04/16/2013
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 16, 2013
Present: Vice-Chair Thomas Coates, Member Frank L. Dame, Member Richard Adelson,
Member Brian A. Barker, Member Kurt B. Hinrichs, Member Norma R. Carlough, Member
Donald van Weezel, Alternate Member John Funk
Also Present: Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes, Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-
Sides, Development Review Manager Robert Tefft, Board Reporter Patricia O. Sullivan
A. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Vice-Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. followed by the invocation and
Pledge of Allegiance.
B. ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Coates, Members Adelson, Barker, Carlough,
Dame Hinrichs, van Weezel Alternate Member John Funk, City Staff
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: March 19, 2012
Member Carlough moved toapprove the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of March 19, 2012, as recorded and submitted in written summation to
each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate
Member Funk did not vote.
D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chair and Vice Chair
Member Baker moved to appoint Thomas Coates as Chair. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Funk did not vote.
Member Carlough moved to appoint Frank Dame as Vice-Chair. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Funk did not vote.
E. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (Item 1) (Continue to April 29, 2013):
1. Case: FLD2013-02004 - 1590 Gulf Boulevard Level Two Application
Owner: Taub Entities, LLC.
Agent: Robert D. Hall; Curtis Gaines Hall Jones Architects, Inc (1213 East 6th
Avenue, Tampa, FL 33605; Phone: (813) 228-8000; email:
Bob@CGHjarchitects.com)
Location: 1.38 acres on the west side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 300 feet
south of Marina Del Rey Court and approximately 1,100 feet north of the City
Community Development 4/16/2013 1
limits line between Clearwater and Belleair.
Atlas Page: 311A
Zoning: Commercial (C) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit 23 attached dwellings with
a height of 68 feet as measured from base flood elevation to the top of the roof
deck (86 feet to the top of architectural roof embellishment features), front (east)
setbacks of 99 feet (to building) and 10 feet (to parking), side (north) setbacks of
nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to parking) and zero feet (to pavement
including a sidewalk terminus and drive aisle), side (south) setbacks of 10 feet
(to building and parking), nine feet (to swimming pool) and four feet (to patio),
rear (west) setbacks as measured from the Coastal Construction Control Line
(CCCL) of zero feet (to building and patio) and three feet (to pergola/trellis
structure over the proposed spa/hot tub/fireplace, 46 parking spaces (including
two handicap spaces) (two parking spaces per dwelling unit) in the Commercial
(C) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the
provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.E; to permit a
two foot building overhang (eve) to encroach seaward of the CCCL, under the
provisions of CDC Section 3-905 and to reduce the front (east) landscape buffer
from 15 feet to 10 feet (to parking), reduce the side (south) landscape buffer
from 10 feet to four feet (to patio) and to modify the required number of shade
trees from 40 canopy trees (or as otherwise provided via accent/palm trees) to
24 canopy trees as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the
provisions of 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition and Sandkey
Civic Association
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, AICP; Planner III
Member Dame moved to reschedule Case FLD2013-02004 to April 29, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Funk did not
vote.
F. CONSENT AGENDA: The following cases are not contested by the
applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. and will be approved by
a single vote at the beginning of the meeting (Items 1-2):
Pulled from Consent Agenda
1. Case: FLD2013-02006- 669 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner: DeNunzio Group LLC.
Agent: Randy Austin, Landon, Moree & Associates, Inc (31622 USN 19 North,
Palm Harbor, FL 34684; Phone: 727-789-5010; email: Austin@lmaengr.com)
Location: 0.15 acres on the east side Bay Esplanade Avenue roughly 463 feet
from Poinsettia Avenue
Atlas Page: 258A
Community Development 4/16/2013 2
Zoning: Tourist (T) District
Character District: Old Florida
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a three-unit Resort
Attached Dwelling use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction of minimum lot
area from 10,000 square-feet to 6,475 square-feet and a reduction of minimum
lot width from 100 feet to 60 feet, a front (west) setback of ten feet (where ten
feet is allowed), a side (north) setback of ten feet (where five feet is allowed), a
side (south) setback of five feet (where five is allowed), a rear (west) setback of
zero feet (where five is allowed); and a height of 65 feet (to top of flat roof)
pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.K. and the Old
Florida District of Beach by Design as well as an increase in the amount of
palms on site from 75 percent to 100 percent of the total required as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provision of CDC Section 3-
1202.G.; and a two-year Development Order
Proposed Use: Resort Attached Dwelling
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition and
Clearwater Beach Association
Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Land Resource Specialist
See page 4 re discussion.
2. Case: TA2013-03002 - Amendments to the Community Development Code
Level Three Application
Applicant: City of Clearwater
Request: Amendments to the Clearwater Community Development Code signs
provisions to allow the City to erect temporary wayfinding signs due to changed
traffic circulation patterns as a result of public construction projects and revisions
to the Termination of Nonconformity provisions.
Neighborhood Association: Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: Robert G. Tefft, Development Review Manager
See Exhibit: Staff Report TA2013-03002 2013-04-16
Member Barker moved to recommend approval of Case TA2013-03002 on today’s
Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the application and the Staff
Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff
Report. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Funk
did not vote.
Pulled from Consent Agenda
1. Case: FLD2013-02006- 669 Bay Esplanade Level Two Application
Owner: DeNunzio Group LLC.
