conducted with the following policy identified as being applicable to the proposed
amendment:
187.201(15)(b)3 Enhance the livability and character of urban areas through the
encouragement of an attractive and functional mix of living, working,
shopping, and recreational activities.
The proposed amendment has been found to be consistent with the applicable State
Comprehensive Plan policy.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of October 1, 2009, 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 existing DRI consists of 99.13 acres (4,318,810 square feet) and is generally
bordered by Drew Street on the north, Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard on the south, Hampton Road
on the east, and various properties that front on US Highway 19 N on the west;
2.That the properties that make up the existing DRI consist of lands zoned Commercial (C);
Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT); Office (O); and Preservation (P) District;
3.That the properties that make up the existing DRI consist of lands within the Commercial
General (CG); Industrial Limited (IL); Preservation (P); Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R);
and Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan categories;
4.That the requested NOPC would amend the development order to adopt a land use
conversion factor for Parcel 7 for the conversion of retail commercial development to office
development;
5.That the requested NOPC would amend the development order to allocate of a total of 55,278
square feet of approved retail commercial development potential to Parcel 7;
6.That the requested NOPC would amend the development order to allocate of a total of 10,200
square feet of retail commercial development potential to Parcel 9; and
7.That the requested NOPC would amend the development order to recognize of the extension
of the build-out and termination dates of the DRI until December 31, 2011.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DRI2009-00001 – Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DRI2009-00001 2009-11-17
Conclusion of Law. The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches
the following conclusion of law:
1.That the requested NOPC for the existing DRI has been found to be in compliance with the
applicable criteria as per CDC Section 4-605.F.
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends that the Community Development
APPROVAL
Board forward a recommendation of to the City Council to amend the previously
approved development order for the Park Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI)through
theNotification of Proposed Change (NOPC) process to adopt a land use conversion factor for
Parcel 7 for the conversion of retail commercial development to office development; allocate a
total of 55,278 square feet of approved retail commercial development potential to Parcel 7;
allocate a total of 10,200 square feet of retail commercial development potential to Parcel 9; and
recognize the extension of the build-out and termination dates of the DRI until December 31,
2011.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
Robert G. Tefft,
Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
?Location Map;
?Aerial Map;
?Zoning Map; and
?Existing Surrounding Uses Map.
S:\Planning Department\DRI\Park Place\DRI2009-00001 Park Place - 2010.01 - RT\Staff Report - CDB 2009 11-17.Docx
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DRI2009-00001 – Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Numbers: FLD2008-12033 (Related to DVA2008-00002)
Agenda Item: D.4. (Related to E.3.)
Owner/Applicant: William M. Shephard, Trustee
Representative: Alex Azan, Keith Zayac & Associates
Address: 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: (1) Flexible Development approval to permit the redevelopment of
an existing 96-unit overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T)
District to a 186-unit overnight accommodation use with a lot area
of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S.
Gulfview Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to
existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed building), 6.5 feet (to
proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side
(east) setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory
building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed building and decking), a side
(west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and
decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building),
59.25 feet (to proposed building) and zero feet (to
existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to
top of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and
valet in existing garage; valet-only in new garage), as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions
of Section 2-803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by
the allocation of 68 overnight accommodation units from the Hotel
Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design.
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Resort Facilities High (RFH)
BEACH BY DESIGN
CHARACTER South Beach/Clearwater Pass
DISTRICT:
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: 96-room hotel/motel
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 1 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 186
rooms (78.48 rooms/acre on lot acreage zoned
Tourist (T) District, including the allocation of 68
units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and
approximately 37,647 square feet of accessory uses
to the hotel at a height of 134 feet (to flat roof deck)
EXISTING North:Tourist (T) District Automobile Service Station
SURROUNDING and Attached dwellings
ZONING AND USES: South:Preservation (P) District Gulf of Mexico
East: Tourist (T) District Overnight accommodations
West: Tourist (T) District Overnight accommodations
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open
Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet
east of Hamden Drive. The site is comprised of two parcels. The subject property is currently
developed with a 96-unit hotel/motel. There is approximately 16,224 square feet of accessory
uses.
An automobile service station and attached dwellings exists to the north of the subject property.
The Holiday Inn hotel is located to the west and the Econo Lodge hotel is located to the east of
the site. The Gulf of Mexico is located to the south.
In 2005, an application was filed to redevelop this property as a mixed-use for 111 overnight
accommodation rooms and two dwelling units under Case No. FLD2005-11108. Part of this
proposal included the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) from four sending sites for five
dwelling units and 10 overnight accommodation units (Case No. TDR2005-11028). This
proposal never proceeded pastan incomplete status and eventually was withdrawn. However,
the five dwelling units were actually transferred by recorded warranty deeds to this site without
City authorization.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is for the redevelopment of the existing 96-unit overnight accommodation use to a
186-unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 78.48 units/acre on the lot acreage zoned
Tourist (T) District, which includes the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve
under Beach by Design. This is the fifth hotel to be placed on the Community Development
Board agenda since the amendment of Beach by Design in July 2008 creating the Hotel Density
Reserve as a means to encourage the construction of new mid-size hotels on the beach in
response to the loss of hotel rooms since 2002. Also on this CDB agenda is a companion
Development Agreement (DVA2008-00002) that must be approved by City Council, which
provides for the allocation of the 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve. This Development
Agreement provides for mandatory evacuation/closure of the hotel in the event of the posting of
a hurricane watch including Clearwater Beach by the National Hurricane Center, which also
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 2 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
complies with Beach by Design criteria. This proposal complies with the Beach by Design
criteria to access all rooms through a lobby and internal corridors.
The proposal is to redevelop the property by demolishing basically the eastern portion of the
existing improvements. The existing parking garage, restaurant, nightclub and 46 hotel rooms
will be retained in the existing buildings on the western portion of the site. The proposal
includes the construction of a new building on the east side of the property with 140 hotel rooms
at a height of 134 feet (to the top of the flat roof deck). A colonnade will connect the existing
building to the new building with a water wall feature on the south side of the colonnade. A new
pool is proposed south of this colonnade. North of this colonnade is proposed a drop-off/pick-
up porte cochere that can stack 16 vehicles. This new entrance area will provide access to the
existing parking garage, as well as providing access to the parking garage in the new building.
The hotel registration desk located in the building to be demolished will be relocated to the lobby
of the western building being retained. The first floor of the proposed building will provide
guest entrance area to the elevators and storage rooms, as well as a total of 16 parking spaces.
Level 200, 300 and 400 will provide a total of 47, 49 and 52 parking spaces respectively. Level
500 will provide a total of 18,498 square feet of multi-function and meeting room space for
guests. Levels 600 through 1200 will provide 20 hotel rooms per floor. Level 1400 provides a
spa and exercise area, as well as a rooftop pool. Covered areas on this rooftop area comply with
Code provisions for maximum building height due to the rooftop occupancy afforded. Hotel
rooms are primarily oriented with east and west views, but the balconies provide views of the
Gulf of Mexico. The new building is described as a seaside beach motel design, which is
appropriate and aesthetically pleasing for this waterfront property. Railings on the balconies of
the new building will match that of the existing building so that there is continuity of design
elements. The main exterior color of the existing and proposed buildings is white. Windows and
glass doors in the new building are planned with a blue tint.
Beach by Design provisions require no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater
than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. The proposed building façade has been
designed in compliance with this requirement so that this maximum 100-foot dimension is not
exceeded. The proposed parking garage levels (Ground through Level 400) will be clad with a
decorative metal mesh screening panel system for screening views of the vehicles. At least on
the north side of the new building for Levels 200 through Level 500 a landscaped façade is
planned with a greenscreen trellis system. The existing parking garage will also be enhanced
with the same decorative metal mesh screening panel system for screening views of the vehicles.
At least the existing parking garage is planned to be planted with climbing vines that will assist
with screening of the vehicles. In order to ensure the landscaping material on the metal mesh
screening panels on the existing or proposed parking garages are not trimmed to create any
signage, a condition of approval to prevent such is recommended, unless such signage is
approved through a Comprehensive Sign Program.
There are four cabanas planned poolside as part of the ground floor of the new building. To
ensure that the cabanas on the ground floor are used for storage only, in compliance with all
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) rules and guidelines for velocity
zones, a condition of approval is recommended to be included in any approval of this request.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 3 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in deed restrictions or like forms, will need to be
submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
During the final DRC review, it was noted that a large 26-foot wide by 16-foot high overhead
door was introduced at the northeast corner of the proposed building. Staff questioned the size,
location and purpose of this overhead door. The owner’s response was that the size of this
overhead door was to provide for beach maintenance equipment. Such equipment is not
presently on-site and the applicant has not provided any documentation to Staff regarding such
equipment. This proposed overhead door is also located at the base of the ramp that provides
access to and from the upper parking levels, where critical turning movements occur enter and
exiting the garage. Additionally, the location of the overhead door is at the farthest point of the
building from the beach area, where any such tractor would damage the landscaping, and
possibly the stormwater system, along this side of the site. Finally, the applicant has not
indicated where such beach equipment would be stored in the building, which may displace
parking spaces. The applicant has not justified the introduction of this large overhead door. As
such, Staff would recommend that such overhead door be eliminated, or relocated closer to the
beach area to minimize such damage and be reduced to a size not to exceed 12 feet in width and
height. Parking spaces on the south side of the building can be removed to provide building
access for this beach equipment.
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2-801.1, the
maximum density for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 50 overnight
accommodation units per acre. Based on the 2.37 acres zoned Tourist District, a maximum of
118 overnight accommodation units are permissible under current regulations. The proposal also
requests 68 hotel rooms from the Hotel Density Reserve, adopted as an amendment to Beach by
Design under Ordinance 7925-08. The overall density for this project is 78.48 overnight
accommodation units/rooms per acre, which meets and is less than the maximum established in
Beach by Design for projects that have acquired units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
Based on recent Code amendments for hotels and related to the Hotel Density Reserve, when the
percentage of accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the hotel gross floor area, the accessory uses
must be treated as primary uses for calculation of density/intensity. Based on the proposed
overall hotel gross floor area of 188,725 square feet and a total of 37,647 square feet of
accessory uses, the accessory uses represent 19.94 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area.
Staff has performed a mixed use calculation, where the accessory use square footage (37,647
square feet) is subtracted from the original lot area square footage zoned Tourist District
(103,237 square feet) to produce a net lot acreage of 1.5057 acres for calculating allowable
density. Based on the net lot acreage and 50 rooms/units per acre, the maximum base density is
75 rooms. Again, based on the net lot acreage and 150 rooms/units per acre, the maximum
number of hotel rooms under the Hotel Density Reserve is 225 rooms. When the 75 rooms is
subtracted from the 225 rooms, this equals 150 rooms. The maximum number of rooms
available when the lot acreage is less than 2.5 acres is 100 rooms. Therefore, the maximum
number of rooms complying with the Hotel Density Reserve provisions is 175 rooms (75 + 100).
