04/29/2013 - Special Meeting
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
April 29, 2013
Present: Chair Thomas Coates, Vice-Chair Frank L. Dame, Member Richard Adelson,
Member Kurt B. Hinrichs, Member Norma R. Carlough, Member Donald van Weezel,
Acting Member John Funk
Absent: Member Brian A. Baker
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 Chair called the special meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
B. ROLL CALL: Chair Coates, Vice Chair Dame, Members Adelson, Barker,
Carlough, Hinrichs, van Weezel Alternate Member Funk, City Staff
C. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1):
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
limits line between Clearwater and Belleair.
Atlas Page: 311A
Zoning: Commercial (C) District]
Character District: None
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
Community Development Board Special 1
4/29/2013
(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 Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition and Sand key
Civic Association
Presenter: Mark T. Parry, AICP; Planner III
See Exhibit: Staff Report FLD2013-02004 2013-04-29
Arlene Musselwhite, Sand Key Civic Association President, requested Party Status.
Member Dame moved to grant Arlene Musselwhite Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Todd Pressman, representing Isle of Sand Key Condo building residents, requested
Party Status.
Member Carlough moved to grant Todd Pressman Party Status as representative of the
Isle of Sand Key Condo building residents. The motion was duly seconded and carried
unanimously.
Vince Nauss, Cabana Club Condominium Association President, requested Party
Status.
Member van Weezel moved to grant Vince Nauss Party Status. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Frank Simonelli, Cabana Club Condominium Association board member, requested
Party Status.
Acting Member Funk moved to grant Frank Simonelli Party Status. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Community Development Board Special 2
4/29/2013
Member Carlough moved to accept Mark Parry as an expert witness in the fields of
redevelopment planning, comprehensive planning, annexation implementation, zoning,
land use/rezoning applications, land development general planning code amendments,
landscape ordinance, and special area plans/overlay districts. The motion was duly
seconded and carried unanimously.
Planner III Mark Parry reviewed the Staff Report.
Developer/Applicant Brian Taub reviewed his firm’s history. He said before he
purchased the subject property last December, he met with the City, Sand Key Civic
Association, and condominium residents in nearby buildings to inform them of his
intention to develop the property and to understand their concerns and try to address
them in the development plans. Since purchasing the property, he had many more
meetings and correspondence with neighbors. He thanked staff for their help.
In response to questions, Mr. Taub said the development will use the Cabana Club
Restaurant ingress/egress. He said at its closest point, the project will be 10 feet from
the Cabana Club Condominiums, which abuts the property line. He said a beach
access will on the south side of the property.
Party Status Holder Musselwhite requested additional time.
Member Adelson moved to grant Party Status Holder Musselwhite an additional 5
minutes. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Party Status Holder Musselwhite submitted a package from the Sand Key Civic
Association supporting the project, with a condition that rooftop air-conditioning units be
screened from the view of nearby residents in taller buildings. She said the estimate
she received for screening was less than $50,000. She said the Development Code
requires views of mechanicals to be screened from abutting and adjacent properties.
She said the Code should apply to vertically stacked residential units.
Party Status Holder Pressman requested additional time. Attorney for the Board Gina
Grimes recommended the board grant Party Holder Pressman the same amount of
extra time as was used by Party Status Holder Musselwhite.
Member Dame moved to grant Party Holder Pressman an additional 3.5 minutes. The
motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Party Holder Pressman provided a PowerPoint presentation. He said he was working
with the Sand Key Civic Association. He said Isle of Sand Key residents support the
project but request additional screening of rooftop air-conditioning units. He said the
Development Code obligates the developer to consider views from adjoining homes.
Community Development Board Special 3
4/29/2013
He submitted a letter from a local architect indicating that the cost to screen rooftop
mechanics would not be burdensome. He said available roof screens meet 150 mph
wind requirements. He said the development does not meet current standards nor the
Code’s beautification requirements. He said views of the rooftop air-conditioners will
significantly impair the value of higher units in nearby buildings
Party Holder Nauss complimented Brian Taub for his efforts working with neighbors and
solving complex issues when planning this project. He said the Cabana Club is the
closest neighbor and is impacted the most. He urged the board to approve the project
without additional conditions.
Party Status Holder Simonelli said he was happy the restaurant is gone, supports the
development, and thanked Brian Taub for his efforts.
Seven residents spoke in support of the development with 2 supporting a condition to
require additional screening for rooftop air-conditioning units.
Mr. Parry reviewed staff’s opposition to requiring air-conditioning units to be screened
on 5 sides. He said Code requires views of rooftop mechanicals to be screened from
the right-of-way and at street level from adjoining properties. He said adding this
requirement would have a detrimental impact on the entire City and discussed resulting
complications.
Member van Weezel moved to grant Mr. Parry an additional 2 minutes. The motion was
duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Mr. Parry reviewed enforcement difficulties related to requiring additional screening.
Discussion ensued. It was felt that views of rooftop air-conditioning units negatively
impact the value of condominium units. Concerns were expressed that the Code did
not consider Sand Key’s unique environment when it was written and this development
will reduce the amount of commercial land on Sand Key. Attorney Grimes said each
property owner has the prerogative to request a zoning change and each case has
unique facts and is considered separately.
In response to questions, Mr. Parry said no concrete evidence was submitted indicating
views of rooftop air-conditioning units adversely and substantially impact condominium
values. He said adding that requirement would have negative implications City wide.
He noted the development could be much taller. He had not seen screening
requirements similar to the request in other codes he reviewed.
Community Development Board Special 4
4/29/2013
Party Holder Pressman said Mr. Parry did not address significant adverse impacts of
the rooftop air-conditioning units. In response to a question, he said the Isle of Sand
Key is a 17-story building across Gulf Boulevard from the development.
Party Holder Nauss said Cabana Club is 2 stories taller than the development and does
not support the proposed screening requirement.