Agent: Randy Austin, Landon, Moree & Associates, Inc (31622 USN 19 North,
Palm Harbor, FL 34684; Phone: 727-789-5010; email: Austin@lmaengr.com)
Community Development 4/16/2013 3
Location: 0.15 acres on the east side Bay Esplanade Avenue roughly 463 feet
from Poinsettia Avenue
Atlas Page: 258A
Zoning: Tourist (T) District
Character District: Old Florida
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a three-unit Resort
Attached Dwelling use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction of minimum lot
area from 10,000 square-feet to 6,475 square-feet and a reduction of minimum
lot width from 100 feet to 60 feet, a front (west) setback of ten feet (where ten
feet is allowed), a side (north) setback of ten feet (where five feet is allowed), a
side (south) setback of five feet (where five is allowed), a rear (west) setback of
zero feet (where five is allowed); and a height of 65 feet (to top of flat roof)
pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-803.K. and the Old
Florida District of Beach by Design as well as an increase in the amount of
palms on site from 75 percent to 100 percent of the total required as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provision of CDC Section 3-
1202.G.; and a two-year Development Order
Proposed Use: Resort Attached Dwelling
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition and
Clearwater Beach Association
Presenter: Ellen Crandall, Land Resource Specialist
See Exhibits: Staff Report FLD2013-02006 2013-04-16
Memorandum FLD2013-02006 2013-04-16
In response to questions, Planning Manager Robert Tefft said ownership is the only link
between this project and the one across the street. Professional Engineer Jennifer
Shannon said the applicant is responsible for upgrading infrastructure so that the project
does not have a negative impact on neighbors’ water pressure.
Suzanne Keys requested Party Status.
Member Dame moved to grant Suzanne Keys Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Funk did not vote.
Gerald Gehrand requested Party Status.
Member Dame moved to grant Gerald Gehrand Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Funk did not vote.
Member van Weezel moved to accept Ellen Crandall as an expert witness in the fields of
zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and the landscape ordinance. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Funk did not vote.
Community Development 4/16/2013 4
Member Barker moved to accept Robert Tefft as an expert witness in the fields of zoning,
site plan analysis, code administration, and planning in general. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Funk did not vote.
Land Resource Specialist Ellen Crandall reviewed the Staff Report. The project meets
design requirements in Beach by Design.
Discussion ensued regarding district changes anticipated in Beach by Design. It was
stated that the Florida coastal vernacular theme, required by Beach by Design, should
feature an enhanced site design and a beach type look with bright colors and creative
architecture rather than the project’s boxy design and subdued color palette. It was stated
that the project’s architecture is simple, elegant, and attractive and reflects the modern
trend in architecture and the owner’s tastes.
Mr. Tefft said Beach by Design encompasses the project’s style of design; project colors
are in the Beach by Design palette. He opined that the architecture meets his
interpretation of design requirements in Beach by Design. Increasing the number of units
would require a new application submission. No piers, docks, or restaurants are proposed.
Katie Cole, attorney for the applicant, concurred with the Staff Report. She said the
developer and staff had significant deliberations regarding the project’s adherence to Code
and Beach by Design criteria. She said except for the lot size, the project meets every
standard for Level One approval. She said the architecture style is similar to other
buildings on the beach.
Jordan Behar, representative for the applicant, said the pervious area is larger than
required. He reviewed tree specimens in the landscape plan, which is more extensive
than required.
Party Status Holder Suzanne Keys said the project will lower nearby property values as
the building is too tall for the area. She expressed concern the project will discourage
future visits by Five Palms Condominium Resort guests, increase traffic, and endanger
pedestrians. She said project balconies will look down on private decks, patios, and
grassy areas on the resort property. She requested that the project be required to build a
sidewalk, enhance street lighting, increase landscaping with full grown plants, and provide
a $30,000 cash allowance to Five Palms to install full grown plants on the resort property
and increase the height of the resort’s wall separating the properties.
Party Status Holder Gerald Gehrand said the project’s size is too large for the small parcel
and its height is inappropriate. He said the request is not for the community’s betterment.
He said a massive amount of landscaping will be necessary along the shared border.
Ms. Crandall reviewed the landscape plan, noting it meets Code requirements for mature
plants. The project includes construction of a sidewalk.
Community Development 4/16/2013 5
One resident spoke in support of the project.
Party Status Holder Keys said due to the project's significant height, it is critical that
mature plants be installed on the Five Palms property to buffer and protect resort guests.
Party Status Holder Gehrand said project trees should be at least 35 feet tall. He said the
project is requesting a massive reduction in the required lot size.
Attorney Cole said the project will reduce traffic impacts as it replaces eight units with
three. She said landscaping meets or exceeds Code and is considered "enhanced" under
Beach by Design requirements. She said the Fire Department requires the buffer between
the project and the Five Palms for rear access, which would be impeded by additional
landscaping. She said the 6,475 square-foot lot exceeds the minimum Code required lot
size of 5,000 square-feet. She said the Code defines City expectations and Beach by
Design supports development of new uses in the Old Florida District with heights up to 75
feet for overnight accommodations.
Discussion ensued regarding the size of the project's footprint and project adherence to
step backs, setbacks, and landscaping requirements. Concern was expressed that
landscaping will not solve resort owner privacy concerns. It was noted that Beach by
Design defines the Old Florida District as a transition area and anticipates taller buildings.
Member Hinrichs moved to approve Case FLD2013-02006 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, including correction to Condition of Approval 2 to read
"That a Unity of Title for parcels 05-29-15-54756-077-0080 and 05-29-15-00000-310-0600
be recorded and submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit." The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Funk did not vote.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:09 p.m.