The proposal is for 186 rooms. Since this proposal was submitted prior to the Code amendments
moderating hotel densities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 4 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
hotel, this site will become a nonconforming use due to number of rooms. This determination
does not prevent the allocation of the 68 rooms requested, or the approval of this application.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable
I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.83, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum lot area for
overnight accommodations can range between 10,000 – 20,000 square feet. The overall existing
site is 103,237 square feet of lot area. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for
overnight accommodations can range between 100 – 150 feet. The lot width along S. Gulfview
Boulevard is approximately 389 feet. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum front setback for overnight
accommodations can range between 0 – 15 feet, the minimum side setback can range between 0
– 10 feet and the minimum rear setback can range between 0 – 20 feet. The proposal includes
reductions to the front (north) setback to 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed
building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), to the side (east)
setback to 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed
building and decking), to the side (west) setback to zero feet (to existing building, pavement and
decking) and to the rear (south) setback to 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed
building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking).
The proposal includes retaining the existing development on the west side of the site, including
46 hotel rooms, the accessory uses of the restaurant and nightclub and the parking garage. The
existing parking garage is located at a 15-foot front setback. The existing improvements along
the west side at a zero-foot side setback were approved under a variance granted in 1998. These
existing improvements, including a covered trash and equipment area, pavement to access
loading/trash area and an outdoor patio for the nightclub, will be retained at their existing zero-
foot setback under this proposal. This proposal includes trimming the existing carport-type
structure on the west side so that it does not extend over the west property line. The existing
building will retain its 22-foot rear setback, along with the zero-foot setback to the existing patio
decking.
The proposal includes retaining a portion of an existing building east of the restaurant,
remodeling the ground floor for an expanded kitchen for the tiki deck, providing a snack bar
oriented toward the proposed pool, removing the second floor enclosed area and turning this
second floor to an open activity deck. The rear setback to the existing structure is approximately
26 feet to the south property line.
The proposal basically reconstructs the eastern half of the property with new development.
Revised driveways are proposed on S. Gulfview Boulevard, as well as a new drop-off porte
cochere and a colonnade “connecting” the old and new buildings. A new pool is proposed south
of the entry colonnade. Since the new building will be constructed on the east side of the site,
the proposal includes reductions to the front (north) setback to 11.2 feet (to proposed building),
6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement). Due to the angle of the
front property line, the proposed front setback to the building is at the northeast corner of the
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 5 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
building, as the setback increases toward the west. The 6.5-foot setback is to a sidewalk leading
to a storage room on the east end of an exit stairwell. The site has been designed with a drive
access from the entry area to the parking garage in the new building, with the edge of the
pavement at 6.79 feet to the front property line. This setback, along with the landscaping
proposed between the property line and this edge of pavement, will provide sufficient protection
to pedestrians on the public sidewalk within the S. Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way. An
existing waverunner accessory building is proposed to be retained, which is located at a side
(east) setback of 9.58 feet. The proposed building and decking is proposed at a side (east)
setback of 15.44 feet, which exceeds the minimum side setback requirement. The proposed
building is located at a rear setback of 59.25 feet to the south property line. Staff notes that the
architectural design includes tapered fins on the front (north) and rear (south) sides of the new
building. While the bottoms of the architectural fins at ground-level are closer to the building,
the upper reaches of the fins are closer to the front property line and the seawall at the rear.
Adjacent to S. Gulfview Boulevard, the top of the tapered fin is located approximately 19.83 feet
from the front property line. At the rear, the Building Code requires an 18-foot setback to
seawalls due to the deadmen. The top of the tapered fins are located approximately 11.67 feet to
the seawall, which will require a variance to the Building Code seawall setback requirement.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the maximum allowable height for
overnight accommodations can range between 35 – 100 feet. Section B.1 of the Design
Guidelines of Beach by Design allows the building height to be increased to a maximum of 150
feet for properties that obtain additional density from the Hotel Density Reserve for properties
located between S. Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed building is 134
feet in height from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof. This site is located within the
South Beach/Clearwater Pass character district of Beach by Design, which does not prescribe any
maximum heights. This proposal complies with the maximum building height allowable under
Beach by Design. There have been other projects approved at a maximum height of 150 feet
within this same South Beach/Clearwater Pass character district between S. Gulfview Boulevard
and the Gulf of Mexico.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: When this project was submitted for review, the minimum
required parking for overnight accommodations was one parking space per room, or a minimum
of 186 parking spaces. The existing parking garage contains 192 regular parking spaces and 28
overflow parking spaces during peak demand (total of 220 parking spaces). The existing garage
will operate as self-park for hotel guests and as valet parking during peak demand. The overflow
parking is by valet only. The proposal includes constructing a four-level parking garage as part
of the new building, which will be by valet parking only, with a total of 124 regular parking
spaces and 40 overflow parking spaces during peak demand (total of 164 parking spaces).
Overall, this site will contain a total of 384 parking spaces (316 regular parking spaces and 68
overflow parking spaces). The proposal includes 2.06 parking spaces per room.
CDC Table 2-803 has been amended to require 1.2 parking spaces per overnight accommodation
room. At this new parking ratio, 223 parking spaces would be required. From an amenities
standpoint accessory to the hotel, based on current Code provisions, when the percentage of
accessory uses exceed 15 percent of the overall hotel gross floor area, parking for all uses must
be calculated separately. Based on the accessory uses being 19.94 percent, Staff has recalculated
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 6 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
required parking to be 522 spaces. The proposal provides a total of 384 parking spaces. Since
this proposal was submitted prior to some of the Code amendments moderating hotel densities
and intensities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site
will become a nonconforming use due to the number of parking spaces provided. This
determination does not prevent the approval of this application.
The existing site currently has three driveways. The westernmost driveway acts as an exit from
the existing parking garage and provides access to the loading and trash area. This driveway will
remain in its present condition. The existing center and easternmost driveways are close to each
other in proximity to the existing parking garage. The proposal will retain the existing center
driveway and provide greater separation to the easternmost driveway. All existing surface
parking spaces will be removed.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. There will
be mechanical equipment located on top of the flat roof of the new building. The mechanical
area will be screened by a metal louvered screening system in compliance with this requirement.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways on S. Gulfview 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. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to
be maintained to meet the Code requirements.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this hotel will be
installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. Electric panels, boxes and
meters are proposed to be located in an electrical room on the Level 300 of the new building.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
Tourist District for this overall site. This proposal complies with the minimum five-foot wide
building foundation landscaping along S. Gulfview Boulevard extending out to the front property
line. The front area of the existing building on the west side is planted with shrubs (viburnam,
philodendron and croton), ground covers (confederate jasmine, grand lily and bird of paradise) and
trees (coconut palm, Washington palm and sea grape). The proposal will enhance the existing
parking garage building with Indian hawthorn and sea grape shrubs and trees (southern wax privet
and cabbage palms). Some of this enhanced landscaping will help screen from view a lower area
of the existing parking garage used for accessory bike, electric bike, moped and segway rentals.
The redeveloped front areas for the new driveways and building will be landscaped with shrubs
(variegated pittosporum, Indian hawthorn and ixora), confederate jasmine ground cover and palms
(Washington and cabbage). Landscaping assists with softening and reducing building massing to
both pedestrians and motorists. The northern portion along the west side of the site adjacent to
an exit driveway and loading area is presently planted with a hedge of oleanders and pittosporum
shrubs. The east side of the site adjacent to 625 S. Gulfview Boulevard will be planted with a
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 7 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
hedge of variegated pittosporum and seagrape shrubs and cabbage palms. The balance of this
east side will be sodded.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize hotel housekeeping staff to remove trash from units and
transport the trash to the existing dumpster location on the west side of the existing hotel
building being retained. The existing location and its screening has been found to be acceptable
by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Signage: The site contains an existing freestanding sign that exceeds the maximum sign height
of the Code and is therefore nonconforming. As part of this proposal, this existing
nonconforming sign will be required to be replaced with a new freestanding sign meeting current
Code provisions. The proposal indicates this new freestanding sign located between the center
and easternmost driveways. This freestanding sign should be designed as a monument-style
sign, match the exterior materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four
feet, unless approved at six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program, in accordance
with the flexibility criteria of CDC Section 2-803.I.3. Attached signage must meet Code
requirements, including the signage indicated as part of the water feature by the colonnade.
Additional Beach by Design Guidelines: Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of
greater than 5,000 square feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building
dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed building
footprint is approximately 20,211 square feet. The project’s overall horizontal plane dimensions
are approximately 109 feet along S. Gulfview Boulevard and 199 feet deep (north to south),
while the vertical plane is approximately 141 feet from grade to the top of the flat roof. None of
these dimensions are equal. Modulation of the building massing also provides considerable
dimensional variation.
Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet
without an offset of more than five feet. The proposed building façade has been designed in
compliance with this requirement so that this maximum 100-foot dimension is not exceeded.
The east and west sides of the lower levels (ground through Level 500), which is the parking and
meeting room levels, has been designed with a linear dimension of no more than 40 feet for
portions of the building. The north side of the lower levels (ground through Level 500) has been
designed with a linear dimension of no more than 33 feet for one portion of the building. The
south side of the lower levels (ground through Level 500) has been designed with a linear
dimension of no more than 46 feet for a portion of the building. Starting with Level 600, the
hotel tower tapers narrower east to west, with the entire building at Levels 600 – 1000 not
exceeding 92 feet. At Levels 1100 – 1400, the building is further tapered to approximately 82
feet east to west. On the north to south direction for Levels 600 – 1400, the building has been
designed with a linear dimension of no more than 84 feet for portions of the building.
Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation to be covered with windows/openings or
architectural decoration elements. The applicant has calculated the north elevation facing S.