Mr. Taub submitted signatures from residents of neighboring properties in support of the
development. He said the development is consistent with the community's character
and submitted photographs of ground level air-conditioning units at the Harborage One
and Isle of Sand Key that are visible from the right-of-way. He said no complaints had
been filed regarding rooftop air-conditioning units on the Cabana Club Restaurant. In
response to a question, he said his architect and contractor had opined that additional
screening was not feasible or affordable. He said neighbors indicated they did not want
a taller development that would block water views. He said he did not want his
development treated differently than others on Sand Key.
Discussion ensued with comments that this marks the end a long list of controversial
proposals for this site. Support was expressed for the project and staff's interpretation
of Code. The community was commended for its positive perspective and Mr. Taub
was complimented for his community outreach efforts.
Member Hinrichs moved to approve Case FLD2013-02004 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
The board wished farewell to Attorney for the Board Gina Grimes and thanked her for
her appropriate guidance, help, and good counsel. Ms. Grimes said she enjoyed her
position here and appreciated that the board was cooperative and professional. She
complimented the City's top rate staff and excellent and thorough staff reports.
D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
c rigrff
AttesA100.1111r Com ly Deve ent Board
A,Ar
Board Repo, er
Community Development Board Special 5
4/29/2013
GULF OF MEXICO
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2013-02004 2013-04-29
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 29, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: C.1.
CASE: FLD2013-02004
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), 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.
GENERAL DATA:
Agent……………………… Robert D. Hall; Curtis Gaines Hall Jones Architects, Inc.
Applicant/ Owner……....... Taub Entities, LLC.
Location………….............. 1590 Gulf Boulevard; west side of Gulf Boulevard approximately 300 feet south of
Marina Del Rey Court and approximately 1,100 feet north of the City limits line
between Clearwater and Belleair.
Property Size…................. 1.38 acres (0.96 acres within the
Commercial District)
-Not a Survey-
-Not to Scale-
Future Land Use Plan...... Commercial General (CG),
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS), Water
Zoning…………………….. Commercial (C), Open Space/Recreation
(R/OS) and Preservation (P) Districts
MARINA DEL REY CT
MARINA DEL REY CT
Special Area Plan.............. None
GULF BLVD
GULF BLVD
Adjacent Zoning.... North: High Density Residential (HDR) District
South: High Density Residential (HDR) District
East: High Density Residential (HDR) District
SAND KEY ESTATES DR
SAND KEY ESTATES DR
West: High Density Residential (HDR) District
Existing Land Use............. Restaurant (vacant)
Proposed Land Use……… Attached Dwellings (23 units)
LMDR C C C I HDR
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.38 acre site is located 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 limits line between
Clearwater and Belleair. The subject site
consists of one parcel with approximately 88
feet of frontage along Gulf Boulevard and 180
feet of frontage along the Gulf of Mexico. The
property spans three zoning districts including
Commercial (C), Open Space/Recreation
(OS/R) and Preservation (P) and three
corresponding Future Land Use Plan (FLUP)
classifications; Commercial General (CG),
Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) and Water. The
portion of the site within the C district is 0.96
acres and landward of the Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL). The remainder of the
site is 0.42 acres and is seaward of the CCCL.
It should be noted that Section 3-905 provides
that the CCCL is the line of reference from
which setbacks shall be measured along the
Gulf of Mexico for buildings and structures.
There is an existing seawall, presently buried
beneath the sand, located approximately 25 feet
west of the northwest corner of the existing
building and approximately 50 feet from the
CCCL in the southwest corner of the site.
There is an existing perpetual easement for
pedestrian passage located adjacent to the east
side of the seawall. The subject property
extends onto the beach area west of the seawall
approximately 50 to 60 feet.
Access to the site was provided (and
incidentally will continue to be provided) via a
two-way driveway at the northeast corner of the
site along Gulf Boulevard. This driveway is
part of an accesses easement with the property
to the north (1586 Gulf Boulevard). A total of
45 parking spaces were on the site including
three handicap spaces.
Residential land uses dominate parcels fronting
on either side of Gulf Boulevard. Surrounding
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 1 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
properties are within the High Density Residential (HDR) District with a FLUP classification of
RH. The only other commercial uses are in the 1201 block of Gulf Boulevard approximately one
mile north of the subject site (Shoppes of Sand Key).
Site History:
The site is irregularly shaped as a result of having previously been part of the Cabana Club
residential property to the north as its clubhouse and “members only” restaurant for the
condominiums, built in the early 1980s. This parcel was conveyed separately in the early 1990s,
litigated and determined to be a legal parcel and subsequently operated as a public restaurant
until its closing in 2007.
The site was developed with a 10,502 square-foot building, with two stories over an open ground
floor. The restaurant on the second and third floor was 7,054 square feet of enclosed floor area.
There was an outdoor café on the third floor of 1,916 square feet overlooking the beach. A pool
was adjacent to the restaurant building. The pool, patio area and building were demolished in the
middle of February 2013 (BCP2013-02147).
In 2000 the site was the subject of a land use plan map amendment and rezoning application
(LUZ 00-05-08) which proposed amending the FLUP category from CG to RH and the zoning
from C to HDR district. That case was denied by the City Commission on September 21, 2000.
A Flexible Development application (FL 00-05-19) in conjunction with the land use plan map
amendment and rezoning application to permit a 10-story (99-foot tall), 20-unit attached
dwelling condominium project with the swimming pool located seaward of the CCCL was
withdrawn due to the denial of the land use plan map amendment and rezoning application.
The site has also been the subject of two other Flexible Development applications. On
November 26, 2002 application FLD2002-09029 was approved with conditions by the
Community Development (CDB). This request included reductions in the front (east) setback
along Gulf Boulevard from 25 feet to five feet to pavement (existing), side (north) setback from
10 feet to zero feet (to existing building and pavement), side (south) setback from 10 feet to five
feet (to pavement) and from 10 feet to 1.4 feet to existing pool deck and reduce the required
number of parking spaces from 108 spaces to 46 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project. The proposal included the re-establishment of a restaurant utilizing the
existing setbacks to building and pavement. The restaurant building included separate restrooms
and lockers for the pool and beach and the plan was to use the pool and beach, including the
restrooms and lockers, for guests of the Belleview Biltmore Hotel only.