•
C .ir
Attest \, Comm nity D pment Board
Board Repo
Community Development 4/16/2013 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2013-03002 2013-04-16
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Code Amendment
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
April 16, 2013
AGENDA ITEM:
F. 1.
CASE:
TA2013-03002
ORDINANCE NO.:
8402-13
REQUEST:
Amendments to the Community Development Code
INITIATED BY:
City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department
BACKGROUND:
U.S. Highway 19 has been transitioning from a roadway with numerous traffic signals and
medians cuts to a controlled access facility with limited channelized medians, new interchanges
and a frontage road. Current construction within the City of Clearwater will eliminate the
intersection of Enterprise Road and U.S. Highway 19. This will greatly alter traffic circulation
patterns in the area and impact the driving public and the businesses located at this intersection.
There is a need to assist the public with navigating a new traffic circulation pattern and the
current sign regulations do not provide for any type of temporary wayfinding signage in these
types of circumstances.
The Planning and Development Department recently has identified potential conflicting language
in the termination of nonconformity provisions and believes it would be appropriate to make
some revisions to better clarify how termination of nonconformities should be processed and
when and under what conditions a termination runs with the land and when it should be null and
void.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Ordinance No. 8402-13 includes amendments to Division 3 Development Standards,
Signs and Division 6 Nonconformity Provisions as outlined below.
Temporary Wayfinding Signs
1. [pages 2 and 3 of Ordinance]
Proposed Ordinance No. 8402-13 establishes the City’s ability to erect temporary wayfinding
signs when the City Manager determines that a public construction project significantly changes
an existing traffic circulation pattern. These signs may be up to 12 feet in height and 8 square
feet in area. The City Engineer will determine the number and location of temporary wayfinding
signs based on the extent of the changed pattern and the number and uses of properties impacted.
The signs will be designed, fabricated, installed and removed by the City Engineer. Owners of
Community Development Board – December 18, 2012
TA2012-10008 – Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2013-03002 2013-04-16
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Code Amendment
property impacted by the changed pattern may request to have their property referenced on the
signs and will be obligated to reimburse the City for all costs incurred.
Termination of Status of Nonconformity
2. [pages 3- 5 of Ordinance]
The proposed ordinance amends Code Section 6-109 to provide more clarity with regard to the
application of the termination of nonconforming density provisions and allows terminated height
within the Downtown District to be rebuilt. The current provisions do not clearly state what
happens to terminated density in the event certain improvements are not made. There is an
implication that the termination should run with the land but the existing language could be
subject to interpretation. Proposed Ordinance 8402-13 provides for several scenarios as follows:
Existing uses that are afforded a termination of nonconforming density/intensity must
make certain property improvement within one year of the termination or the termination
is null and void.
If reconstruction (redevelopment) of terminated density is approved, the redevelopment
must comply with existing code provisions and be built within the timeframes required
by the development order. If that does not occur, certain property improvements must be
made within one year of the order to vest the termination. If that does not occur, the
termination is null and void.
If the improvements on a property are demolished during the valid timeframe of a
development order authorizing a termination, the property will be deemed to be in
compliance and the termination will be vested. Whenever the property is developed with
the terminated density, all code requirements in effect will have to be met.
A new provision is also proposed that would allow property in the Downtown zoning district that
has been subject to a termination of nonconforming building height to be reconstructed at that
height if certain criteria are met. The proposed criteria will ensure that a redevelopment project
meet all other code requirements and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan; that the increased
height would not negatively impact the surrounding area; that the design would enhance the
community character of the surrounding area; and the intended vision for the character district in
which the property is located would be met.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Community Development Cod Section 4-601 sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing
text amendments. All text amendments must comply with the following:
1.The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Goal, Objective and
Policy which will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments:
Community Development Board – December 18, 2012
TA2012-10008 – Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2013-03002 2013-04-16
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Code Amendment
Goal A.3 The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment
initiatives meet the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the City
through consistent implementation of the Community Development Code.
Objective A.3.1 All signage within the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the
Clearwater sign code, as found within the Community Development Code,
and all proposed signs shall be evaluated to determine their effectiveness
in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing the safety and attractiveness of
the streetscape.
Policy A.5.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
The proposed temporary wayfinding provisions will establish sign regulations to address
impacts of public construction projects when they significantly alter the roadway network.
The proposed amendment establishes reasonable standards for signage that will be effective
in safely rerouting the driving public while not creating clutter. The proposed amendments
also clarify the termination of status of nonconformity provisions to better facilitate
appropriate property improvements and redevelopment. As such, the above referenced
elements of the Comprehensive Plan will be furthered.
2.The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code
and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed text amendment will further the purposes of the CDC in that it will be
consistent with the following purposes set forth in Section 1-103.
It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the
city; to promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide
the orderly growth and development of the city; to establish rules of procedure for land
development approvals; to enhance the character of the city and the preservation of
neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of life of all residents and property owners of
the city (Section 1-103.A., CDC).
Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the city through
the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and beneficial
development of land within the city (Section 1-103.E.2., CDC).
Protect and conserve the value of land throughout the city and the value of buildings and
improvement upon the land, and minimize the conflicts among the uses of land and
buildings (Section 1-103.E.3., CDC).
Provide the most beneficial relationship between the uses of land and buildings and the
circulation of traffic throughout the city, with particular regard for safe and efficient
vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement (Section 1-103.E.4., CDC).
Coordinate the provisions of this Development Code with corollary provisions relating to
parking, fences and walls, signs and like supplementary requirements designed to
Community Development Board – December 18, 2012
TA2012-10008 – Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT TA2013-03002 2013-04-16
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Code Amendment
establish an integrate and complete regulatory framework for the use of land and water
within the city (Section 1-103.E.12., CDC).