Gulfview Boulevard at 61 percent, the south elevation at 60 percent, the east elevation at 79
percent and the west elevation at 78 percent.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 8 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
Section C.4 provide that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelop
located above 45 feet be occupied by a building. The applicant has calculated the overall
proposed building mass between 45 – 100 feet at 12 percent of the total site zoned Tourist
District.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the overnight accommodation use (hotel) with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-
801.1 and 2-803:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 50 units/rooms per acre 186 units/rooms X 2
(maximum of 118 units/rooms) (78.48units/rooms per
1
acre)
Impervious Surface 0.95 0.83 X
Ratio
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 – 20,000 sq. ft. 103,237 sq. ft. (area zoned X
Tourist District)
Minimum Lot Width 100 – 150 feet 389 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 0 – 15 feet 15 feet (to existing building); X 2
11.2 feet (to proposed
building); 6.5 feet (to
proposed sidewalk); 6.79 feet
(to proposed pavement)
Side: 0 – 10 feet East: 9.58 feet (to existing X 2
waverunner accessory
building); 15.44 feet (to
proposed building and
decking)
West: 0 feet (to existing
building, pavement and
decking)
Rear 0 – 20 feet 22 feet (to existing X 2
building); 59.25 feet (to
proposed building); 0 feet
(to existing/proposed patio
decking)
Maximum Height 35 – 100 feet 134 feet (to flat roof) X 2
Minimum One parking space per unit/room 384 parking spaces (2.06 X 2
Off-Street Parking (186spaces) spaces per unit/room)
1 Includes 68 units/rooms allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve pursuant to Beach by Design
2 See analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section
2-803.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 9 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X 1
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X 1
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X 1
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X 1
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment
of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area
that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning
designation; or
a. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X 1
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance,
the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the
following design elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
?
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 10 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X 1
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 1
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X 1
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X 1
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
1 See analysis in Staff Report.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meetings of January 8, 2009, May 7, 2009, and October 1, 2009, and deemed the
development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development
Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development 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.The 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open
Space/Recreation) located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600
feet east of Hamden Drive;
2.The site is comprised of two parcels;
3.The proposal is to construct a 186-unit overnight accommodation use at a density of 78.48
rooms/acre, which includes the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under
Beach by Design;
4.A companion Development Agreement (DVA2008-00002) that must be approved by City
Council is also on this CDB agenda is, providing for the allocation of the 68 units from the
Hotel Density Reserve;
5.The proposal includes retaining the existing parking garage, restaurant, nightclub and 46
hotel rooms in the existing buildings on the western portion of the site;
6.The proposal includes the construction of a new building on the east side of the property with
140 hotel rooms at a height of 134 feet (to the top of the flat roof deck)
7.This proposal complies with the maximum building height allowable under Beach by Design
and with approved and existing buildings between S. Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of
Mexico;
8.On-site parking will be increased through the construction of a garage in the new building
with 164 total parking spaces, in addition to the 220 parking spaces in the existing parking
garage, for a total of 384 parking spaces;
9.The proposal includes setback reductions from all property lines;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 11 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
10.Since this proposal was submitted prior to the Code amendments moderating hotel densities
based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this hotel, this site will become
a nonconforming use due to number of rooms;
11.Since this proposal was submitted prior to some of the Code amendments moderating hotel
densities and intensities based on the amount of accessory uses, upon construction of this
hotel, this site will become a nonconforming due to the number of parking spaces provided;
and
12.There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2-
803 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
803.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.That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the (1) Flexible Development application to permit the redevelopment of an existing 96-unit
overnight accommodation use in the Tourist (T) District to a 186-unit overnight accommodation
use with a lot area of 2.37 acres (zoned T District), a lot width of 243 feet along S. Gulfview
Blvd. (north), a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to existing building), 11.2 feet (to proposed
building), 6.5 feet (to proposed sidewalk) and 6.79 feet (to proposed pavement), a side (east)
setback of 9.58 feet (to existing waverunner accessory building) and 15.44 feet (to proposed
building and decking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to existing building, pavement and
decking), a rear (south) setback of 22 feet (to existing building), 59.25 feet (to proposed
building) and zero feet (to existing/proposed patio decking), a building height of 134 feet (to top
of roof deck) and a total of 384 parking spaces (self- park and valet in existing garage; valet-only
in new garage), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of
Section 2-803.C; and (2) Increase of the permitted density by the allocation of 68 overnight
accommodation units from the Hotel Density Reserve created pursuant to Beach by Design, with
the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That approval of this Flexible Development case is subject to the approval of a Development
Agreement with the City (Case DVA2008-00002);
2.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the
public records. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner shall request the
two existing parcels be combined into one parcel by the Pinellas County Property Appraisers
office;
3.That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 12 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2008-12033 2009-11-17
4.That the freestanding sign be a monument-style sign, be designed to match the exterior
materials and color of the building and be a maximum height of four feet, unless approved at
six feet high through a Comprehensive Sign Program. All attached signage shall meet Code
requirements, including the signage indicated as part of the water feature;
5.That landscaping material on the metal mesh screening panels on the existing or proposed
parking garages be not trimmed to create any signage, unless such is approved through a
Comprehensive Sign Program;
6.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant demonstrate the proposed stormwater
vaults drawdown in 24 hours or less based on a double ring infiltration test result;
7.That, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the overhead door presently proposed on
the northeast side of the new building be eliminated, or relocated closer to the beach area and
be reduced in size to not exceed 12 feet in width and height and the storage location of the
beach equipment be indicated on all appropriate plans;
8.That the cabanas on the ground floor be used for storage only, in compliance with all Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) rules and guidelines for velocity zones.
Evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in deed restrictions or like forms, shall be
submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy;
9.That, should the existing waverunner hut be relocated to install the drainage pipes in
accordance with the submitted plans, this structure be brought into compliance with FEMA
regulations;
10.That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building, the existing
carport-type structure on the west side of the existing building be trimmed back to the west
property line, with documentation provided to the Planning and Development Department;
11.That the books and records pertaining to use of each hotel room be open for inspection by
authorized representatives of the City, upon reasonable notice, in order to confirm
compliance with the Hotel Density Reserve criteria of Beach by Design as allowed by
general law;
12.That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits;
13.That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; and
14.That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of General Engineering,
Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and the Fire Departments be addressed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Gulfview S 0619 Shephards (T) 2009.0x - 11.17.09 CDB -
WW\Gulfview S 0619 FLD Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2008-12033 – Page 13 of 13
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2008-00002 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Number: DVA2008-00002 (Related to FLD2008-12033)
Agenda Item: E.3. (Related to D.4.)
Owner/Applicant: William M. Shephard, Trustee
Representative: Harry S. Cline, Esq., MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen
Address: 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a
Development Agreement between William M. Shephard, Trustee
(the property owner) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the
allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by
Design.
CURRENT ZONING: Tourist (T) District
CURRENT FUTURE Resort Facilities High (RFH)
LAND USE CATEGORY:
BEACH BY DESIGN South Beach/Clearwater Pass
CHARACTER
DISTRICT:
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: 96-room motel
Proposed Use: Overnight accommodation use of a total of 186
rooms (78.48 rooms/acre on lot acreage zoned
Tourist (T) District, including the allocation of 68
units from the Hotel Density Reserve) and
approximately 37,647 square feet of accessory uses
to the hotel at a height of 134 feet (to flat roof deck)
EXISTING North: Tourist (T) District
SURROUNDING Automobile service station and Attached dwellings
ZONING AND USES: South: Preservation (P) District
Gulf of Mexico
East: Tourist (T) District
Overnight accommodations
West: Tourist (T) District
Overnight accommodations
ANALYSIS:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2008-00002 – Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2008-00002 2009-11-17
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open
Space/Recreation) is located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600 feet
east of Hamden Drive. The subject property is currently developed with a 96-room motel.
Development Proposal:
The development proposal includes a companion Flexible Development application (FLD2008-
12033) to permit an overnight accommodation use of a total of 186 rooms (78.48 rooms/acre on
lot acreage zoned Tourist (T) District, including the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density
Reserve) and approximately 37,647 square feet of accessory uses to the hotel at a height of 134
feet (to flat roof deck). There are 384 parking spaces proposed on this site within an existing
parking garage and a new parking garage as part of a new building. There will be a total of 314
striped parking spaces and 68 overflow spaces. Self-parking will be allowed only in the existing
garage by hotel guests; otherwise, parking will be valet-only.
Development Agreement:
The Development Agreement is a requirement for the allocation of hotel units from the Hotel
Density Reserve, adopted as an amendment to Beach by Design under Ordinance 7925-08 on
July 17, 2008. A total of 1,385 hotel rooms are available under the Hotel Density Reserve and
this proposal requests the allocation of 68 units from it. The City has established the
Development Agreement format as a means to facilitate the allocation of the units and to set
forth appropriate provisions related to the development of the property. The proposed
Development Agreement will be in effect for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, meets the
criteria for the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design and
includes the following main provisions:
Provides for the allocation of 68 units from the Hotel Density Reserve;
?
Requires the developer to obtain building permits and certificates of occupancy in
?
accordance with Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407;
Requires the return of any hotel unit obtained from the Hotel Density Reserve that is not
?
constructed;
For units allocated from the Hotel Density Reserve, prohibits the conversion of any hotel
?
unit to a residential use and requires the recording of a covenant restricting use of such
hotel units to overnight accommodation usage; and
Requires a legally enforceable mandatory evacuation/closure covenant that the hotel will be
?
closed as soon as practicable after a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach is
posted by the National Hurricane Center.
The Community Development Board (CDB) has been provided with the most recent
Development Agreement.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2008-00002 – Page 2 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2008-00002 2009-11-17
The City Council may enter into Development Agreements to encourage a stronger commitment
on comprehensive and capital facilities planning, to ensure the provision of adequate public
facilities for development, to encourage the efficient use of resources, and to reduce the
economic cost of development. The CDB is required to review the proposed Development
Agreement and make a recommendation to the City Council.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at their meetings of January 8, May 7, and October 1, 2009, and deemed the development
proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB),
based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code (CDC), finds
that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1.That the 2.689 total acres (2.37 acres zoned Tourist District; 0.319 acres zoned Open
Space/Recreation) is located on the south side of S. Gulfview Boulevard approximately 600
feet east of Hamden Drive;
2.That the property is located within the Tourist (T) and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R)
Districts and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; and
3.That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of Beach by Design, the Design
Guidelines contained therein as the property is located within the Small Motel character
district and the criteria for allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the Development Agreement implements and formalizes the requirements for the
construction of on-site and off-site improvements under the related site plan proposal
(FLD2008-12033);
2.That the Development Agreement complies with the standards and criteria of CDC Section
4-606;
3.That the Development Agreement is consistent with and furthers the Visions, Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
4.That the Development Agreement is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of Beach by Design and the South Beach/Clearwater Pass character district; and
5.That the Development Agreement complies with the criteria in Beach by Design for the
allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
APPROVAL
, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement between
William M. Shephard, Trustee (the property owner) and the City of Clearwater, providing for the
allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design, for the property at
619 S. Gulfview Boulevard.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2008-00002 – Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT DVA2008-00002 2009-11-17
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
__________________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Development Agreement with Exhibits
?