A second Flexible Development (FLD2008-02002) was approved with conditions by the CDB
on September 16, 2008 to permit a 38-unit overnight accommodation use in the C district with a
reduction to the required lot width from 200 to 88.41 feet, a reduction to the front (east) setback
from 25 to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 to zero feet (to
building), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from the CCCL from 20 to zero feet, to allow
proposed temporary cabanas up to 25 feet west of the CCCL and an increase to building height
from 25 to 67 feet, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the (then) provisions
of Section 2-704.C; and a reduction to the front (east) perimeter buffer from 15 to five feet (to
pavement), a reduction to the side (north) perimeter buffer from 10 to zero feet (to building and
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 2 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
pavement) and a reduction to the width of interior landscape islands from eight to 4.6 feet inside
curbing, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.
The proposal was to redevelop the site with a 38-room, 67-foot tall, boutique overnight
accommodation use with accessory uses including a restaurant, pool, men and women’s locker
rooms, exercise room and beachfront cabanas. The proposed hotel was to be operated by the
same hotel operator as the Belleview Biltmore Hotel in the Town of Belleair, providing guests of
the Belleview Biltmore Hotel with a beachfront experience.
All submissions were highly publicized and scrutinized. As the two approved FLD applications
did not come to fruition the approvals have since expired under the provisions of Community
Development Code (CDC) Section 4-407.
Development Proposal:
The current proposal is to develop the site with a seven-story building (six living floors over one
floor of parking) with 23 attached dwelling units (24 dwelling units per acre). It is important to
note that all development will occur on the portion of the site within the C district and that this
portion of the site is located entirely on the landward side of the CCCL. In short, the
development potential of the site including density and Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) is based
solely on the 0.96 acre portion of the site within the C district. The site will maintain the existing
driveway and the associated access easement with the neighboring property to the north. The
site will include 29 surface parking spaces and 17 parking spaces under the building (constituting
the bulk of first floor). Amenities will include a swimming pool and spa located in the southwest
quadrant of the site, an exercise room located on the second floor and air-conditioned storage
units located on the first (garage) floor.
Two trash rooms are provided within the building on the first floor each of which will
accommodate a pair of two cubic yard dumpsters. The dumpsters will be moved to a designated
staging area along the south side of the shared access drive along the north side of the site within
the parking lot. It should be noted that no parking spaces will be used or otherwise negatively
impacted by the staging area. The dumpsters will be returned to the trash room after servicing by
staff members of Resource Property Management (RPM). RPM staff will also perform other
routine management and maintenance functions and this service agreement is included in the
required Condominium Document submittal which has been accepted by the State of Florida.
The applicant has blended this proposed attached dwelling development well into the fabric of
this area through the location and modern architectural-styling of the building. As designed, the
proposed building will aesthetically support the existing character of the neighborhood with
clean building lines, an extensive use of windows and balconies on all facades and a significant
partition of the building envelope. Existing residential developments that front on the Gulf of
Mexico are typically situated with the longest dimension of the building on a north/south axis to
maximize the number of residential units facing the water. The proposed seven-story building
design is consistent with the bulk, coverage, density and character of Sand Key, but with a
building substantially lower in height than most existing buildings that front on the Gulf of
Mexico. As a point of reference the property to the north is developed with a nine-story building
(eight stories over one floor of parking) and the site to the south contains a 12-story building (11
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 3 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
stories over one floor of parking). It is noted that there are no adopted design guidelines for this
area of the City.
While landscaping is proposed along all property lines of the site the buffer widths however, do
not meet the provisions of CDC Article 3 Division 12 with a 10 foot buffer along Gulf Boulevard
where 15 feet is required and a four foot buffer (adjacent to pool patio) along the south property
line where 10 feet is required. Landscape buffers otherwise meet the minimum requirements of
the CDC. The applicant has mitigated dimensional deficiencies with regard to buffer widths
through the provision of landscape material in excess of the minimum otherwise required by the
CDC. The landscape plan includes a wide variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak,
silver buttonwood, white Geiger tree, Mexican Fan Palm, Washingtonian Palm and sabal palm)
and shrubs and ground covers (viburnum, Indian hawthorn, hibiscus, duranta, flax lily and
fountain grass). The buffers will be planted in such a manner as to create a lush tiered effect
providing adequate buffers between the subject property and adjacent rights-of-way and
properties. In addition, aluminum picket-style fence four-feet in height will extend along the
property line in the vicinity of the swimming pool and patio in the southwest quadrant of the site.
In addition a stucco-finished masonry wall four feet in height will partially surround the spa area
at the southwest corner of the site. The proposed landscaping will support and complement
landscaping in place on adjacent and nearby properties maintaining and enhance the high
aesthetic level of quality for which Sand Key neighborhood of Clearwater is known.
One freestanding sign 24 square feet in area is proposed along the east side of the site south of
the existing driveway. The details of the sign are not included with this proposal however, the
applicant has acknowledged that it is understood that signage will be addressed under separate
building permits and will meet the requirements of CDC Article 3 Division 18.
Special Area Plan:
None
Development Parameters
Note: All development parameters are based only on the 0.96 acre portion of the site within the C district. In
addition, as Attached Dwellings are not a listed permitted use within the C district and in an effort to provide
reasonable points of comparison with regard to lot area and width, setbacks, height and off-street parking,
these specific development parameters are compared to those as provided in CDC Section 2-502 HDR
district.
:
Density
Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum density for
properties with a FLUP designation of CG is 24 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is
23 total dwelling units or 24 dwelling units per acre based on 0.96 acres, which is consistent with
Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR):
Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.90. The overall proposed ISR is 0.63, which is consistent with Code provisions.