The amendments proposed by this ordinance will further the above referenced purposes by
clarifying existing rules of development for properties requesting termination of
nonconformity while ensuring that certain standards are met to vest such approvals.
Additionally the ordinance provides for temporary wayfinding signs to assist in the safe and
efficient circulation of traffic and promotes the economic stability of parts of the city
negatively impacted by changes in the road network.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendments to the Community Development Code are consistent with and will
further the goals of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community
Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department
APPROVAL
recommends of Ordinance No. 8402-13 that amends the Community Development
Code.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Gina L. Clayton
Assistant Planning & Development Director
ATTACHMENT: Ordinance No. 8402-13
Community Development Board – December 18, 2012
TA2012-10008 – Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2013-02006 2013-04-16
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
April 16, 2013
AGENDA ITEM:
E.1.
CASE:
FLD2013-02006
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a three-unit Resort Attached Dwelling use
in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction of minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet
to 6,475 square feet and a reduction of minimum lot width from 100 feet to 60 feet, a
front (west) setback of ten feet (where ten feet is allowed), a side (north) setback of ten
feet (where five feet is allowed), a side (south) setback of five feet (where five is
allowed), a rear (west) setback of zero feet (where five is allowed); and a height of 65
feet (to top of flat roof) pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-
803.K. and the Old Florida District of Beach by Design as well as an increase in the
amount of palms on site from 75 percent to 100 percent of the total required as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provision of CDC Section 3-1202.G.; and
a two-year Development Order.
GENERAL DATA:
Agent……………………… Landon, Moree & Associates (Randy Austin, representative)
Applicant / Owner.............. Bay Esplanade Project, LLC
Location……..................... 669 Bay Esplanade; the subject property (0.15 acres) is located on the east side of Bay
Esplanade Ave. roughly 350 feet south of Somerset St.
Property Size…................. 0.15 Acres
Future Land Use Plan…… Resort Facilities High (RFH)
Zoning…………………….. Tourist (T) District
Special Area Plan..............Beach by Design (Old Florida District)
Adjacent Zoning... North: Tourist (T) District
South: Tourist (T) District
East: Tourist (T) District
West: Tourist (T) District
Existing Land Use............. Vacant Land
Proposed Land Use………Resort Attached Dwellings
-Not a Survey--Not to Scale-BAY ESPLANADE BAY ESPLANADE SOMERSET ST SOMERSET ST
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
BAY ESPLANADE BAY ESPLANADE
MANDALAY AVE
MANDALAY AVE
POINSETTIA AVE
POINSETTIA AVE
ROYAL WAY
ROYAL WAY
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 2
P-Not a Survey--Not to Scale-62565870163464565562171171062262061861261061464464062867669566867067266466050563860523934630643647641627669622631619643629611632675610637612635629639709707657
ACACIA ST MANDALAY AVE OS/RPT 11111 32/01 4 87 6512111092976541010131211109879810987654321932110910910943109421161511 8378B7884352616362034361433554747 6015406060606040404040406015606080
MANDALAY ISLANDLARBOARD
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
ELDORADOESPLANADE
CIR
SNUG
ANALYSIS:
BRUCE
BOHENIA
-Not a Survey-
-Not to Scale-
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
MANDALAY
IRIS
ISLAND
JEWEL
BAY
The 0.15 acre subject property is located on the east
ASTER
side of Bay Esplanade Ave. roughly 350 feet south
PROJECT
ACACIAST
SITE
ISLAND
of Somerset St. The property is vacant and has no
ISLAND
SOMERSET
ST
improvements. According to City records it appears
CAMBRIA
^
AVE
IDLEWILD
PASSAGE
that the site was previously developed with an 8-unit
HARBOR
GLENDALE
WAY
ROYAL
apartment building which was demolished in 2005.
HEILW00D
BAY
The site was also approved for attached dwellings
POINSETTIA
AVALON
ESPLANADE
CYPRUS
Juanita
KENDALL
through FLD2004-03018, however this approval was
PALM
BAY
ESPLANADENW
never built and has expired. Even though this
approval is expired it should be noted that it was first
PALM
ROCKAWAY
SW
denied by planning and denied by the CDB before
Ambler
the application was revised and approved. Beach by
ST
POINT
BAYMONT
SKIFF
Location Map
Design, specifically the Old Florida District, was
amended subsequent to that application. The
343870150525660710
ACACIA ST
711
requirements for the Old Florida district are different
709
LMDR
-Not a Survey-
-Not to Scale-
707
4749515961
49
705
434345
39
695
701
and more detailed than they were previously.
56
699
676
64½
60½
692
505458606264693
42
675
BAY ESPLANADE
SOMERSET ST
672
The adjacent property to the north consists of the
670
4565
66955
689
668
664
665
668
two-story condominium-style-motel building and its
687
672
664
660685
662
MANDALAY AVE
associated parking lot. The adjacent property to the
657
658
658
661
661
673
P
654
654
south consists of a one-story and two-story attached
655
650
650
655
648
669
646
644
T
POINSETTIA AVE
dwellings and its back-out parking spaces. The 648
667
644
665
657663
655
643
640
properties to the west across Bay Esplanade are 651
640
628
639
638
vacant but are currently proposed to be developed
50
T
ROYAL WAY
with 65 foot tall overnight accommodations. It
I
I 636
631
647
629634
645
632
should be noted that while the majority of the
643
619
637
629
635
641
627
625
622
BAY ESPLANADE
surrounding properties are one or two story
622
620
618
OS/R
614
611630
612
621
buildings. They are typically non-conforming with
610
612
610
OS/R
Zoning Map
back-out parking spaces. Any new development will
face a challenge to fit code-compliant parking spaces 54666434345474949515961705 2
6
Detached
3
54
2
701
1
27
87
on these small lots.