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Future Land Use Map
?
Zoning Map
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\DVA2008-00002 - Gulfview S 0619 Shephards - 11.17.09 CDB
- WW\Gulfview S 0619 DVA Staff Report for 11.17.09 CDB.doc
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
DVA2008-00002 – Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Numbers: FLD2009-09033
Agenda Item: D. 6.
Owner/Applicant: O& P Investments of Tampa, Inc/Pine-Berry Senior Limited Partnership
Representative: David Bilyeu, P.E., Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc.
Addresses: 1225 Highland Avenue and 1541 Barry Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings in
the High Density Residential (HDR) District and Commercial (C)
District with a lot area of 140,075 square feet, a lot width of 166
feet (along Highland Avenue) and 627 feet (along Barry Street), a
front (west) setback of 289.3 feet (to porte-cochere) and 29.2 feet
(to pavement), a front (north) setback of 26 feet (to building) and
17.5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 22.8 feet (to
building) and 8.3 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of 30.3
feet (to building), a rear (south) setback of 134.1 feet (to
building), a side (east) setback of 24.7 feet (to building) and 16
feet (to pavement), a rear (south) setback of five feet (to
pavement), a side (west) setback of four feet (to pavement), a rear
(south) setback of 22 feet (to pavement) and a side (east) setback
of 41.6 feet (to building) and five feet (to pavement), a building
height of 49 feet (to midpoint of roof) and 91 parking spaces
under the provisions of Community Development Code Sections
2-504.F and 2-704.C as a residential infill project and
comprehensive infill redevelopment project respectively and a
reduction to interior landscape requirements from 10 percent to
5.5 percent, a reduction to the side (east) landscape buffer from
10 feet to five feet, a reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer
from 10 feet to four feet and a reduction to the rear (south)
landscape buffer from 10 feet to five feet as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) and High Density Residential (HDR) Districts
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG) and Residential High (RH)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant Indoor Recreation and Entertainment
(Bowling Alley)
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings
EXISTING North: Office (O) District
SURROUNDING
Office
ZONING AND USES:
South: High Density Residential (HDR) District
Attached Dwellings
East: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
West: Commercial (C) District
Manufacturing/Office
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 3.22 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Barry Street. The site
is comprised of three parcels; two of which are zoned High Density Residential and the other
zoned Commercial. The Commercial parcel is developed with a 27,537 square foot bowling alley
which has been vacant since June 2005, and is in a state of disrepair. This parcel has been the
subject of over 14 code enforcement cases since its closing. It has been the source of graffiti,
transients and overgrowth. One parcel zoned High Density Residential contains a parking lot and
the other is currently undeveloped. The combined parcels are of an odd shape containing two
fronts, five sides and three rear property lines.
To the east of the subject property are detached dwellings and to the south are attached dwellings
(condominiums). Offices are located to the north of the subject property and retail sales/service
uses are located to the west.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to construct 85 apartment style dwelling units for senior living at a density of 24-
units/acre in the Commercial District and 30-units/acre in the HDR District. In this case the
applicant averaged the density to obtain the 85 units. The proposed attached dwellings, Pine
Berry Senior Living, will be designed for active seniors with moderate incomes. The
development will be restricted to residents age 62 and over with an expected median age of 72.
The concept is designed to promote interaction among its residents by providing spacious and
inviting common areas and coordinated community activities.
The attached dwellings are proposed at a height of 49 feet to midpoint of the roof. The first floor
contains 13 one-bedroom apartments and nine two-bedroom units. Additionally, the first floor
will contain a theater, a fitness room, an office, a mail area, and clubroom. Floors two through
four each contain 10 one-bedroom apartments and 11 two-bedroom apartments. Each apartment
will feature central air conditioning, wall-to-wall carpeting, stackable washer and dryer hookup,
dishwasher, stove, refrigerator, disposal and a pull cord warning system.
The main building color is SW6379 Jersey Cream and is accented with SW6387 Compatible
Cream. The exterior of the four story building will be constructed of hardy board siding, stucco
and stone veneer accents. The building will have green architectural shingles and the porte-
cochere will have a standing seam metal roof. The site includes an ingress/egress area on both
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 2 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
Highland Avenue and Barry Street. The Highland Avenue access will be the main access point
for residents and visitors. The Barry Street access is primarily for emergency and solid waste
access and contains a turn-around for both. This area also contains five parking spaces.
The building is proposed to be set back 289 feet on Highland Avenue and 26 feet on Barry
Street. Side setbacks of 22.8 feet to building on the south property line, 30.3 feet to building on
the west property line and 41.6 feet to building on the east property line are proposed. A rear
(south) setback of 134.1 feet to building is proposed. A decorative six-foot wrought iron fence
with masonry columns is proposed along both Highland Avenue and Barry Street. The remainder
of the site will use six-foot black vinyl clad chainlink fencing along the perimeter.
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Sections 2-701.1 and
2.501.1 the maximum density for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 24
dwelling units per acre and Residential High is 30 dwelling units per acre. Based on the 1.69
acres zoned Commercial, 40 dwelling units are permissible; and based on the 1.53 acres zoned
High Density Residential, 45 dwelling units are permissible. The overall density permissible for
the project is 85 dwelling units and as such 85 dwelling units are proposed.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2.501.1, the maximum
allowable ISR is 0.90 and 0.85 respectively. The overall proposed ISR is 0.55, which is
consistent with both Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-504, the minimum lot area for
attached dwellings is 15,000 square feet. The overall site is 140,075 square feet of lot area.
Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width is 150 feet. The width of the lot along
Highland Avenue is 166 feet and 627 feet along Barry Street. Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704,
the attached dwelling use is not specifically authorized and as such there is no specific minimum
lot area and width denoted in Table 2-704. However most uses in the Commercial (C) District
have minimum lot areas from 3,500 square feet to 40,000 square feet. Likewise most uses in the
Commercial (C) District have lot width requirements from 30 feet to 200 feet. The proposal is
consistent with these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-504, the minimum front setback for attached
dwellings can range between 15 – 25 feet, the side setback can range between 0 – 10 feet and the
rear can range between 10 – 15 feet. The proposal includes a reduction to the front (north)
setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to pavement) for only 45 feet in length, with the remaining 582
feet of the property being 23 feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to
pavement), a side (south) setback from 10 feet to 8.3 feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback
from 10 feet to four feet (to pavement) for only 33 feet in length and a rear (south) setback which
is requested to be reduced from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement). Of the 10 property lines
around this combined parcel only one does not fall within the flexibility range, that being the rear
(south) setback which is requested to be reduced from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement) for only
34 feet in length; however, it is consistent with the Residential Infill Project and Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment provisions. Setbacks to building on both fronts are generous with a front
(west) setback of 289.3 feet and a front (north) setback of 26 feet. Pursuant to CDC Section 2-
704, the attached dwelling use is not specifically authorized and as such there is no specific
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 3 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
minimum setbacks denoted in Table 2-704. However most uses in the Commercial (C) District
have front setbacks from 15 feet to 25 feet, side setbacks from 0 feet to 10 feet and rear setbacks
from 10 feet to 20 feet. These setbacks in CDC Section 2-704 are the same as CDC Section 2-
504. The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-504, the maximum building height for
attached dwellings can range between 30 – 130 feet. The proposed height of the building is 49
feet (to midpoint of roof). Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the attached dwelling use is not
specifically authorized and as such there is no specific building height in Table 2-704. However
most uses in the Commercial (C) District have maximum building heights of 25 feet to 50 feet.
The proposal is consistent with these Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the attached dwelling use is not
specifically authorized and as such there is no specific parking requirement denoted in Table 2-
704. However, pursuant to CDC Section 2-504, the minimum required parking for attached
dwellings is two spaces per dwelling unit. Based upon the above, the 85 dwelling units will
require 170 parking spaces and the proposal has provided for 94 spaces (1.1 spaces/unit). The
applicant has provided a parking demand study to substantiate the reduction. The complex will
not have any central dining or medical facilities or offer housekeeping services requiring full-
time staff. Three employees performing maintenance and property management services will be
on site daily. The proposed development is an active senior complex where residents are
independent and come and go as they please. Historical data from other senior housing
complexes has shown seniors, whether living alone or as a mature couple, typically maintain
ownership of one vehicle. In some instances they are no longer driving due to medical or age
restrictions and therefore do not own a vehicle and rely on mass transit or others for
transportation. The proposed development was analyzed using the Institute of Transportation
rd
Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, 3 Edition Land Use Code 252 (Senior Adult Housing)
which demonstrates a parking ratio of 0.50 spaces per dwelling unit. Additionally, the lease
agreements will stipulate that it will issue only one parking space per unit. Thus, 1.1 parking
spaces per unit will allow ample space for residents, visitors and occasional employee parking
needs.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways, 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. No structures or landscaping is proposed within the site triangles.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize a refuse dumpster located inside the building which will
be rolled outdoors on collection days. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s
Solid Waste Department.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, all utilities including individual distribution lines must
be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and
communication lines for this development will be installed underground on site in compliance
with this requirement. All electric panels, boxes and meters will be painted the same color as the
building.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 4 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a 15-foot wide landscape
buffer along Highland Avenue a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along Barry Street and ten foot
wide buffers on all the remaining side and rear property lines. The proposal includes a 15-foot
wide landscape buffer along Highland Avenue, a 10-foot wide buffer along Barry Street and 10
foot wide buffers along three side and two rear property lines. The proposed buffers include over
100 trees and palms and 2,000 shrubs and ground cover species. The generous landscape buffers
include trees such as magnolia, red maple, bald cypress, dahoon holly, live oak and crape myrtle;
palms include sabal and washingtonia; and shrubs and groundcover include plumbago, simpson
stopper, thyrallis, hibiscus, jasmine, viburnum, ornamental grasses, lirope, lantana, African iris
and perennial peanut. The proposal does include a reduction to the landscape buffer on the side
(east) from 10 feet to five feet, a reduction to the side (west) buffer from 10 feet to four feet and
to the rear (south) buffer from 10 feet to five feet. As part of the Comprehensive Landscape
Program the applicant has proposed to plant required trees and shrubs elsewhere on site to off-set
the buffer reductions. The east buffer will contain a fence along with Jasmine in the five feet
wide area. Currently fences and landscape material exist along a portion of the adjacent
properties on the east property line. As stated previously this parcel has 10 property lines some
with limited frontage, as such the reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer is for 27 feet of
the total 34 feet length and the reduction to the rear (south) buffer is for 28 feet of the total 33
feet length.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a
building façade with frontage along a street right of way. The foundation plantings must be a
minimum of a five foot wide area composed of at least two accent trees or three palm trees for
every linear 40 feet of building façade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required
landscape area. A minimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to
be ground cover. Both the Highland Avenue building façade and the Barry Street building façade
have proposed foundation plantings to meet this requirement.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, ten percent of the vehicular use area must contain
landscape islands a minimum of 150 square feet in size. Eight interior landscape islands have
been proposed equating to 5.5 percent of the vehicular use area. Five of the seven proposed
landscape islands are very generous in size ranging from 280 square feet to 670 square feet in
size. The request does include a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent
to 5.5 percent. Based on the generous size of the proposed islands which will accommodate
mature large canopy shade trees the applicant has requested relief from this requirement. As in
the buffers the applicant has proposed additional trees and shrubs elsewhere on site.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 5 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed
on the parcel proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is
closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-501.1, 2-701.1
and 2-504:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 30/dua (RH) and 85 dwelling units X
24/dua (CG)
Maximum ISR 0.85 0.55 X
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 140,075 sq. ft. X
Minimum Lot Width 150 feet Highland Avenue: 166 feet X
Barry Street: 627 feet
Minimum Setbacks Front: 15 – 25 feet North: 26 feet (to building) X
17.5 feet (to pavement)
West: 289.3 feet (to porte-cochere)
29.2 feet (to pavement)
Side: 0 – 10 feet South: 22.8 feet (to building) X
8.3 feet (to pavement
East: 24.7 feet (to building)
16 feet (to Pavement)
41.6 feet (to building)
5 feet (to pavement)
West: 30.3 feet (to building)
4 feet (to pavement)
Rear: 10 – 15 feet South: 134.1 feet (to building)
1
5 feet (to pavement) X
22 feet (to pavement)
Maximum Height 30 – 100 feet 49 feet (to midpoint of roof) X
Minimum 2.0 spaces per unit 1.10 spaces per unit X 1
Off-Street Parking (170 parking spaces) (94 parking spaces)
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 6 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
1
See analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-504.F
(Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following:
intensity or other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X
which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 7 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City’s
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment
and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning
district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted
by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the
proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design
elements:
Changes in horizontal building planes;
?
Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters,
?
porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?
Distinctive fenestration patterns;
?
Building stepbacks; and
?
Distinctive roofs forms.
?
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 8 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of October 1, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient
to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
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.The 3.22 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Highland Avenue and Barry Street;
2.That the subject property is located within the High Density Residential (HDR) District and
the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial
General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category;
4.The property was previously used as a bowling alley and is now vacant;
5.The applicant, Pine Berry Senior Limited Partnership, proposes to redevelop the subject
property with 85 attached dwelling units;
6.The structure is proposed at a height of 49 feet to midpoint of the roof;
7.The proposal includes a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 15 feet to five feet;
8.The proposal includes a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent of
vehicular use area to 5.5 percent of vehicular use area;
9.The proposal includes reductions to the landscape buffer on the side (east) from 10 feet to
five feet, the side (west) from 10 feet to four feet and the rear (south) from 10 feet to five
feet;
10.The submitted Parking Demand Study demonstrates the requested parking space reduction
from 170 spaces to 91 spaces is adequate; and
11.There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 9 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-09033 2009-11-17
Conclusions of Law: The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches
the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-501.1 and 2-
701.1 of the Community Development Code;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
504.F and 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 development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 3-1202.G
of Community Development Code.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends of the Flexible
Development application to permit attached dwellings in the High Density Residential (HDR)
District and Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 140,075 square feet, a lot width of 166
feet (along Highland Avenue) and 627 feet (along Barry Street), a front (west) setback of 289.3
feet (to porte-cochere) and 29.2 feet (to pavement), a front (north) setback of 26 feet (to building)
and 17.5 feet (to pavement), a side (south) setback of 22.8 feet (to building) and 8.3 feet (to
pavement), a side (west) setback of 30.3 feet (to building), a rear (south) setback of 134.1 feet (to
building), a side (east) setback of 24.7 feet (to building) and 16 feet (to pavement), a rear (south)
setback of five feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of four feet (to pavement), a rear (south)
setback of 22 feet (to pavement) and a side (east) setback of 41.6 feet (to building) and five feet
(to pavement), a building height of 49 feet (to midpoint of roof) and 91 parking spaces under the
provisions of Community Development Code Sections 2-504.F and 2-704.C as a residential infill
project and comprehensive infill redevelopment project respectively and a reduction to interior
landscape requirements from 10 percent to 5.5 percent, a reduction to the side (east) landscape
buffer from 10 feet to five feet, a reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to
four feet and a reduction to the rear (south) landscape buffer from 10 feet to five feet 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 prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declaration of Unity of Title combining parcels
23-29-15-29034-000-0060 and 23-29-15-00000-210-0310 be recorded in the public records
and a copy of said recorded document be provided to the Planning and Development
Department;
2.That a six foot, PVC vinyl fence be installed on the east side of the property;
3.That, prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, all utility and communication lines be placed
underground and electric panels and boxes be painted the same color as the building;
4.That any applicable Public Art and Design Impact Fee be paid prior to the issuance of any
permits;
5.That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits;
6.That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum of six feet in height;
and
7.inal design and color of the building be consistent with the plans approved by the CDB.
The f
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-09033 – Page 10 of 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Numbers: FLD2009-08030
Agenda Item: D. 5.
Owner/Applicant: Clearwater Basin Marina, LLC
Representative: Terri Skapik, Woods Consulting
Address: 900 North Osceola Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit an 87-slip marina in the
Downtown (D) District with a dockmaster building height of
17.33 feet and 50 parking spaces, under the provisions of Section
2-903.H.
CURRENT ZONING: Downtown (D) District
CLEARWATER
DOWNTOWN
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN CHARACTER
DISTRICT: Old Bay
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant (Abandoned Construction Site)
Proposed Use: Marina
EXISTING North: Low Medium Density (LMDR) District
SURROUNDING
Detached Dwellings
ZONING AND USES:
South: Downtown (D) District
Office & Indoor/Recreation and Entertainment
East: Institutional (I) District
School (Vacant)
West: Preservation (P) District
Intracoastal Waterway
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 5.10 acre site (3.55 acres upland and 1.55 acres submerged) is located on the west side of N.
Osceola Avenue at the terminus of Nicholson Street, approximately 500 feet north of Seminole
Street. The former North Ward Elementary is located across Nicholson Street, northeast of the
subject property. A mix of single-family and small multi-family buildings is located along the
northeast property boundary. The Seminole Street boat-launching facility and the Francis Wilson
Playhouse are located to the south of the site.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08030 – Page 1 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17
Previously the Community Development Board (CDB) approved case FL 00-10-46 for 140
attached dwellings with accessory boat slips, which has since expired; FLD2002-10036 was
denied by the CDB which proposed 138 attached dwellings with accessory boat slips; and
FLD2004-07053 (Antigua Bay) was approved by the CDB which proposed 133 attached
dwelling units with accessory boat slips and has since expired. Related to FLD2004-07053 was
PLT2004-00012 and under this PLT, it was proposed to subdivide the western portion along the
south side of the basin adjacent to the Seminole Boat Launch property as Lot 1. Clearwater Basin
Marina LLC was to provide an access easement to this property through Lot 2. The final plat was
never recorded. It appears that the proposed Lot 1 has since been sold with no access easement
recorded. It also appears that the proposed Lot 1 is now being accessed solely across City
property.
The site contains 87 existing boat slips from the former Clearwater Bay Marina with no associated
structures. The site is currently surrounded with a chainlink fence to prohibit entry into the
property. Demolition activities from Antigua Bay removed the boat storage and repair bays, a
wood frame home, a two-story garage and the covered boat slips. The northern portion of the site
contains over 100 concrete pilings approximately 10 – 18 feet tall with exposed rebar remaining
from the most recent commencement of construction from the failed Antigua Bay project. The
vegetation along North Osceola and on the parcel is poorly maintained. The overall site appearance
is poor and is targeted for redevelopment within the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan.
The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan envisions higher density residential uses along
Clearwater Harbor west of Osceola. The proposed marina is located west of Osceola in the Old
Bay character district and does not have a higher density residential component. Currently, the
primary access to the site is through the Seminole Street boat-launching facility.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to establish a marina with 87 existing boat slips, where the primary users lease
dock space for private recreational boats. No commercial boats, boat rentals or jet ski rental
spaces are proposed. No covered boatlifts, roof structures or vertical walls are proposed as part
of this project either. Pedestrian access to the existing slips will be provided by an onsite golf
cart along a proposed cart path. A 400 square foot dock master building is proposed west of the
proposed parking lot. The two-story structure will be 17.33 feet in height, above base flood
elevation, to the midpoint of the roof. Plans indicate space will be available in the dock master
building for a restroom, future bait shop, garage area, office and a small retail area. The building
will have an elevator installed on the east side. The building will be constructed of lap siding, a
standing seam metal roof and an open deck walkway will surround the second floor. The main
building color is beige (sandstone) and the metal roof is blue in color.
A six-foot wrought iron fence with columns is proposed along the front (east) side of the
property. The columns will be sand beige in color and the caps will be blue to match the dock
master building. The side (north) boundary of the property has proposed a six-foot wooden fence
for security and screening purposes. Likewise the interior of the site has proposed a six foot
wooden fence along the cart path. The existing chainlink fence on the south property line is
prohibited pursuant to CDC Section 3-805.A. and the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Plan. The fence will need to be removed and replaced with a fence that meets Code.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08030 – Page 2 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17
Primary access to the site is proposed at the southern edge of the site from Osceola Avenue,
while emergency access will be provided at both the northern edge of the site from Osceola
Avenue and at the southwest corner of the site from the Seminole Street boat launching facility.
Both emergency access points will be gated at all times with access only from a knox box
padlock. The primary access will be gated when the marina is closed and also will provide access
from a knox box padlock if necessary.
Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan:
In addition to the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan, the Downtown Plan is the official statement of policy regarding the Downtown and in
particular with regard to the use of land and public policies. All development of land, both public
and private, undertaken within the Downtown shall be consistent with and further the goals of
the Plan.
The site is located within the Old Bay character district of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan. This area is recognized as the primary site for intensive residential
development within Downtown Clearwater. The Plan recommends that this area be fully
redeveloped as a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with
residential, limited neighborhood commercial and office uses. Specifically, it recommends the
redevelopment of the portion of Old Bay west of North Osceola Avenue along Clearwater
Harbor with higher-density residential uses recognizing that a key component required to
diversify the downtown is to attract residential uses with a variety of housing types and prices.