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 4 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Minimum Lot Area and Width:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. In addition, there are no minimum standards for
attached dwellings in the C district with which to compare the proposal. However, for a
reasonable point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-502, Minimum Standard Development
Standards, the required lot area and lot width for attached dwellings within the HDR district (the
zoning designation of the surrounding properties) are a minimum of 15,000 square feet and 150
feet, respectively where the subject site area is 41,975 square feet and the width is 88 feet.
Minimum Setbacks:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project. It should be noted that CDC Section 3-905 provides that the
CCCL is the line of reference from which setbacks shall be measured along the Gulf of Mexico
for buildings and structures. In addition, there are no minimum standards for attached dwellings
in the C district with which to compare the proposal. However, for a reasonable point of
comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-502, Minimum Standard Development Standards, front,
side and rear setbacks to primary structures within the HDR district are 25, 10 and 15 feet,
respectively. Setbacks to parking are based upon the required landscape buffers which for the
front (east) is 15 feet and sides (north and south) and rear (west) 10 feet. The proposal includes a
front (east) setback to the building of 99 feet. The proposed side (north and south) setbacks to
building are nine and 10 feet, respectively. The side (south) setback is also nine feet (to pool)
and four feet (to patio). The side (north) setback is also zero feet to sidewalk and existing shared
drive aisle. To reiterate, the drive aisle is the subject of a shared access agreement with the
property to the north and will be maintained with this proposal. The proposed rear (west)
setback (as measured from the CCCL) is zero feet to building and pool patio and three feet to
pergola. A small portion of the building overhangs the CCCL by approximately two feet. The
proposed setback to parking along the front (east) is 10 feet and along the side (north and south)
zero feet and 10 feet, respectively.
Maximum Building Height:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-703, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned
CDC Table 2-502, the maximum allowable height for attached dwellings within the HDR district
is 30 feet. The proposed building height is 68 feet and 82 feet to the top of the highest parapet
wall and 86 feet to the top of roof top architectural embellishments. It should be noted that the
roofline of the building is characterized by a variety of parapet wall heights and architectural
embellishments which are used to aesthetic ends as well as to effectively screen mechanical
equipment.
Minimum Off-Street Parking:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-703, there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to
CDC Table 2-502, the minimum required parking for attached dwellings within the HDR district
is two parking spaces per dwelling unit resulting in a requirement of 46 parking spaces for 23
dwelling units. The proposal provides 46 parking spaces or two spaces per dwelling unit.
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 5 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Mechanical Equipment:
Pursuant to CDC Sections 3-201.D.1 and 3-903.I, all outside mechanical equipment must be
screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Mechanical
equipment will either be placed inside the building or on the roof. Mechanical equipment will be
located on the roof of the proposed building and will be centrally located and screened by
parapet walls on all sides. While certain mechanical equipment (A/C units) placed on the roof
will be visible from taller buildings, staff has determined that the intent of this Section was not to
screen mechanical equipment from every possible viewpoint including those from the sky and
that it is not practicable to fully screen the equipment from every conceivable viewpoint.
Mechanical equipment will be screened from view from the ground from adjacent properties and
from the street right-of-way. Therefore, the proposal meets the intent of this CDC section.
Sight Visibility Triangles:
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveway on Gulf
Boulevard, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level
between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. This proposal 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 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities
including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding
is not practicable. All utilities which serve the site are currently underground.
Landscaping:
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, required perimeter buffers are based on adjacent uses and/or
street types. The required landscape buffers are 15 feet (east – arterial street), 10 feet (west –
Gulf of Mexico) and 10 feet (north and south – attached dwellings). In addition, Section 3-
1202.E provides that interior landscaping must be provided which is equal to or greater than 10
percent of the vehicular use area. The proposed vehicular use area is 11,868 square feet
requiring 1,187 square feet of interior landscaped area. Section 3-1202.E also provides that no
more than 10 parking spaces may be in a row. Finally, Section 3-1202.E requires that all facades
facing a street must include a foundation planting area of at least five feet of depth along the
entire façade excluding areas necessary for ingress/egress.
This proposal provides reduced buffer widths along the east (10 feet to parking) and south (10
feet to parking and four feet to patio) which do not meet the requirements of Section 3-1202.D.
The proposal otherwise meets the remaining requirements of Article 3 Division 12 of the CDC.
As noted, certain landscape buffer widths do not meet the provisions of CDC Article 3 Division
12. The applicant has mitigated dimensional deficiencies with regard to buffer widths through
the provision of landscape material in excess of the minimum otherwise required by the CDC.
The landscape plan includes a wide variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak, silver
buttonwood, white Geiger tree, Mexican Fan Palm, Washingtonian Palm and sabal palm) and
shrubs and ground covers (viburnum, Indian hawthorn, hibiscus, duranta, flax lily and fountain
grass). The buffers will be planted in such a manner as to create a lush tiered effect providing
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 6 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
adequate buffers between the subject property and adjacent rights-of-way and properties. In
addition, aluminum picket-style fence four-feet in height will extend along the property line in
the vicinity of the swimming pool and patio in the southwest quadrant of the site. In addition, a
stucco-finished masonry wall four feet in height will partially surround the spa area at the
southwest corner of the site. The proposed landscaping will support and complement
landscaping in place on adjacent and nearby properties maintaining and enhancing the high
aesthetic level of quality for which the Sand Key neighborhood of Clearwater is known.
Solid Waste:
Two trash rooms are provided within the building on the first floor and will each accommodate a
pair of two cubic yard dumpsters. The dumpsters will be moved to a designated staging area
along the south side of the shared access drive along the north side of the site within the parking
lot. It should be noted that no parking spaces will be used or otherwise negatively impacted by
the staging area. The dumpsters will be returned to the trash room after servicing. The proposal
has been found to be acceptable by the City’s Solid Waste and Fire Departments.
Signage:
The proposal indicates the location of a freestanding sign on Sheets L2.00 and L3.00 of the site
plan. The details of the sign have not yet been determined however, the applicant has
acknowledged that it is understood that signage will be addressed under separate building
permits and will meet the requirements of CDC Article 3 Division 18.