56 Dwellings
699
62
51
743
83
76
64½
60½
692
50
5458606264693
42
1
(1)
Resort
31/05
13373 SOMERSET ST
Development Proposal:
60
1.64
Attached
A
C(C)
45
Attached 65
60 55
689
11
BAY ESPLANADE
7
13
The owners of the property propose to build a six-
Dwellings
84A
77
Dwellings
665
668
12
8 687
5 82
672
12
664
story, three-unit resort attached dwelling with a
11
685
11
Attached
662
4
68416
building footprint of 3,860 square feet on 0.15 acres
Dwellings
PHASE II
27942
658
3
661
661
673
in the Old Florida character district of Beach by
654
654
11
Vacant
2
13
655
650
POINSETTIA AVE
650
Design. The building will be 65 feet in height (from
648
669
646
12
8
644
31/06
1
58454
648
base Flood Elevation to flat roof). The building
667
54756
Attached
7
665
663
657
60 655
Dwellings
façade will be a “Deco-esque” tropical modern
77
651
31/08
5
4
3
640 6
PHASE I
1.67
2
A
architecture which is appropriate for the property
C(C)
1
638
50
31/07
32/03
and compliments the Florida coastal vernacular
15
ROYAL WAY
60
1532/02
envisioned by Beach by Design.
I 636
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 1
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
The first level is proposed to accommodate six parking spaces, where five are required. The
second and third levels are both individual units. The fourth, fifth and sixth levels are for the
third unit. The units are accessed by a common stairwell and elevator which opens to a foyer on
each floor. The first two units have three bedrooms with baths and an office with a closet which
could function as a fourth bedroom. There is also a covered deck overlooking the intracoastal
waterways. The third unit will have a rooftop pool and deck area. The primary entrance will be
along the Bay Esplanade and will consist of a door with a canopy for pedestrian and a
metal/grated garage door for vehicular access. Solid waste will be accommodated by three roll-
out barrels, one for each unit, with an interior storage area.
The materials and color of the building reflect the Florida Coastal Vernacular while the design is
reminiscent of the Art Deco style. The base of the building will be a white color (Sebring White)
with the upper two levels of the building a light grey (Silent Night) and accents in a dark grey
(Ocean Floor). The color massing creates a discernible base, middle, and cap. There is variation
to the fenestration.
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum
density for properties with a designation of Resort Facilities High is 30 dwelling units per acre.
The subject property consists of two parcels with the upland area zoned Tourist District totaling
0.15 acres which allows for a maximum of four dwelling units. The proposal for three dwelling
units (20 dwelling units per acre) is consistent with the Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.67, which is consistent with
the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the minimum lot area for Resort
Attached Dwellings range from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. The proposed subject property
consists of 6,475 square feet lot area. Pursuant to the same Table, the required lot width for
Resort Attached Dwellings ranges from 50 to 100 feet. The subject property has a lot width of
60 feet along Bay Esplanade. The proposed subject property complies with the lot width and area
standards established for Resort Attached Dwelling uses.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, the minimum required parking for
resort attached dwellings is 1.5 parking spaces per unit, or a minimum of five parking spaces for
the proposed three-unit resort attached dwelling. The proposal includes a first-floor parking area
with six parking spaces, which is compliant with this Code provision.
Special Area Plan:
Beach by Design: Old Florida District
The City has demonstrated through the creation of Beach by Design and subsequent amendments
to the plan that it recognizes the need for pedestrian- and boater-friendly development in order to
create a vibrant active waterfront serving tourists and locals alike. It is understood that a broad
range of uses including attached dwellings, retail sales and service, hotels and motels and
restaurants contribute to the creation of the unique character and atmosphere that is Clearwater
Beach. Specifically, the vision of the Old Florida District of Beach by Design provides for the
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 2
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
development of attached dwellings and resort attached dwellings. The District is envisioned to
remain a transitional District between the single-family neighborhood north of the Acacia
roundabout and the more intense tourist/resort-type uses with make up the bulk of the
development on Clearwater Beach farther to the south. The Old Florida District also provides a
set of development parameters addressing building height, minimum setbacks, required building
stepbacks, landscape buffers and parking/vehicular access. These development parameters
supersede any conflicting statements contained within the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design
and the Community Development Code. Furthermore, the Design Guidelines of Beach by
Design provide that “Any issue not addressed in [the] Design Guidelines shall be governed by
the requirements of the Community Development Code.” Therefore, the hierarchy of
applicability is as follows:
The parameters contained with the Old Florida District supersede the requirements of the
Design Guidelines within Beach by Design and the Community Development.
The Design Guidelines supersede the requirements of the Community Development
Code.
The Community Development Code is applicable to development within the Old Florida
District when not in conflict with either the development parameters of the Old Florida
District and/or the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, the maximum allowable height for
resort attached dwellings can range between 35 – 100 feet. The proposed building is 65 feet in
height from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof, which is within the Code maximum;
however, as this property is located within the Old Florida character district of Beach by Design,
and as set forth in Beach by Design Section B.2, the maximum height of Resort Attached
Dwellings can be 65 feet in height provided the site is located on the south side of Somerset
Street and 60 feet or more south of the southerly right-of-way line of Somerset Street. The
subject property is approximately 258 feet from south line of Somerset Street. The proposed
building is 65 feet in height from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) to the flat roof. Beach by Design
also states that greater setbacks and/or building stepbacks and enhanced landscaping for
buildings exceeding 35 feet in height are contemplated. This height is mitigated by additional
stepbacks and enhanced landscaping and is in compliance with this Code Provision.