This strategy has been identified as a way to stimulate the redevelopment of property in the area
and to reposition the Downtown as a viable economic entity in the region. The proposed
dockmaster building is located 332 feet south of the northern property line and as such meets the
transition area guidelines in the Old Bay character district.
The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes criteria against which proposals to
be located within the Plan boundaries are measured and are discussed below. As this proposal is
a commercial marina it is inconsistent with the Plan.
The proposal is inconsistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater
Downtown Redevelopment Plan including:
1.Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office
and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to
attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown.
While the applicant has indicated that this will be a phased development to possibly include a
residential component, none is proposed at this time and nothing would require a residential
component at a later time should the marina be approved. As stated above, a residential
component in Old Bay is critical to the success of Downtown.
2.Vision: The elimination of blighting conditions and the revitalization of the existing and
expanded CRA are critical to the future health of Downtown. While the proposal includes
upgraded landscaping and other treatments; the site currently has over 100 concrete pilings
approximately 10 – 18 feet tall with exposed rebar. With this proposal there are no plans to
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08030 – Page 3 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17
remove these or to replace with a residential project. The approval of a commercial marina
on the property without the necessary residential component would only serve to facilitate
the continuation of the existing blighting conditions and impede revitalization of the
Downtown.
3.Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and
recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to
Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. While this project will
provide recreation for boaters, it provides no provisions for living or employment. The
development proposals lack of a higher-density residential use, as required within the Old
Bay character district, will not further the goal of creating a vibrant downtown.
4.Objective 1A: All development within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives and
policies of the Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the design guidelines
and the Downtown zoning District. As previously stated, the proposed marina is not
consistent with the vision of the Old Bay character district as the development proposal does
not include a higher-density residential use. Therefore, in addition to the other goals,
objectives and policies noted, this proposal is not consistent with this objective.
5.Goal 3: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and visitors that
capitalizes on Clearwater’s waterfront location, natural resources, built environment and
history. The vision of the Old Bay character district is to have higher density residential uses
along Clearwater Harbor. Having such a use would enable the subject property to be
capitalized upon to its fullest potential. However, as no such use is proposed in conjunction
with this application, a positive finding cannot be made with regard to this Goal.
6.Policy 6: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design
review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the
character district in which it is located. The proposal is not consistent with and as such will
not contribute positively to the Old Bay character district as the envisioned higher density
residential use along Clearwater Harbor is not proposed as part of this application.
Community Development Code:
A marina is subject to the relevant review criteria of
Community Development Code (CDC) Sections 2-903.H, 3-601.C.3 and 3-603. The proposed
marina is not located in any of the areas of environmental significance listed in the criteria.
While this marina is located on a parcel of land which is contiguous to a parcel of land which is
designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas, no commercial activities other than the mooring of
boats on a rental basis will be permitted in the leased slips. Living aboard non-transient vessels
will be prohibited. There will be no fueling facilities, boat launching or dry storage of boats at
this marina. A landside portable sewage pump-out is proposed at the dock master building. The
proposed harbor master building complies with the Downtown Design Guidelines. The existing
slips will remain unchanged and as such are non-conforming with regard to the dimensional
standards set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08030 – Page 4 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17
Intensity: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable
intensity is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5 within the Old Bay character district. The proposal is in
compliance with the above as it has a FAR of 0.005.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, those
properties west of Osceola Avenue between Eldridge Street and the northern boundary of Old Bay
character district may have a maximum building height of 100 feet. The proposed dock master
building height is 17.33 feet measured at base flood elevation. The proposal is consistent with
these Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Section 2-903, the minimum required parking
for marinas is one parking space per two boat slips. Based upon the above, the total 87 slips will
require 44 parking spaces and the proposal has provided for 50.
Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize a solid waste disposal area located at the T turn. The
proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, this site is required to have interior
landscaping in the parking lot equal to ten percent of the gross vehicular use area of the site. The
applicant has provided 11.3 percent of the vehicular use area in interior landscaping, thus the
proposal is consistent with this Code provision.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 2-903 and portions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment
Plan:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) 0.5 0.005 X
Maximum Building Height 100 feet 17.33 feet X
Minimum Off-Street Parking 1 space per 2 slips 1.136 spaces per 2 slips X
(44 parking spaces) (50 parking spaces)
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-
903.H (Marinas):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The parcel proposed for development is not located in areas identified in the X
Comprehensive Plan as areas of environmental significance including:
a. The north end of Clearwater Beach;
b. Clearwater Harbor grass beds;
c. Cooper's Point;
d. Clearwater Harbor spoil islands;
e. Sand Key Park;
f. The southern edge of Alligator Lake.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08030 – Page 5 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
2. No commercial activities other than the mooring of boats on a rental basis shall be X
permitted on any parcel of land which is contiguous to a parcel of land which is
designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas, unless the marina facilities are totally
screened from view from the contiguous land which is designated as residential and the
hours of operation of the commercial activities are limited to the time period between
sunrise and sunset.
3. The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in X
Division 5 of Article 3.
4. All marina facilities shall comply with the commercial dock requirements set forth in X
Section 3-601.C.3 and the marina and marina facilities requirements set forth in Section
3-603.
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL DOCKS
(SECTION 3-601.C.3.a-g):
The development proposal has been found to be inconsistent with
the criteria for commercial docks. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been
provided by the applicant and are included with their application. The individual criteria for
commercial docks are set forth in the following table:
Consistent Inconsistent
a. Use and compatibility.
i. The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort, N/A N/A
convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of
the property.
ii. The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent X
properties and the neighborhood in general.
iii. The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general X 1
vicinity.
b. Impacts on Existing Water Recreation Activities. The use of the proposed dock shall X 1
not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons currently using the
adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses. Furthermore, it shall
not hinder or discourage the existing uses of the adjacent waterway by uses
including but not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats.
c. Impacts on Navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a X 1
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation,
recreational or other public conveniences.
d. Impacts on marine environment.
i. Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine X 1
grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas
ii. Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass X 1
flats suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine
soil suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding
grounds for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and any such
artificial reef which has developed an associated flora and fauna which have
been determined to be approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in
both density and diversity; oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting
site; commercial or sport fisheries or shell fisheries areas; and habitats
desirable as juvenile fish habitat.
e. Impacts on water quality.
i. All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area X 1
associated with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water
depths to ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between
the lowest member of a vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the
water body at mean or ordinary low water (-0.95 NGVD datum).
ii. The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage, X 1
shoaling of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in
the area or limit progress that is being made toward improvement of water
quality in the area in which the dock is proposed to be located.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08030 – Page 6 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17
Consistent Inconsistent
f. Impacts on natural resources.
i. The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of X 1
wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores,
so as to be contrary to the public interest.
ii. The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative, X 1
terrestrial, or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing
one or more of the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range,
nesting or feeding grounds; habitats which display biological or physical
attributes which would serve to make them rare within the confines of the City;
designated preservation areas such as those identified in the comprehensive
land use plan, national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other
designated preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries.
g. Impacts on Wetlands Habitat/Uplands. The dock shall not have a material adverse X 1
affect upon the uplands surrounding.
1
All of the docks currently exist and no changes are proposed. As such, the docks are assumed to be consistent with these criteria.
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR MARINAS AND MARINA
FACILITIES (SECTION 3-603):
The development proposal has been found to be consistent
with the criteria for marinas and marina facilities. Specific responses to each of these criteria
have been provided by the applicant and are included with their application. The individual
criteria for commercial docks are set forth in the following table:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. All proposed activities including, but not limited to, fueling, pumping-out, X
chartering, living-aboard, launching, dry storage and the servicing of boats, motors
and related marine equipment shall require approval in accordance with the
provisions of the zoning district in which the marina or marina facility is proposed to
be located.
2. For marina facilities located adjacent to residential districts, no fueling or launching X
facilities shall be located within 20 feet of the residential property line, and no
fueling or servicing of boats shall occur at such marinas after 9:00 p.m. or before
6:00 a.m.
3. No fuel storage facility or sanitary pump-out station holding tank shall be located X
over water.
4. The marina shall pose no hazard or obstruction to navigation, as determined by the X
city harbormaster.
5. The marina shall not adversely affect the environment, including both onshore and X
offshore natural resources.
6. Adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided landside and a sanitary pump-out X
station shall be provided and shall be available to marina users 24 hours a day.
7. A manatee protection plan shall be provided and appropriate speed zone signs shall X
be posted to control boat speed for manatee protection.
8. Adequate spill containment areas shall be provided on the property. X
9. Design of the marina shall maintain existing tidal flushing and aquatic circulation X
patterns.
10. In the event of conflict between these standards and federal or state law or rules, the X
federal or state law or rules shall apply to the extent that these standards have been
preempted; otherwise, the more stringent regulations shall apply.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08030 – Page 7 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS:
The
following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General
Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of October 1, 2009, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient
to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development 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 3.55 acres upland and 1.55 acres submerged is located along Clearwater Harbor
west of Osceola Avenue;
2.That the subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central
Business District future land use plan category;
3.That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan as the property is located within the Old Bay character district;
4.That the existing docks located on the subject property have been vacant since February 9,
2009;
5.That the existing docks are non-conforming with regard to the dimensional standards set
forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h and no changes to the location and/or configuration of
these docks are proposed with this application;
6.That the proposal consists of a marina with 87 slips and the construction of a parking lot and
dock master structure;
7.That based on a parking ratio of one space per two slips and 87 existing slips, a total of 44
spaces is required for this marina;
8.That no commercial boats, boat rentals or jet ski rental spaces are proposed;
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08030 – Page 8 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2009-08030 2009-11-17
9.That the no covered boatlifts, roof structures or vertical walls are proposed;
10.The proposal does not include a higher density residential use as envisioned for the Old Bay
character district with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; and
11.There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the district vision of the Old Bay
character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
903.H of the Community Development Code;
3.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the commercial dock review criteria as
per Section 3-601.C.3 of the Community Development Code;
4.That the proposal is consistent with the marina review criteria as per Section 3-603 of the
Community development Code; and
5.That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code.
DENIAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of the
Flexible Development application to permit an 87-slip marina in the Downtown (D) District with
a dock master building height of 17.33 feet and 50 parking spaces, under the provisions of
Section 2-903.H.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ____________________________
A.Scott Kurleman, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
?
Aerial Map
?
Zoning Map
?
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
?
Photographs of Site and Vicinity
?
S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending Cases\Up For The Next CDB\Osceola N 900 Clearwater Basin Marina (D) 2009.Xx -
11.17.09 CDB - SK\Staff Report - 900 Osceola - 2009.Docx
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
FLD2009-08030 – Page 9 of 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00007 2009-11-17
CDB Meeting Date: November 17, 2009
Case Number: APP2009-00007
Agenda Item: F.1.