Comprehensive Plan:
The proposal is in support of the following Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan as follows:
Future Land Use Plan Element
Objective A.1.2 – Population densities in the coastal storm areas are restricted to the maximum
density allowed by the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, except for
specific areas identified in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines, in which case densities identified in Beach by Design shall govern. All
densities in the coastal storm area and shall be consistent with the Pinellas County
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study.
The proposal provides for 23 dwelling units where 23 units are permitted and is therefore
consistent with the otherwise permitted density allowed by the Countywide Future Land Use
Designation of CG.
Policy A.2.2.2 - Residential land uses shall be sited on well-drained soils, in proximity to parks,
schools, mass transit and other neighborhood-serving land uses.
The proposed residential use is located on a well-drained site close to parks (Clearwater
Community Sailing Center, Sand Key Park, Pier 60, Clearwater Beach Library & Rec.
Center/Pool, McKay Playfield and Mandalay Park) mass transit (PSTA T Route) and other
neighborhood-serving land uses (restaurant, retail and other commercial uses). There are no
schools located on Clearwater Beach. Therefore, the submittal supports this Policy.
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 7 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Objective A.3.2 – All development or redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater
shall meet the minimum landscaping / tree protection standards of the Community Development
Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that
canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City; and
Policy A.3.2.1 All new development or redevelopment of property within the City of Clearwater
shall meet all landscape requirements of the Community Development Code.
Gulf Boulevard is designated as a Primary Scenic Corridor within Section 3-1203 of the CDC
and within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Primary
scenic corridors are those roadways expected to have enhanced landscape standards applied to
properties along them. While the proposal does not provide the required buffer width along the
east property line along Gulf Boulevard or along the south property line adjacent to the proposed
pool patio the landscape design is demonstrably better than that as required by the minimum
standards of Article 3 Division 12 of the CDC. The minimum buffer landscaping consists of a
hedge and one shade tree every 35 feet. As mentioned previously, the proposed landscape plan
provides for a tiered effect along the south and west sides of the site consisting of a mix of
groundcovers, low- to medium-sized shrubs as well as shade, palm and ornamental trees.
Therefore, the submittal supports this Objective and Policy.
Objective A.5.5 - Promote high quality design standards that support Clearwater’s image and
contribute to its identity.
Policy A.5.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
The proposal provides for a use permitted by the underlying CG FLUP classification and
consistent with surrounding uses. In addition, the site design is consistent with and complements
other development in the area along Gulf Boulevard and is consistent with the intent of the
development parameters set by the Community Development Code with regard to setbacks and
landscaping. Therefore, the proposal supports this Objective and Policy.
Goal A.6 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible Planning and engineering
practices, and urban design standards in Order to protect historic resources, ensure
neighborhood Preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill Development; and
A.6.1 Objective - The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient and/or obsolete areas
shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment and special
area plans, the construction of catalytic private projects, city investment, and continued
emphasis on property maintenance standards; and
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; and
Policy A.6.4.1 - The development or redevelopment of small parcels [less than one (1) acre]
which are currently receiving an adequate level of service shall be specifically encouraged by
administration of land development and concurrency management regulatory systems as a
method of promoting urban infill.
As mentioned previously the site is irregularly shaped and spans three zoning districts and two
FLUPs. The proposal includes the redevelopment of a vacant lot along one of the main
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 8 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
thoroughfares through Sand Key and Clearwater Beach with attached dwellings. The
redevelopment of the site with a new building and with an updated and improved site plan
including extensive landscaping is an appropriate reuse of the site. The proposal, which makes
an efficient use of the site while emphasizing enhanced aesthetics (landscaping) and
complementing surrounding uses (attached dwellings), is the sort of project envisioned as an
appropriate recipient of flexibility from the minimum development parameters as provided by
the above Goal, Objectives and Policy with regard to the size of the site (the developable portion
of the site within the C district is less than one acre), its location within the urban service area
and an attractive, compact redevelopment plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Goal, two
Objectives and Policy.
Community Development Code:
The proposal supports the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as
follows:
Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through
innovative and creative redevelopment.
The proposed attached dwelling use is consistent with the character of the area along Gulf
Boulevard with regard to use and the proposal will result in a project consistent with elements of
the Comprehensive Plan, as provided above. The proposal makes efficient use of an odd-shaped
parcel. The proposed development is similar to the treatment other sites have received in the
area vis-à-vis landscaping and other site improvements as mitigation to justify flexibility from
certain the CDC requirements such as buffer width, building height and setbacks. Therefore, the
proposal supports this Code section.
Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative
impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development
and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties.
Surrounding properties to the north, south and east include attached dwellings. The proposed
development provides not only for a much greater amount of landscaping than exists but a
landscape plan which provides for an appearance which will be demonstrably better than the
minimum otherwise required by the CDC. It is likely that surrounding properties will have their
values enhanced by the proposal. It is anticipated that the proposal will result in a positive
impact on those surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section.
Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole.
The proposal includes the redevelopment of an existing lot with an attached dwelling use with 23
dwelling units. As mentioned, the site has been the subject of two approved Flexible
Development applications. However, the associated developments promised by each application
failed to materialize. As such the site has sat vacant for years and has deteriorated in that time.
The proposal will be consistent with the character of the area with regard to size, scope and scale
as compared with other properties in the neighborhood. The proposal is expected to have a net
increase in the tax base as a whole with the construction of a new attractive building with 23
dwelling units and the provision of landscaping in excess of the intent of the minimum standards
of the CDC. It is largely beyond dispute that the City of Clearwater is largely built-out where the
primary option for improvement is the redevelopment and/or refurbishing of existing sites and
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 9 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
buildings. This is especially true for the Sand Key neighborhood where the subject site is the
only undeveloped parcel on the island. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section.
Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of
the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures
in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law.