Minimum Setbacks: The Old Florida District of Beach by Design states that the minimum front
setback be15 feet and the side and rear setback be 10 feet. The site has one front (west), two
sides (north and south) and one rear (east). Beach by Design also allows for a maximum
reduction of five feet on the condition that the reduction results in an improved site plan,
landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required and/or improved design and appearance.
Reductions to setbacks may also be requested if stepbacks are increased at the rate of two feet in
increased stepback for every one foot decreased in setback.
The development proposal meets the required side (north) setback of ten feet (to building), and
includes reductions to setbacks to the front (west) setback of ten feet (to building) where 15 is
required but ten may be requested, a side (south) setback of five feet (to building) where five
may be requested, a rear (east) setback of zero feet (to proposed pavers) where ten is required but
five may be requested.
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 3
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
The proposed front (west) and side (south) setback reductions are to allow code-compliant
enclosed parking spaces on the ground level. These setbacks are necessary to accommodate a 24-
foot wide drive aisle and 9-foot by 18-foot parking spaces on a 60-foot wide lot. It should be
noted that any new development in the Old Florida character district will face challenges of
providing required parking on site that is not back-out. The provided parking will be enclosed in
the building which results in an improved and pedestrian-oriented site plan and the reductions are
justified.
The proposed rear setback of zero feet is not able to be requested for buildings in excess of 35
feet where the required rear setback is 10 feet with a maximum reduction of 5 feet. The majority
of the proposed paver patio at the rear (east) is setback five feet from the property line. This
reduction down to a five foot rear setback may be requested; however any portion of the patio
that extends beyond this point is not permissible by Beach by Design. It is a condition of
approval that revised site plans showing the removal of that portion of the paver patio extending
past the five foot setback to the sea wall be submitted prior to issuance of any building permit.
Minimum Stepbacks:
Old Florida District of Beach by Design states that buildings exceeding 35 feet in height shall
provide at least one stepback on at least one side of the building at a point of 35 feet (or less).
The dimension of the required stepback for a property on a 60-foot-wide right-of-way is one foot
in stepback for every 2.5 feet in building height above 35 feet. For the proposed 65 foot tall
building the required stepback is 12 feet.
The proposal includes a 12 foot stepback on the front (west) façade at a height of 27 feet. In
addition to the one required stepback the proposal includes an additional five other stepbacks.
The second stepback five feet in depth at a height of 4.6 feet on the side (south) façade. This
steps back directly over the ground level parking. On the south property line the proposed
setback is 5 feet, however, the additional stepback of 5 feet creates an airspace of 10 feet on the
south property line and is mitigating the reduction in setback. The third stepback is on the side
(north) façade at a height of 38.6 feet. The fourth stepback is on the front (west) façade at a
height of 52.6 feet. The fifth stepback is on the rear (east) façade at a height of 38.6 feet. The
sixth stepback is on the rear (east) façade at a height of 52.6 feet. There is a stepback on every
side of the building façade, with two stepbacks on the front (west) and rear (east) facades. This
collection of stepbacks helps to reduce the bulk of the building by more than 2/3 as it reaches the
height of 65 feet. The design and the stepbacks also break up the mass visually and articulated
the planar facades. The proposal is meeting and exceeding the aforementioned Code provision.
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. The
location and screening of mechanical equipment complies with this Code provision.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveway on Bay Esplanade, 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
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 4
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
visibility triangles. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be
maintained to meet the Code requirements. The proposal complies with this Code provision
.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, 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 these resort attached
dwellings will be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. The
proposal complies with this Code provision.
Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the
Tourist District; however, pursuant to Beach by Design, the Old Florida District requires a ten
foot landscape buffer along the street frontage of all properties.
The proposal includes a front landscape buffer width of ten feet. A Phoenix palm, which is a
specimen palm and is equal to one shade tree, is provided in the front buffer along with three,
pineapple guava, accent trees. This combination is equivalent to more than two shade trees and is
more than the required one shade tree every 35 feet. Also provided will be flowering shrubs
(hibiscus and fire bush) as well as flowering ground cover. Along the side (north) property line a
ten foot wide landscape buffer is provided with native palms (sabal and paurotis) and shrubs.
Five feet of the buffer must be ground cover to provide fire access around the building. On the
side (south) property line there is limited area for landscaping with the reduced setback and
walkway, however hedges (podocarpus and Simpsons stopper) are provided and well as native
palms (sabal). Additional native plant material is provided along the rear (east) property line
including sabal palms and coontie ground cover. It should be noted that some changes to the
landscaping on the rear (east) property line will occur when the proposed patio and walkway are
revised to meet the five foot rear setback, however the landscaping provided is in addition to the
minimum required and is in compliance with the Code Provisions. All landscaping plants and
trees shall be Florida Grade #1 plant material with an automatic irrigation system.
Solid Waste: The storage area for the three black barrels, one for each unit, is located to the
interior of the garage. The barrels will be screened by being inside the building. The pedestrian
door and walkway provide access to the exterior staging area for the black barrels. The proposal
has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste Department.
Additional Beach by Design Guidelines:
Section B.3. requires that the floorplate of any portion of the building that is between forty-five
feet and one hundred feet in height will be no greater than 25,000 square feet except for
structures open the public. The total square footage of all levels is 11,094 square feet, therefore
each of these floor levels comply with the guidelines. The gradual reduction in floor area per
level creates a wedding cake affect as required. The proposed building is in compliance with the
guidelines.