Appellants/Owners: Daniel and Sharon Meek
Agent: R. Carlton Ward, Esq.
Address: 321 Lotus Path
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: An appeal from a Level One (Flexible Standard Development)
denial decision, pursuant to Community Development Code
Section 4-501.A.3, for a front (north) setback reduction from 25
to 21 feet for a garage addition (related to Case No. FLS2009-
09016).
CURRENT ZONING: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Residential Urban (RU)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Detached Dwelling
Proposed Use: Detached Dwelling
EXISTING North: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
SURROUNDING ZONING
Detached Dwelling
AND USES:
South: Institutional (I) District
Parking Lot
East: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwelling
West: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwelling
BACKGROUND:
The subject parcel comprises 0.199 acres and is located on the south side of Lotus Path,
approximately 400 feet east of Druid Road South.
On March 30, 2009, a Flexible Standard Development (FLS) application was submitted
requesting approval to permit a garage addition to an existing detached dwelling in the Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (north) setback from
25 to 21 feet, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-203B
(Case FLS2009-03006). After being deemed complete, the Development Review Committee
(DRC) reviewed the application at its meeting on July 2, 2009. A Development Order denying
the application was issued on July 6, 2009.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
APP2009-00007– Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00007 2009-11-17
The appellants and agent continued to have discussions with the Planning Department regarding
their desires for the expanded garage and the neighborhood characteristics. The appellants also
were unaware of the issuance of the Development Order for Case FLS2009-03006 (it had been
sent to their agent), which caused some confusion as to their ability to appeal this decision.
Given such circumstances, the applicant submitted a new FLS application on September 14,
2009, in order to be able to meet the CDC time frames for the appeal of the Staff decision. This
new request, which is consistent with the original request, was for a Flexible Standard
Development application to permit a garage addition to an existing detached dwelling in the Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (north) setback from
25 to 21 feet, under the provisions of CDC Section 2-203B (FLS2009-09016). This application
was placed on the agenda for the DRC for its meeting on October 1, 2009. A Development
Order denying the FLS2009-09016 application was issued on October 20, 2009, based upon the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact:
1.That the subject 0.199 acres is located on the south side of Lotus Path, approximately 400
feet east of Druid Road South;
2.That the subject property is located within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR)
District and the Residential Urban (RU) Future Land Use Plan category;
3.That there are no active Code Enforcement violations associated with the subject property.
4.That the request to reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 21 feet requires that
positive findings be made with regard to the Flexibility Criteria set forth in CDC Section 2-
203.B; and
5.That the request to reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 21 feet requires that
positive findings be made with regard to the General Applicability Criteria set forth in CDC
Section 3-913.A.
Conclusions of Law:
1.That the development proposal is inconsistent with CDC Section 2-203.B.1.a, in that a
determination of the front setback shall consider the extent to which existing structures in the
neighborhood have been constructed to a regular or uniform setback from the right-of-way:
a.There are 88 existing detached dwellings in the area known as “Harbor Oaks”, generally
located within the area bordered by those dwellings located on the north side of Druid
Road to those dwellings located on the south side of Lotus Path and those dwellings
located west of the nonresidential and attached dwellings located on S. Ft. Harrison
Avenue to the east side of Druid Road South. It was mutually agreed with the applicant
that, due to the size and character of the properties on the west side of Druid Road South,
these seven properties would not be reviewed as part of this application. The applicant
has submitted documentation from 15 properties (17 percent of the 88 parcels) of the
properties reviewed regarding setbacks less than the required front setback of 25 feet.
b.The properties developed with nonresidential and attached dwelling uses fronting on S.
Ft. Harrison Avenue should have no bearing on the decision for this case, as they are
zoned Office (O) District, where dissimilar development standards and criteria apply.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
APP2009-00007– Page 2 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00007 2009-11-17
c.A front setback variance approved in 1996 for the property at 322 Magnolia Drive was
for the replacement of an existing, detached pool screen enclosure damaged by a storm,
which is not the same as the proposed garage addition.
d.A variance was approved in 1995 for 316 Lotus Path reducing the front setback from 25
to 20.5 feet for a new detached dwelling.
e.A Development Order was issued November 1, 2007, for FLS2007-08041 for 403
Magnolia Drive denying a front setback reduction from 25 to 20 feet for a garage
addition. The Community Development Board (CDB) granted an appeal of this decision,
reversing the previous development order, on January 15, 2008. The property owner did
not apply for a building permit to construct the proposed addition within the Code
prescribed time frame and such CDB approval expired. Such CDB approval on appeal
does not set a precedent for the entire neighborhood.
f.The documentation that has been submitted does not demonstrate that the existing
structures in this neighborhood have been constructed to a regular or uniform pattern of
reduced front setbacks, rather those dwellings with a reduced front setbacks are scattered
throughout, and represent a minority of, the properties in the neighborhood.
2.That the development proposal is consistent with CDC Section 2-203.B.1.b, in that the
reduction to the front setback will not adversely affect the adjacent property values.
3.That the development proposal is inconsistent with CDC Section 2-203.B.1.c, in that a
determination of the front setback shall consider consistency with neighborhood character.
Insufficient documentation has been submitted to show the proposed reconstructed garage at
a reduced front setback would be consistent with the neighborhood character (see discussion
under Conclusion of Law #1 above).
4.That the development proposal is consistent with CDC Section 2-203.B.1.d, in that a
determination of the front setback shall consider whether such results in an efficient house
layout. Based on the information submitted, construction of a two-car garage at the required
front setback of 25 feet would not provide sufficient depth for two cars (only approximately
17 feet of depth for the western parking stall in the garage). The CDC Section 3-1402.A
requires a minimum stall depth of 18 feet. Insufficient area would exist for pedestrians to
also maneuver around the parked vehicle in the garage. Sufficient stall depth and pedestrian
maneuvering area would be provided in the proposed garage with the reduced front setback,
allowing for interior access to the living areas of the dwelling from the garage. It is noted
that the CDC does not require any garage or carport for any dwelling in the City.
5.The provisions of CDC Sections 2-203.B.2 and 2-203.B.3 relating to rear and side setback
reductions are not applicable to this request.
6.CDC Section 3-913.A.1 requires a determination of the proposed front setback is in harmony
with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties. The subject
property is developed with a single-story detached dwelling. This neighborhood is
developed with one- and two-story detached dwellings. The existing dwelling is consistent
with the scale, bulk, coverage and density of adjacent properties, but the development
proposal is inconsistent with this criterion in that insufficient documentation has been
submitted to show the proposed reconstructed garage at a reduced setback would be
consistent with the character of the adjacent properties.
7.CDC Section 3-913.A.2 requires a determination that the proposed front setback will not
hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of, or significantly impair the
value of, adjacent properties. The reduction to the front setback is not consistent with any
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
APP2009-00007– Page 3 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00007 2009-11-17
regular or uniform pattern of reduced front setbacks and could set a precedent for the
neighborhood. The proposal would not significantly impair the value of adjacent properties.
8.CDC Section 3-913.A.3 requires a determination that the proposed front setback would not
adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The
development proposal would be consistent with this criterion.
9.CDC Section 3-913.A.4 requires a determination that the proposed front setback will
minimize traffic congestion. The development proposal would be consistent with this
criterion.
10.The development proposal is inconsistent with CDC Section 3-913.A.5, in that a
determination of the front setback shall consider consistency with neighborhood character.
Insufficient documentation has been submitted to show the proposed reconstructed garage at
a reduced setback would be consistent with the character of the adjacent properties. The
variance approved in 1996 for 322 Magnolia Drive was for the replacement of an existing
pool screen enclosure. A variance was approved in 1995 for 316 Lotus Path reducing the
front setback from 25 to 20.5 feet for a new detached dwelling. Insufficient documentation
has been submitted demonstrating the other existing structures in this neighborhood have
been constructed to a regular or uniform pattern of reduced front setbacks.
11.CDC Section 3-913.A.6 requires a determination that the proposed front setback would
minimize visual, acoustic and olfactory adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The
development proposal would be consistent with this criterion. It is noted that the CDC does
not require any garage or carport for any dwelling in the City.
An appeal from the above Level One (Flexible Standard Development) decision was filed by the
property owner on October 26, 2009, consistent with the timeframe established for an appeal to
be initiated in CDC Section 4-502.A. Pursuant to CDC Section 4-501.A.3, the Community
Development Board (CDB) has the authority to hear appeals from Level One (Flexible Standard
Development) decisions.
Pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.A, the CDB shall review the application, the recommendation of
the Community Development Coordinator, conduct a quasi-judicial public hearing on the
application, and render a decision in accordance with the provisions of CDC Section 4-206.D.5
granting the appeal, granting the appeal subject to specified conditions, or denying the appeal.
It is noted that pursuant to CDC Section 4-504.B, in order to grant an appeal, overturning or
modifying the decision appealed from, the CDB shall find that based on substantial competent
evidence presented by the applicant or other party that each and every one of the following
criteria are met:
1.The decision appealed from misconstrued or incorrectly interpreted the provisions of this
development code; and
2.The decision of the CDB will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this
development code; and
3.The decision of the CDB will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare.
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
APP2009-00007– Page 4 of 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT APP2009-00007 2009-11-17
Prepared by: Planning Department Staff: ________________________________
Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
?Development Order issued on October 20, 2009
?Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
?Location Map
?Future Land Use Map
?Zoning Atlas Map
?Site Photos
?Resume
Community Development Board – November 17, 2009
APP2009-00007– Page 5 of 5
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
t-
COUN{'/'), fL
\"" ~ ICx1
o ELECTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
I, --1>or-UA'- I) ; .pc!> lZto
, hereby disclose that on
N~.
If
, 20 .Q:i:
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
t... inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
, by
, which
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: AP'P J.ooq
~ fe8~ ~ J ~~ .J-O~~)
ZS ~ ~se-- ~\ ~ ~ ~ 7t.Uo~
~a..t '32[ ~ rc:tkk- _, ~V.e.--
~ -wr~\ ~ L.p ~ ~ \..'5 o-a.-...n.L)
'Lt.- k '--lW-- ~ '-\-0 "^-~t:ec..-t- '-tLo--
\J~ e>+ ~-p~
(""
-DaDO=?
fJ~/ .
Date Fi1ed
II I
-;;0 t) q
\
\
(r_0
l---, ~ fl, ~-~ " >rl (' --~
~~-^-- '-- () ~~ ./ \
\~....
Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
--.---- -------
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER lOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
5.
o OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
i Y1e.LlA.s
WHO MUST FILE FORM 88
This'form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
..
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or
to the special private gain or loss of a business assoCiate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or
163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father:in-Iaw,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and .daughter-in-iaw. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on~a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
*
*
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the. assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
*
*
*
*
*
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made
by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
. You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
CE FORM 88. EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 1
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
. You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
. You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the parson responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
SOf~ B~
, hereby disclose that on
;y'tJv, I g
,20 J2j:
I,
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,
inured to the special gain or loss of B~ 4- 1> e + e..r ~ e C!... -z.. ~ L .
)
K
, by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
t:L 1) :;2 c96>c:=j - f!) i C> ~ ~ , ~ 0 ~ 1) n-l/'<? .
1)\!A ;2.eo~ -60~C>~ - '3C>D ~1>..
FL 'D '2c:9oq - () i 0 J- 1- - 3-1 (p ~ 1>r;, y.e .
DvA ~<1 - ~~t')3 - ~((p +t~ l;)rtv-tL
FL-D ~oo'1 - C>~ o3~ - 300 .J. '31~ ~ ~
L~
, which
/1u- Cl.-~~ bl-rl'V\ 0 f ~
()lA- 0 w V\e.r
~ 0- c~ct c.;..U..~ ~S
+v ~tvrVV\ ox-~~
!I~. / f , 7001
I
I
1); G. ~ 0 \{IU\V\. \
~~~~'f(
~
~.
Date Filed
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES 9112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 88 - EFF. 1/2000
PAGE 2
~~
pf
~~
.~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for November 17,2009
November 12, 2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previou~ meeting October 20, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-08026 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301,305,309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00002, FLD2009-08027/DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Yes
No
2. Case: FLD2009-08027 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of 316 Harnden Drive and 326
and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00003, FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes
No
3. Case: FLD2009-09036 - 300 and 316 Harnden Drive (Related to FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-
00002 and FLD2009-08027/DV A2009-00003)
Yes
No
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\11 November 17,2009\1 Cover MMO 11.17.2009.doc
..
,
.
4. Case: FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard
(Related to DV A2008-00002)
~
Yes
~
No
5. Case: FLD2009-080230 - 900 N. Osceola Avenue
Yes
No
x
6. Case: FLD2009-09033 - 1225 S. Highland Avenue
No
Y-
Yes
7. Cases: FLD2008-09035/PLT2009-00002 -109 S. McMullen Booth Road
\j
Yes
No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Utems 1 - 4):
1. Case: DV A2009-00002 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08026, FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Y--' )~
Yes
No
~,Il 2. Case: DV A2009-00003 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of 316 Harnden Drive and 326
~~ and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08027, FLD2009-08026/DVA2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes
No
3. Case: DV A2008-00002 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard (Related to FLD2008-12033)
Yes
')(
No
4. Case: DRI2009-0000l - 430 Park Place Boulevard
Yes
No
x
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDB12009111 November 17,200911 Cover MMO 11.17.2009.doc
rI
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2009-00007 - 321 Lotus Path
~
Yes
No
Signature:
Date:
p
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009\11 November 17,2009\1 Cover MMO 11.J7.2009.doc
~
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for November 17,2009
November 12,2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting October 20, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-08026 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00002, FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Yes
)(
No
2. Case: FLD2009-08027 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of 316 Harnden Drive and 326
and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00003, FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes
x
No
3. Case: FLD2009-09036 - 300 and 316 Harnden Drive (Related to FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-
00002 and FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-00003)
Yes
x-
No
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDB12009\11 November 17,2009\1 Cover MMO 11.17.2009.doc
4. Case: FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard (Related to DV A2008-00002)
Yes
><
No
5. Case: FLD2009-080230 - 900 N. Osceola Avenue
Yes
)<
No
6. Case: FLD2009-09033 - 1225 S. Highland Avenue
Yes
"f,
No
7. Cases: FLD2008-09035/PLT2009-00002 - 109 S. McMullen Booth Road
'x
No
Yes
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS atems 1- 4):
1. Case: DV A2009-00002 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08026, FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Yes
~
No
2. Case: DV A2009-00003 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of316 Harnden Drive and 326
and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08027, FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes
x
No
3. Case: DV A2008-00002 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard (Related to FLD2008-12033)
Yes
x
,
No
4. Case: DRI2009-00001 - 430 Park Place Boulevard
Yes
)(
,
No
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\11 November 17, 200911 Cover MMO 11.17.2009.doc
I
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2009-00007 - 321 Lotus Path
Yes
'f
No
Signature:
Date:
rt-lvHA~f)
PRINT NAME
A i/;E;.lhoN
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D B\Agendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009111 November 17,2009\1 Cover MMO 11.17.2009.doc
,
,J
~ Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for November 17, 2009
November 12,2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting October 20, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-08026 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00002, FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Yes
~
No
2. Case: FLD2009-08027 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of 316 Harnden Drive and 326
and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00003, FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes
~
No
3. Case: FLD2009-09036 - 300 and 316 Harnden Drive (Related to FLD2009-08026/DVA2009-
00002 and FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-00003)
Yes
~
No
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDB\2009\11 November 17,2009\1 Cover MMO 11.17.2009.doc
.'
4. Case: FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard (Related to DV A2008-00002)
Yes
~,
No
5. Case: FLD2009-080230 - 900 N. Osceola Avenue
Yes
Ii-
No
6. Case: FLD2009-09033 - 1225 S. Highland Avenue
Yes
K
No
7. Cases: FLD2008-09035/PLT2009-00002 - 109 S. McMullen Booth Road
Yes
v--
No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Utems 1- 4):
1. Case: DV A2009-00002 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08026, FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Yes_V-
No
2. Case: DV A2009-00003 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of 316 Harnden Drive and 326
and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08027, FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes \)L
No
3. Case: DV A2008-00002 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard (Related to FLD2008-12033)
Yes
~
No
4. Case: DRI2009-00001 - 430 Park Place Boulevard
Yes
~
No
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009111 November 17, 2009\1 Cover MMO 11. 17.2009.doc
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP20091-0~07 - 321 Lotus Path
Yes ~ ~ No
y
ersonal site visit to the
Signature: Date: -I
l~fL/k-l-1<. L I ,--1),4- #/I, C
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009\11 November 17,2009\1 Cover MMO 11. 17.2009.doc
/
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. 321 Lotus Path
Yes
I have conducted a
Signature:
No
PRINT NAME
Date:
--z.-o-oC1 \ \ l1
~
S:\Planning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDB\CDB\2009111 November 17, 2009\1 Cover MMO 11.17.2009.doc
....
; Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for November 17,2009
November 12,2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting October 20, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-08026 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301,305,309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00002, FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-0,36)
Yes yI No
2. Case: FLD2009-08027 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of316 Harnden Drive and 326
and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00003, FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes
\/
"
No
3. Case: FLD2009-09036 - 300 and 316 Harnden Drive (Related to FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-
00002 and FLD2009-08027/DV A2009-00003)
Yes
v
No
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009111 November 17,200911 Cover MMO 11. 17.2009.doc
4. Case: FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard
\/
(Related to DV A2008-00002)
Yes
No
5. Case: FLD2009-080230 - 900 N. Osceola Avenue
/
Yes
No
6. Case: FLD2009-09033 -1225 S. Highland Avenue
Yes vi No
7. Cases: FLD2008-09035/PLT2009-00002 -/109 S. McMullen Booth Road
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Items 1 - 4):
1. Case: DV A2009-00002 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301,305,309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08026, FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-09036)
I
Yes
No
2. Case: DV A2009-00003 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of316 Harnden Drive and 326
and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08027, FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes
-.j
No
3. Case: DV A2008-00002 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard (Related to FLD2008-12033)
I
Yes
No
4. Case: DRI2009-00001 - 430 Park Place Boulevard
J
Yes
No
s: IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2009111 November 17, 2009\1 Cover MMO 11.17.2009.doc
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2009-00007 - 321 Lotus Path
(
Yes
No
Signature"
Date: / /~ /~--Ct(
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDB\2009\11 November 17, 2009\1 Cover MMO 11. 17.2009.doc
; Clearwater
u
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO:
Community Development Board Members
FROM:
Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES:
Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Agenda Items for November 17, 2009
November 12,2009
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting October 20, 2009
Level Two Applications (Item 1-4)
1. Case: FLD2009-08026 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301, 305, 309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00002, FLD2009-08027/DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Yes
No \.)~.,~
2. Case: FLD2009-08027 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of 316 Harnden Drive and 326
and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to DV A2009-00003, FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes
No \P
3. Case: FLD2009-09036 - 300 and 316 Harnden Drive (Related to FLD2009-08026/DVA2009-
00002 and FLD2009-08027/DV A2009-00003)
Yes
\-._"~'......... .'
No ~)~
S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB\2009111 November 17, 2009\1 Cover MMO 11. 1 7. 2009. doc
4. Case: FLD2008-12033 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard (Related to DV A2008-00002)
Yes
" ~)
No.~(.
,
5. Case: FLD2009-080230 - 900 N. Osceola Avenue
Yes
------, ~
No~~/)
6. Case: FLD2009-09033 - 1225 S. Highland Avenue
No i~y
Yes
7. Cases: FLD2008-09035/PLT2009-00002 - 109 S. McMullen Booth Road
Yes
~\,
No, /'')
\j
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS atems 1- 4):
1. Case: DV A2009-00002 - 300 Harnden Drive (including 301,305,309 and 315 Coronado Drive
and a portion of 316 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08026, FLD2009-08027 /DV A2009-
00003 and FLD2009-09036)
Yes
No
(----)(~
\ \J
2. Case: DV A2009-00003 - 316 Harnden Drive (including a portion of 316 Harnden Drive and 326
and 330 Harnden Drive) (Related to FLD2009-08027, FLD2009-08026/DV A2009-00002 and
FLD2009-09036)
Yes
No
(~j
3. Case: DV A2008-00002 - 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard (Related to FLD2008-12033)
Yes
No
---..,
') )
'</ .~-
4. Case: DRI2009-00001 - 430 Park Place Boulevard
Yes No ~~'.:\
s: IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBlCDB\2009\11 November 17, 2009\1 Cover MMO 11.17.2009.doc
(
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL (Item 1):
1. Case: APP2009-00007 - 321 Lotus Path
Yes
No \J-)
Signature:,___
Date: \ \ \ \ 'I \ 0 c1
\ \ \
~ --)c. \---L'<- "
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning Department\C D B\Agendas DRC & CDBlCDB\2009\11 November 17,2009\1 Cover MMO 11. 17.2009.doc