The proposal includes a new 23-unit attached dwelling with landscape buffers or portions thereof
that are less than the otherwise minimum required width. The applicant has demonstrated that the
proposed building and site plan are more attractive than what is currently on the site and that the
site and landscape plans are better that what would otherwise be required by the CDC to meet
minimum standards. The proposal with regard to site, landscape and building design is
consistent with other beautification efforts undertaken, encouraged and installed by the City and
private property owners in the City as a whole and specifically along Gulf Boulevard. As
discussed above, Gulf Boulevard is a designated Primary Scenic Corridor. While a specific
Corridor Plan has not been adopted the intent is clear in that properties along designated Scenic
Corridors such as Gulf Boulevard are expected to provide landscaping at least consistent with the
minimum standards set forth by the CDC if not more. The proposal includes a landscape design
which is more attractive that that as required by the minimum standards of the CDC with regard
to the numbers and arrangements of plant material. As mentioned previously, the proposed
landscape plan provides for a tiered effect along the east side of the site consisting of a mix of
groundcovers, low- to medium-sized shrubs as well as shade, palm and ornamental trees.
Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section.
The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows:
Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
The proposal includes a 23-unit attached dwelling within a single seven-story building with six
floors of living space above one floor of parking. The subject site is surrounded by attached
dwellings in buildings ranging from nine to 16 stories. The proposal includes lush landscaping
which exceeds the intent of the CDC and will complement and enhance surrounding properties.
Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section.
Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and
use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
The proposal is, as discussed in relation to CDC Section 3-914.A.1, above, consistent with the
character of adjacent properties. The applicant has shown through substantial competent
evidence that the proposal is similar in nature vis-à-vis form and function to adjacent and nearby
properties. As mentioned, this site is the only undeveloped property on Sand Key with all other
properties and specifically adjacent properties fully developed primarily with attached dwellings.
The proposal will not impair the value of adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with this CDC Section.
Section 3-914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
The proposal will likely have no effect, negative or otherwise, on the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 10 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Section 3-914.A.4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
The proposal will likely have minimal effect, negative or otherwise, on traffic congestion. Uses
otherwise permitted on the commercially zoned site including retail sales and service, restaurant
and overnight accommodations typically generate more traffic than would be expected from the
proposed 23-unit attached dwelling use. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
Section 3-914.A.5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity.
As previously discussed, the community character consists primarily of multi-story attached
dwellings with up to 16-stories. The proposal is for a 23-unit attached dwelling within a single
seven-story building lower than surrounding buildings. The modern architectural style of the
building combined with lush landscaping will complement and enhance adjacent properties.
Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
Section 3-914.A.6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse visual and acoustic impacts on
adjacent properties. There should be no olfactory impacts of any kind. The building will be
situated along the west side of the site similarly to adjacent properties with surface parking along
the east side of the site also similar to adjacent properties. The only active use area of the
proposal will be the pool and patio area located at the southwest corner of the site. This area will
be screened with fencing, a wall and landscaping and will be adjacent to surface parking located
on the property adjacent to the south. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
The proposal supports the specific Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria of this
Code as follows:
Section 2-704.E. Comprehensive infill redevelopment projects.
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use
and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
The site has largely sat vacant for approximately six years. Proposals to amend the zoning
and FLUP classification have failed. Proposals to reestablish a restaurant use and establish
overnight accommodations have not only failed to materialize but were controversial, divisive
and contentious. These uses were seen by the public as incongruous with adjacent attached
dwelling uses. The fact of the matter is that not only have efforts to amend the zoning and
FLUP classification to match adjacent properties and, in fact, the larger surrounding
neighborhood failed but efforts to establish uses consistent with the existing C district caused
no small amounts of consternation and concern with many area residents. The logical
conclusion is that (outside of prohibiting any development whatsoever on the subject site)
only an attached dwelling (a use consistent with adjacent properties) but at a lower density
than that of adjacent properties is acceptable. Surrounding uses are within the RH FLUP
which permits up to 30 dwelling units per acre. As such, the 0.96 acre site (not including the
portion of the site within the R/OS and P districts) would otherwise permit up to 28 dwelling
units if it were in the same FLUP classification as all surrounding properties. Therefore, the
current proposal which includes a single, seven-story building with 23 attached dwelling units
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 11 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
is a reasonably expected design solution. The proposed use is consistent with established uses
on adjacent properties and is at a lower permitted density than those properties. Therefore, a
reasonable conclusion is that the redevelopment of the site is otherwise impractical without
deviations from the use and development standards as otherwise provided in the C district.
Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of 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.
The redevelopment of the site will be consistent with a variety of Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan as well as with the general purpose, intent and
basic planning objectives of the CDC as examined in detail previously in this document.
Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding properties.
As mentioned, all surrounding properties are developed with attached dwellings between
nine- and 16-stories. The proposal includes 23 attached dwellings within a building
consisting of seven-stories. The proposal should have no impact on the ability of adjacent
properties to redevelop or otherwise be improved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with
this CDC Section.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed
development.
As discussed in detail, the proposal will include a lesser density and height as compared to
adjoining properties and proposed attached dwellings are consistent with the uses established
on surrounding properties. In addition, the placement of the building, accessory uses and
parking is similar to adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use 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
six objectives:
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;
As mentioned previously, the CG FLUP classification permits residential uses at a
density of 24 units per acre. The proposal includes attached dwellings at a density of
24 units per acres (23 units total). The proposal is consistent with and will not alter
the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood which consist of attached
dwellings taller than that proposed. As mentioned, a land use plan amendment and
rezoning application was denied by the City Commission in 2000. The primary
reason for denying a zoning and/or land use amendment application would be to
prevent a spot zoning/land use designation. Since this application was denied it
follows that the proposed rezoning and land use amendment constituted spot
zoning/land use designation. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC
Section.
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 12 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street 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.
As mentioned, surrounding properties are developed with attached dwellings and have
a high permitted density than the subject site. The proposed attached dwelling use will
be less intense than surrounding attached dwellings and will be contained within a
lower building. The proposal will have no effect on the ability of surrounding
properties to be redeveloped or otherwise improved. Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with this CDC Section.
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the
city.
There are no design guidelines adopted by the City which are applicable to the subject
site or the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, this CDC Section is not applicable to
the proposal.