Section L.1 requires finish materials and building colors to reflect Florida or coastal vernacular
themes. The base of the building will be a white color (Sebring White) with the upper two levels
of the building a light grey (Silent Night) and accents in a dark grey (Ocean Floor). The color
massing creates a discernible base, middle, and top. There is variation to the fenestration. The
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 5
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
development of resort attached dwellings on the subject property is consistent with the
surrounding uses, and is consistent with the emerging pattern and standards of redevelopment in
this character district. The building façade will be a “Deco-esque” tropical modern architecture
which is appropriate for the property and compliments the Florida coastal vernacular envisioned
by Beach by Design.
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 development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-801.1 and
Table 2-803 and Beach by Design;
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 30 units per acre 20 units per acre X
(4 units) (3 units)
Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.67 X
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 – 10,000 6,475 square feet X
Minimum Lot Width 50-100 60 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front : 15 West: 10 feet (to building) X 1
Side: 10 South: Zero feet (to walkway) X 1
5 feet (to building)
North: 10 feet (to building) X
Rear : 10 East: Zero feet (to pavement) X 1
10 feet (to building)
Maximum Height 65 feet from BFE 65 feet (from BFE to top of roof X
through Beach by slab)
Design
Minimum 1.5 per unit 6 parking spaces (2 per unit) X
Off-Street Parking
1
See analysis in staff report
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 6
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-
803.K (Resort Attached Dwellings):
Consistent Inconsistent
Lot area and width:X
1. The reduction in lot area will not result in a building which is out of scale
with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development;
Height:X
2.
a. The increased height results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance;
b. The increased height is necessary to allow the improvement of off-street parking on the
ground floor of the residential building
Front setback:X
3.
a. The reduction in front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic street life;
b. The reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or improved design and
appearance.
Side and rear setbacks:X
4.
a. The reduction in side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by
emergency vehicles;
b. The reduction in side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more efficient
parking or improved design and appearance.
Off-street parking:X
5. Off-street parking within the footprint of the residential building is designed
and constructed to create a street level façade comparable to the architectural character and
finishes of a residential building without parking on the ground level.
The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District design guidelines in Division 5 of
Article 3.
Accessory uses:X
6.
a. Accessory uses, including but not limited to restaurants, snack bars, and sundries shops,
must be incidental and subordinate to the primary use, and the maximum floor area for interior
accessory uses shall not exceed, in the aggregate, 15 percent of the building footprint;
b. No signage shall be visible from outside of the development.
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 Section 3-914.A., CDC:
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.
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 7
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of March 7, 2013, 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.The 0.15 acre upland subject property is located on the east side of Bay Esplanade Avenue,
roughly 350 feet south of Somerset Street;
2.The subject property is currently vacant;
3.That the subject property is located in the Tourist (T) District and the Resort High Facilities
(RFH) future land use plan category;
4.That the subject property is located in the Old Florida District of Beach by Design and is
subject to all applicable requirements set forth therein;
5.That the proposal includes a reduction of minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to 6,475
square feet and a reduction of minimum lot width from 100 feet to 60 feet;
6.The proposal is to construct a three-unit Resort Attached Dwelling;
7.The Resort Attached Dwelling is proposed at a height of 65 feet from the Base Flood
Elevation (BFE) to the top of flat roof;
8.That the front building façade has at least one vertical step back as set forth in Beach by
Design guidelines, and overall six stepbacks are provided on the building;
9.That the proposal includes variation of fenestration, color massing which creates a
discernible base, middle, and cap;
10. The first level of the building will provide a total of six fully enclosed and screened parking
spaces;
11.The proposal includes a front (west) setback of 10 feet (where 10 is allowed), a side (north)
setback of 10 feet (where 5 is allowed), a side (south) setback of 5 feet (where 5 is allowed),
a rear (west) setback of 5 feet (where 5 is allowed);
12.That the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95 and the proposed ISR is 0.67;
13.That the proposal includes a request for a two year Development Order; and
14.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 consistent with the Standards as per Community
Development Code Tables 2-801.1 and 2-803;
2.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Community
Development Code Section 2-803.K;
3.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Community Development Code Section 3-914.A;
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the landscaping requirements of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G;
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 8
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level I Flexible Standard Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
5.That the development proposal is consistent with the Old Florida character district of Beach
by Design; and
6.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 REVISED Flexible Development application to permit a three-unit Resort Attached Dwelling
use in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction of minimum lot area from 10,000 square feet to
6,475 square feet and a reduction of minimum lot width from 100 feet to 60 feet, a front (west)
setback of 10 feet (where 10 is allowed), a side (north) setback of 10 feet (where 5 is allowed), a
side (south) setback of 5 feet (where 5 is allowed), a rear (west) setback of 5 feet (where 5 is
allowed); and a height of 65 feet (to top of flat roof) pursuant to Community Development Code
(CDC) Section 2-803.K. and the Old Florida District of Beach by Design as well as an increase
in the amount of palms on site from 75 percent to 100 percent of the total required as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provision of CDC Section 3-1202.G.; and a two-
year Development Order, subject to the following conditions of approval:
Conditions of Approval:
1.That revised site plans showing the removal of that portion of the paver patio extending past
the five foot setback to the sea wall be submitted prior to issuance of any building permit;
2.That a Unity of Title for parcels 15-28-15-00000-140-0500 and 15-28-15-23166-001-00000
be recorded and submitted prior to the issuance of any building permit;
3.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
4.That all landscaping plants and trees shall be Florida Grade #1 plant material with an
automatic irrigation system;
5.That prior to the issuance of any building permits all conditions of the Fire Department be
satisfied;
6.That prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all utilities, including individual
distribution lines serving this development within the right-of-way along the east side of Bay
Esplanade, as applicable, must be installed underground unless undergrounding is not
practicable; and
7.That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the
provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an
adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the
developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the
needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required,
then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Ellen Crandall,
Land Resource Specialist
ATTACHMENTS: Maps, Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board – April 16, 2013
FLD2013-02006 – Page 9
'■/1/1 bt 014 iLA
t.' /Ill sec) Ogoc7,./q
1 1 / /w
e Cy !r <�,- � ��- ! �G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Development Board
FROM: Ellen Crandall, Land Resource Specialist
RE: Correction to Staff Report for FLD2013-02006
DATE: April 16, 2013
There are two errors on the FLD20013-02006 Staff Report that must be corrected. First,the case
listed on the cover of staff report be corrected to: FLD2013-02006
Second,that condition of approval number 2 is corrected to reflect the correct parcel numbers:
2. That a Unity of Title for parcels 05-29-15-54756-077-0080 and 05-29-15-00000-310-0600 be
recorded and submitted prior to the issuance of any building permit;
„
0
Uearwater
_ „..........„.„......
U
..........„,...,„..,........„
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 16,2013
DATE: April 10,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 19,2013
Agenda
Continued Items (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29, 2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004- 1 590 Gulf Boulevard Planner: Mark Parry
Yes No )(
Level Two Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2013-02006-669 Bay Esplanade Planner: Ella Crandall
Yes X No
Level Three Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: TA2013-03002 - Amendments to the Community Development Code Planner: Gina
Clayton
Yes No X.1
I have conducted a p) 'nvestigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: --�-�- '�-� Date: y /S l(
r a-,Ig-+lac L . _0. 40
PRINT NAME
S.(Planning Department\C D B\Agendas DRC&CDBICDBI2013104 April 16,201311 Cover MEMO 2013 doe
} e
3
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 16,2013
DATE: April 10,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 19,2013
Agenda
Continued Items (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29,2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004— 1590 Gulf Boulevard Planner: Mark Parry
Yes No X
Level Two Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2013-02006—669 Bay Esplanade Planner: Ella Crandall
Yes No X
Level Three Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: TA2013-03002 — Amendments to the Community Development Code Planner: Gina
Clayton
Yes No K
I have conducted a personal investigation o the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: _ Date:
PRINT NAME
S:APlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2013104 April 16,201311 Cover MEMO 2013 doe
a
ea er
_ ....,,,,„...........„-
U
...„.........w„
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 16,2013
DATE: April 10,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 19,2013
Agenda
Continued Items (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29, 2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004— 1590 cuff tirnklevard Planner: Mark Parry
Yes No
Level Two Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2013-02006—669 Bay Esplanade Planner: Ella Crandall
Yes No
Level Three Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: TA2013-03002 — Amendments to the Community Development Code Planner: Gina
Clayton
Yes No
I have conducted ape sonal ini(estig Lion on the personal site visit to the following properties.
1 —'��C, \,f-' L Date: ( !
Signature: �_ 1 ;j_
I ( ,-I-z.<. �■1._c. , ( (r__
PRINT NAME
S.(Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12013104 April 16,201311 Cover MEMO 2013.doc
lJ
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 16,2013
DATE: April 10,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 19,2013
Agenda
Continued Items (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29,2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004— 1590 Gulf Boulevard Planner: Mark Parry
Yes No
Level Two Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2013-02006—669 Bay Esplanade Planner: Ella Crandall
Yes � No
Level Three Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: TA2013-03002 — Amendments to the Community Development Code Planner: Gina
Clayton A/
Yes No
I have conducted personal in tiiation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: Date: i 3
PRINT NAME
S.(Planning Department\C D B\Agendas DRC Sc CDBICDB12013104 April 16,201311 Cover MEMO 2013.doc
4
} Clearwater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft,Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan,Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 16,2013
DATE: April 10,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 19,2013
Agenda
Continued Items (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29, 2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004— 1590 Gulf Boulevard Planner: Mark Parry
Yes No
Level Two Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2013-02006—669 Bay Esplanade Planner: Ella Crandall
Yes No
Level Three Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: TA2013-03002 — Amendments to the Community Development Code Planner: Gina
Clayton
Yes ,C No
I have conducted personal investisiation on the personal site visit to the followng properties.
Signature: Date: 4/11/1,
12,I4Hd147 AV54314
PRINT NAME
S.\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDBI2013104 April 16,201311 Cover MEMO 2013.doc
LL
4
} çater
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, Documents and Records
Specialist,/Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for April 16,2013
DATE: April 10,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting March 19,2013
Agenda
Continued Items (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29,2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004- 1590 Gulf Boulevard Planner: Mark Parry
Yes No
Level Two Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: FLD2013-02006-669 Bay Esplanade Planner: Ella Crandall
Yes 17 No
Level Three Applications (Items 1)
1. Case: TA2013-03002 - Amendments to the Community Development Code Planner: Gina
Clayton /
Yes ✓ No
I have conduct,• • personal investi,••tion on the personal site visit to therfollowing properties.
Signature: �.,��,� Date:
K‘4,ak \3. +-I, d \-x c
PRINT NAME
S.\Planning Department\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12013104 Apr1116,201311 Cover MEMO 2013.doc