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established
or emerging character of an area.
The proposal provides for a use identical to those uses established in the surrounding
area only within a building lower than surrounding properties. In addition, the overall
development potential vis-à-vis maximum dwelling units per acre is less than
surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
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.
The architecture of the building provides for substantial articulation of the
fenestration through the use balconies, railings, windows and a significant building
offset which essentially bifurcates the overall building envelope. The longest
horizontal building plane is approximately 56 feet in length with most other planes
between eight and 16 feet in length. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this
CDC Section.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
design and appropriate distances between buildings.
The proposal provides for a building less intense than surrounding uses with regard to
overall number of dwelling units, maximum development potential and height. The
building location along the west side of the site is consistent with surrounding
development patterns. The proposal includes a lush landscape which exceeds the
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 13 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
intent of the CDC. The proposed building will be approximately 150 feet away from
the adjacent building to the south and approximately eight feet from the adjacent
building to the north. It should be mentioned that the building to the north is located
along the two site’s common property line and includes building overhangs which
extend over this property line and onto the subject site. Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with this CDC Section.
Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by
substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested.
The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent
evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4-
206.D.4.
Code Enforcement Analysis:
There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for
Comprehensive Infill Development Projects as per CDC Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 24 dwelling units 23 dwelling units X
per acre (24 dwelling units per acre)
Impervious Surface Ratio 0.90 0.63 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 59,956 square feet (1.38 acres); overall X
site
41,975 square feet (0.96 acres); portion
within the C district
Minimum Lot Width N/A 88 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A 99 feet (to building) X 1
Ten feet (to pavement)
Side: N/A North: Nine feet (to building) X 1
Zero feet (to pavement)
South: Ten feet (to building) X 1
Four feet (to patio)
Nine feet (to pool)
Rear: N/A Zero feet (to building)
Zero feet (to patio)
Maximum Height N/A 68 feet (to roof structure) X 1
86 feet (to rooftop architectural detail)
Minimum N/A 2 spaces per dwelling unit (46 spaces) X
Off-Street Parking
1
See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 14 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible 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 2-704.E. (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.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X 1
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
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 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
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 15 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level One and Two approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X 1
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 1
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
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM STANDARDS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the
Comprehensive Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3-1202.G:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme.
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a
part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed
on the parcel proposed for development; or
1
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 1
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X 1
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 NA NA
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.
1
See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 16 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible 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 legally sufficient,
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 1.38 acre site is located 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 limits line
between Clearwater and Belleair;
2.That the subject site is located within the C (0.96 acres) and OS/R and P (0.42 acres)
Districts;
3.That the subject property is located within the CG (0.96 acres) and Recreation/Open Space
R/OS and Water (0.42 acres) FLUP categories;
4.That the developable portion of the site which provides any intensity of use including density
and ISR consists of the 0.96 acres within the C district and CG FLUP category;
5.The subject site consists of one parcel with approximately 88 feet of frontage along Gulf
Boulevard and 180 feet of frontage along the Gulf of Mexico;
6.That the subject property is not located in a special plan area;
7.The site is irregularly shaped, having previously been part of the Cabana Club residential
property to the north as its clubhouse and “members only” restaurant for the condominiums,
built in the early 1980s;
8.That this parcel was conveyed separately in the early 1990s, litigated and determined to be a
legal parcel, and has been operated as a public restaurant with no association to any hotel and
with only 49 existing parking spaces until 2007 when it closed;
9.That the City Council on September 21, 2000, denied a land use plan map amendment to
change the land use category from Commercial General (CG) to Residential High (RH) and
to rezone from Commercial (C) District to High Density Residential (HDR) District. A
companion Flexible Development application to permit a 10-story (99-foot tall), 20-unit
attached dwelling condominium project with the swimming pool located seaward of the
Coastal Construction Control Line was subsequently withdrawn;
10.That on November 19, 2002, the CDB approved a Flexible Development application to
permit the re-establish of the restaurant use on this property, utilizing the existing setbacks to
building and pavement, not only for guests of the hotel but open to the general public. This
application included use of the pool and beach, and its restrooms and lockers, for guests of
the Belleview Biltmore Hotel only;
11.That on September 15, 2008, the CDB approved a Flexible Development application to
permit a 38-room, 67-foot tall, boutique overnight accommodation use with accessory uses
including a restaurant, pool, men and women’s locker rooms, exercise room and beachfront
cabanas with reductions in lot width and setbacks and an increase in height. The proposed
hotel was to be operated by the same hotel operator as the Belleview Biltmore Hotel in the
Town of Belleair, providing guests of the Belleview Biltmore Hotel with a beachfront
experience on this property;
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 17 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
12.That the site was developed with a 10,502 square-foot building, with two stories over an
open ground floor. The restaurant on the second and third floor was 7,054 square feet of
enclosed floor area. There was an outdoor café on the third floor of 1,916 square feet
overlooking the beach. A pool was adjacent to the restaurant building and that the pool, patio
area and building were demolished in the middle of February 2013 (BCP2013-02147);
13.That there is an existing seawall, presently buried beneath the sand, located approximately 25
feet west of the northwest corner of the existing building/CCCL and approximately 50 feet
from the CCCL in the southwest corner of the site. There is an existing perpetual easement for
pedestrian passage located adjacent to the east side of the seawall. The subject property
extends onto the beach area west of the seawall between 50 and 60 feet;
14.That the surrounding area is dominated by residential development in a built-out condition;
15.That the adjacent Cabana Club condominium building is located at a zero-foot setback on
two sides with this site (a third boundary is less than required setbacks) and the condominium
building roof eaves overhang the subject site;
16.That this site shares a common driveway with the Cabana Club condominiums, which will be
maintained in its present location;
17.That the proposal is to construct a 23-unit attached dwelling with a height of 68 feet as
measured from Base Flood Elevation to the top of the roof deck and 86 feet to the top of roof
architectural embellishments and is subject to the requisite development parameters per
Article 2 Division 7 of the CDC;
18.That the proposal includes 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);
19.That the proposal includes a two foot building overhang (eve) to encroach seaward of the
CCCL;
20.That the proposal includes a front (east) landscape buffer of 10 feet (to parking), a side
(south) landscape buffer of four feet (to patio); and a reduction in the requisite number of
canopy trees;
21.That both sand dunes and sea oats are resources protected by the State; and
22.That there are no active Code Compliance cases for 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 pattern of development of the
surrounding neighborhood;
2.That the proposal is consistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan including
Future Land Use Plan Element Goal A.6 Objectives, , Objectives A.1.2, A.3.2, A.5.5, A.6.1
and A.6.4 and Policies A.2.2.2, A.3.2, A.3.2.1, A.5.5.1 and A.6.4.1;
3.That the proposal consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of
the Community Development Code Sections 1-103.B.1 – 3 and D;
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 18 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
4.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.E of the Community Development Code;
5.That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code;
6.That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive
Landscape Program CDC Section 3-1202.G; and
7.That the application is consistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial
competent evidence as per CDC Section 4-206.D.4.
APPROVAL
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends of
the 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), 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 subject to the
following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
General/Miscellaneous Conditions
1.That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by
the CDB;
2.That all signage be reviewed and approved pursuant to the City’s sign ordinance and that the
maximum square footage of any freestanding signs be limited to the minimum permitted by
the CDC with regard to area, height and number without the opportunity to apply for a
Comprehensive Sign Program and that such signage be designed to match the exterior
materials and color of the building;
3.That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create
any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and
does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal
agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law;
4.That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before
commencement of the development;
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 19 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Timing Conditions - items required prior to issuance of Building Permit
5.That application for a building permit be submitted no later than April 16, 2014, unless time
extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
6.That sea-turtle friendly light fixtures be employed with the site design, with compliance
demonstrated on plans acceptable to the Environmental Engineering Division, prior to the
issuance of building permits;
7.That a drainage easement be in place or that a temporary construction agreement to tie into
the stormwater pipe on the Cabana Clubproperty immediately to the north of the subject site
be recorded with the Clerk of the Court and that evidence of same be submitted to Staff prior
to the issuance of a building permit;
8.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 percent of its rated capacity;
9.That prior to the issuance of any building permits the details of the dumpster screen are
submitted to and approved by Staff. The dumpster screen is required to match the fit and
finish of the building;
10.That prior to the issuance of any building permits a final landscape plan which indicates the
location of all underground utilities is submitted to and approved by Staff;
11.That prior to the issuance of any building permits the location and visibility of electric
equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the
building where visible from any street frontage, be shown to be painted the same color as the
portion of the building to which such features are attached;
12.That prior to the issuance of any permits a final landscape plan which clearly shows all
underground utilities on and adjacent to the site be submitted to and approved by Staff;
13.That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Public Art and Design Program
Impact Fees be paid;
14.That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees be
paid;
15.That prior to the issuance of any permits all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps
adjacent to or a part of the project shall be shown on plans to be improved to meet the
requirement of Local, State and/or Federal standards including A.D.A. requirements
(truncated domes per FDOT Index #304);
16.That no work beyond the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) shall commence prior
to issuance of permits from both the City of Clearwater and the FDEP;
17.That sand dunes and sea oats may not be removed, trimmed or altered prior to the issuance of
all required permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of
Beaches and Coastal Systems;
18.That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General, Stormwater and
Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed;
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 20 of 21
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Level II Flexible Development Application Review
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Timing Conditions - items required prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
19.That a drainage easement agreement with the Cabana Club property immediately to the north
of the subject site be recorded with the Clerk of the Court and that evidence of same be
submitted to Staff prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and
20.That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact
Fees be paid.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ______________________________
Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Photographs
Community Development Board April 29, 2013
FLD2013-02004– Page 21 of 21
u_
} çaater
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 29,2013
DATE: April 16,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Agenda
Continued Item from the April 16,2013 (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29,
2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004— 1590 Gulf Boulevard Planner: Mark Parry
Yes . No
I have conducted a pers• ' ' 'i vestigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: ) ; — Date:
4214l17<- L.
PRINT NAME
S:Planning DeparnnentAC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB12013104 April 29,2013 Special MEETINGI1 Cover MEMO 2013.dec
,
O
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 29,2013
DATE: April 16,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Agenda
Continued Item from the April 16,2013 (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29,
2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004— 1590 Gulf Boulevard Planner:Mark Parry
Yes ✓ No
I have conducted a person invest' lion on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: Date: lif9s-/�5
1)6 w0.0 U ,-.0.► ik)eP7 0 f
PRINT NAME
S:\Planning Deparnnent\C D BlAgendas DRC&CDB\CDB12013104 April 29.2013 Special MEETING'Cover MEMO 2013.doc
O
Ckarwater
_ w.,.......„.„
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 29,2013
DATE: April 16,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Agenda
Continued Item from the April 16,2013 (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29,
2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004— 1590 Gulf Boulevard Planner: Mark Parry
Yes No
I have conducted a personal investigation on the personal site visit to the following properties.
Signature: g Date: 0
gicadF-y /pG /--607\
PRINT NAME
S:APlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC&CDBICDB■2013104 April 29 2013 Special MEET/NG\I Cover MEMO 2013.doc
O
i_,_ Uearwater
_ „....„......„,_
O
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 29,2013
DATE: April 16,2013
CDB packets being distributed contain the following
Site investigation form
Agenda
Continued Item from the April 16,2013 (Items 1) to the Special CDB meeting on April 29,
2013
1. Case: FLD2013-02004— 1590 ulf Boulevard Planner: Mark Parry
Yes No
I have conductee I er al i vestligatio on t e personal site visit to the following properties.
G'
Signature: " Date: I
n
\
PRINT NAME
S:APlanning Department■C D B14gendas DRC&COBICDB12013104 April 29.2013 Special MEETING\\Cover MEMO 2013 doc